A wise man once said: if something sounds too good to be true - it
probably is
- I am sure they are just after the $150 fee - they won't even bother
going after the free postage
I get these ads through email all the time. Usually I just ignore
tham but as
I'm getting poorer by the second I
knowing what i and s effects are all about teaches people to evaluate
which types of tax cuts will entail higher production - and which types
of tax cuts will do the reverse...
jacob braestrup
danish taxpayers association
So far we have that i. and s. effects are useful to
a) teach
Susan Hogarth:
I could really get behind a national sales tax if I really thought
the feds would have the balls to try to extract 20-30% at the point of
sale - especially in a 'progressive' fashion. Would poor people be
issued tax-exemption cards?
Here's my prediction of what will happen:
To Tom Grey (and others)
2 points:
1: why not retain land tax as a local tax, as this would ensure tax-
payers the possibility of voting with ther feet, end thus ensure some
degree of fiscal competition between neigbouring counties /
municipalities?
2: I believe Austrain Economic Theory does
Fred Foldvary wrote:
If there are zero taxes on corporate profits, but taxes on dividends,
then the incentive is to retain earnings rather than pay dividends, and
the shareholders get the profits tax-free until the shares are sold for
capital gains. The shares might never be sold, but passed
I am somewhat familiar with the mentioned study, having written a
piece on it a while back (I also have the study on pdf at work
somewhere although in Swedish I am afraid. I shall check it on
Monday)
Anyway, I will venture a few comments.
On your question: Do you (all) think it is better
Alypius Skinner wrote
So the real
question is whether the optimal balance would be one of no public
redistribution or some public redistribution. If there were no public
redistribution, there would be no need for a state, yet if a state
did not
exist, one would soon emerge because the
Alypius Skinner wrote
Thus some sort of
balance must be struck between compassion for our fellow man and
maintaining
the incentives for temptation-prone people (who are often the same as
the
incompetent or semi-competent people) to resist temptation.
But where do you suppose such a balance
Alypius Skinner wrote:
This brings up the larger question of whether the economy experiences
a net
gain or a net loss from constant government tinkering, taxes,
regulation,
bureaucracy, paperwork, and general added complexity. Of course,
some of
this nanny state tinkering will provide a
I am not sure this is what you are looking for, but the Adam Smith
Institute published a publications just a few years ago, called: the
road from inequity on the externality cost of road transportation and
what could be done to alleviate them. The publication can be downloaded
free of charge
I may be mistaken here, but don't public choice economists talk
about the
concept of rational ignorance to explain how small, concentrated
groups can
gain large focused benefits while spreading the costs in tiny pieces
across
the broader population?
They do - but it doesn't make
Two points
1: It is my belief that in a free market for river management (no
government meddling) common law practises would evolve, stipulating how
to resolve cases where activities upstream causes havoc downstream
(whether this take the form of pollution, flooding or whatever)
2: I seem to
related to this topic is the expected fiscal effect from tax reductions
and increases
I recommend:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/loader.cfm?
url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfmPageID=5369
(make sure it all fits into one line)
- jacob braestrup
Armchairs,
As the US recession
Kevin Carson wrote
By funding services out of general
revenue, we break the market price system's feedback link that tells
the
consumer the real cost of what he consumes, and lets him adjust his
level of
consumption on the basis of the price signal. I suspect that there
are very
few
I assume that you have visited his website http://www.lomborg.com
there you may find answers to many of your questions
I am not an environmental economist, but welcome (and agree with) most
if not all of the things that lomborg has said. And the fact that it
needed to be said has in my view
Lynn wrote:
In terms of farm subsidies if a person who supports them is wrong (as
we
agree he is) then there is a cost to them.
NO! There is a cost to society as a whole (including the individual) if
the majority is wrong about farm subsidies - but the individual has no
effect on this
Another observation that may or may not be related to the children are
much less cooperative tha adults-thesis is this: children are some of
the best soldiers in terms of ruthlesness and willingless to kill
(something it can be very hard getting well trained adult soldiers to
do - even in
i remember reading something recently in the Economist on the rewards
from public investment in higher education not being so high after all
(one of Bryans old points as I remember).
Now i have been trying to find the article - unsuccesfully!
can anyone remember which issue? - and/or does
We have previously on this list discussed the link between gun control
and crime.
to those interested, the following was forwarded to me this morning.
how reliable the source is (Gold-Eagle.com) I must say I do not know
- jacob braestrup
- Forwarded message follows -
So, I was wondering what other armchair-ers think about this. If
it's a
good idea, what are the obstacles preventing it from being
implemented?
If it's a bad idea, why?
The big problem is that parents have no right over the future income
of their children. Hence they cannot make the
Robin Hanson asked:
Plausible, but then the question is: *why* do people have a disutility
of paying for toilets? Does this fit into any pattern of the sorts
of things people have a disutility of paying for?
Apparently using a toilet is something that people have tradiotionally
seen as
Fred Folvary wrote:
But some of these activities would be unnecessary in a pure free
market, e.g.
there would be no need to promote growth, because it would not be
hampered
in the first place.
I agree. if the institutions (core activities of government) are
necessary for economic growth I
evidence suggest (Cato journal - I believe the fall 1998-issue)
that a
tax biurden of around 20 percent of GDP seems to be optimal for
economic growth (provided, of course, that it is spent somewhat
wisely).
any higher, and economic growth will be reduced
Optimal implies that
on which I am sure we will have something in common.
Jacob W Braestrup
On pp 30-31 of *What Should Economists Do?*, James
Buchanan takes issue with the orthodox view that the
market is a *means* of accomplishing the basic
economic functions
an engineered construction, a
mechanism
Dear Lynn,
to echo what has been mentioned by Bryan Etzel and Alex:
You presuppose that leaving capitalism alone would have created social
unrest (I assume by creating greater differences in income / fortunes) -
although I have never seen any evidence of this claim: in fact, the
Cato
if the focus was the EU - but not a 'must'
thanks
Jacob W Braestrup
International Officer
Danish taxpayers association
results of ending / banning state aid.
It would be great if the focus was the EU - but not a 'must'
thanks
Jacob W Braestrup
International Officer
Danish taxpayers association
--
NeoMail - Webmail
27 matches
Mail list logo
