Dan,
even more than direct/indirect, you need to specify what is neutral.
Given democracy, one (adult) person, one vote, a strong case can be made
for a neutral poll tax.
Of course it is not progressive like most income taxes. Flat rate
taxes, sales/VAT taxes, even land taxes, affect some more
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 would tend to agree with
Larry Sechrest here -- viz., there are no neutral taxes. (Sechrest's
position is laid out in his Rand, Anarchy, and Taxes in _The Journal
of Ayn Rand Studies_ 1(2).)
Do any of you agree?
I suppose there *could* be a neutral tax, but what would be the point?
It would
--- Jacob W Braestrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an income is a certain payment at a certain date, subject to a
formal or informal contract,
That is income from an accounting view, but not from the economic
perspective. Economic income has no regard for contracts. In economics,
income equals
I suppose there *could* be a neutral tax, but what would be the point?
It would be something like taking five dollars from everyone and giving
them back five dollars worth of 'services'.
Susan Hogarth
The whole point is to provide collective services.
If you join a club and pay dues to get
--- Susan Hogarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would tend to agree with
Larry Sechrest here -- viz., there are no neutral taxes. (Sechrest's
position is laid out in his Rand, Anarchy, and Taxes in _The Journal
of Ayn Rand Studies_ 1(2).)
Do any of you agree?
I suppose there *could* be a
--- Grey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My own preferences are more towards a flat(er) tax, with a large (poverty
level) deduction, and rates tending down (to zero?); a land tax, split
between local, state, and federal (1/3 each? 50-25-25?); and ever
increasing taxes on pollution.
Given a
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't imagine any tax that would be neutral
A tax on economic rent is neutral, since by definition, economic rent is
income not necessary in order to put a factor to its most productive use.
Fred Foldvary
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given democracy, one (adult) person, one vote, a strong case can be made
for a neutral poll tax.
Tom Grey
The poll tax is what got Maggie Thatcher thrown out of office in the UK.
The problem is that different people benefit differently from government
services, and so the poll tax is not
SH:
I suppose there *could* be a neutral tax, but what would be the point?
It would be something like taking five dollars from everyone and giving
them back five dollars worth of 'services'.
FF:
The whole point is to provide collective services.
If you join a club and pay dues to get some
I have to agree with Susan. Health clubs are voluntary organizations which,
unlike governments, lack the ability to legitimately threaten or employ force
to get me to join.
I have seen, furthermore, members of my old health club in Iowa complain
bitterly at the provision or increase of
http://www.webace.com.au/~wsh/cool4.htm
Issue 4 November/ December
2002
Concise and comprehensive paper by Dr Chris de Freitas
pointing out myths and fallacies in the entire IPCC position. Dowloadable pdf
file just over 1 Mb.
CSIRO and the greenhouse game:
In a message dated 1/16/03 3:31:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given democracy, one (adult) person, one vote, a strong case can be made
for a neutral poll tax.
Tom Grey
Fred writes: The poll tax is what got Maggie Thatcher thrown out of office
in the UK.
The problem is that different
Dear Tom,
I hope I got your definition of neutral right in the last post. As I
indicated, I'd support a poll tax (so long as I'm an armchair intellectual
and not running for office, which with my abrasive personality would be a
joke anyway). I also support a flatter income tax. In fact I'd
In a message dated 1/16/03 11:57:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AdmrlLocke wrote:
The farmer felt no compunction at all about complaining that while
under the income tax system he pays no tax, under a sales tax he'd pay
a hefty tax. He pays nothing and he thinks he's entitled to pay
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A tax on economic rent is neutral, since by definition, economic rent
is income not necessary in order to put a factor to its most
productive use.
Fred Foldvary
I'm not sure if I'm following this, but it sounds like you're saying
that it's okay to tax
I find some appeal in the notion of
having to pay some small poll tax in order to vote.
David B. Levenstam
If there is no penalty in not paying the poll tax, and it is required for
voting, then it is not really a poll tax but a tax on voting.
Since the probability of my vote being decisive
SH:
I suppose there *could* be a neutral tax, but what would be the
point?
It would be something like taking five dollars from everyone and
giving
them back five dollars worth of 'services'.
FF:
The whole point is to provide collective services.
If you join a club and pay dues to get some
A tax on economic rent is neutral, since by definition, economic rent
is
income not necessary in order to put a factor to its most productive
use.
I don't understand this. Could you expand it a bit, please?
Susan Hogarth
Triangle Beagle Rescue of NC
www.tribeagles.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 1/16/03 8:47:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This brings to mind an historical point which has been tugging at me -
perhaps someone here will know the answer offhand. Has there *ever* been
an instance where one type of tax has entirely replaced another, or even
replaced in
21 matches
Mail list logo
