At 04:59 PM 4/26/02 -0700, Wei Dai wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:15:33PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
I apply the same logic to government. If I believe, as I do, that people
often overestimate the value they get from government, I should fix that if
I can by persuasion.
What if you
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 09:45:12AM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
When I'm inferring what it is that people think they want, I don't have to
believe everything they say. I can also look at their actions. I can't
see how anyone has a quadrillion dollar willingness to pay, as no one can
afford to
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:12:53AM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
If the reason that government gets bigger as taxes become more efficient
is that most people have a downward-sloping demand for government, and
so buy more of it as the price gets lower, then it seems paternalistic
of me to keep
At 09:12 AM 4/26/2002 -0400, you wrote:
But as an economist, I should
try to figure out how to make sports markets more efficient, rather than
trying to sabotage them so more people will do things I prefer.
Isn't government different from sports (although sports leagues are
cartels, so...)?
I wrote:
If the reason that government gets bigger as taxes become more efficient
is that most people have a downward-sloping demand for government, and
so buy more of it as the price gets lower, then it seems paternalistic
of me to keep the price artificially high, just because my demand is
--- Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once upon a time income taxes were difficult to collect, because
income was hard to cheaply monitor. So governments used less
efficient taxes,
Not necessarily. Real-estate taxes were not that difficult to collect, and
rather efficient. Land has
Howdy,
Instead of surveillance schemes that sound a bit
Big-Brotheresque, no offense, why not just take the
forms already extant and merely switch hours worked
for income earned?
Question: Would such a program necessarily imply flat
taxation, instead of progressive, since income will
not be
Fred Foldvary wrote:
Real-estate taxes were not that difficult to collect, and rather efficient.
I won't argue that here, as it isn't central to this discussion.
And as the technology of
surveillance improves, it should get easier to monitor this.
The technology would need to keep ahead
At 11:33 AM 4/25/02 -0700, john hull wrote:
Instead of surveillance schemes that sound a bit
Big-Brotheresque, no offense, why not just take the
forms already extant and merely switch hours worked
for income earned?
We know how to audit returns to check on the income
earned. The question is how
Why would you want to tax leisure?
Wouldn't this promote less intense (i.e. more leisurely) and thus, less
productive work?
Gustavo
- Original Message -
From: Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: Tax Leisure via Time
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:36:31AM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
Once upon a time income taxes were difficult to collect, because
income was hard to cheaply monitor. So governments used less
efficient taxes, and arguably this was a reason the size of
government was lower. Today it seems that
11 matches
Mail list logo
