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
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
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 01:44:59PM -0800, Fred Foldvary wrote:
There is also a supply-side effect from cutting the marginal tax rate, from
less uncertainty about the company as it shifts to less debt and more
equity, as well as more investor confidence when the profits are sent to
the
why the dividend tax, instead of the corporate income tax, is
being proposed for a cut?
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
On Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:11 PM Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
To achieve neutrality, unrealized gains should be
taxed annually, and then we can forget about
capital gains.
But this assumes that taxes can be neutral. I would tend to agree with
Larry Sechrest here -- viz., there
Dear Dan,
I actually do agree, which is part of why when my conservative friends would
support a national sales tax instead of an income tax as though a national
sales tax were a panacea I'd just shake my head and tell them, there's no
such thing as an unburdensome tax. There's no
Originally the federal income tax law sought to tax income closest to the
source, presumably because the farther from the source, the more easily
income might escape detection and therefore taxation. In the hearings over
the 1913 income tax law one member of Congress suggested simply taxing
Howdy,
I have some questions about the dividend tax cut
(elimination). Let's suppose that the elimination of
taxes on dividend income to stock holders is
instituded and it is a complete suprise to the public,
so that no adjustment can take place either in
expectation of it being passed, or after
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the price of a stock is the PV of the dividend
stream into the future, then should there merely be a
one time jump in the value of a stock as a result?
No.
There is also a supply-side effect from cutting the marginal tax rate, from
less uncertainty
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now the suprise tax cut comes into effect. The price
of the stock should jump to P'=(1-0)D/r=D/r. Thus,
there should be merely a one off jump in the share
price by the amount P'-P=[D/r]-[(1-T)D/r]=(D+T)/r.
Mistake #1, (D+T)/r is greater than the price
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 01:44:59PM -0800, Fred Foldvary wrote:
There is also a supply-side effect from cutting the marginal tax rate, from
less uncertainty about the company as it shifts to less debt and more
equity, as well as more investor confidence when the profits are sent to
the
:
Sent by: Subject: Re: questions about dividend
tax cut
owner-ARMCHAIR@g
mu.edu
--- Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cutting taxes on dividends while keeping taxes on capital gains seems to
provide a perverse incentive for companies to retain as little profits as
possible, leading to a higher rate of corporate bankruptcy in the future.
My recollection from reading about
18 matches
Mail list logo
