--- Birgir Runolfsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that makes the player indifferent between playing
for the team that values him at $1,000,000 and the one that values him at
$ 100,001, and therfore there is no certainty that the resource (player)
will be allocated to its most valued use.
If
Economic rent is a payment not need to put a factor into its most
productive use. But use is relative.
Consider a basketball player who has offers of employment in basketball
from team A at $1 million, team B at $800 thousand, and team C at $500
thousand. The higher the offer, the better the
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Fred Foldvary wrote:
2) The government does not know the economic rent among the basketball
teams, but it does know that the next best opportunity if he does not play
basketball is $100,000. The government taxes the income above $100,000 at,
say, 90 percent, providing an
On Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:06 AM Grey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
even more than direct/indirect, you need to
specify what is neutral.
I don't think the definition of neutral in this context would be all
that controversial. It would be one that would not impact any person or
group
Fred Foldvary wrote:
If the economic rent is to be taxed, there are two cases:
1) The government knows that the basketball economic rent is $899,999, and
that amount is taxed. The player plays for A in order to pay the tax.
2) The government does not know the economic rent among the
--- Birgir Runolfsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there is no certainty that the player
will end up playing for the team that values his services the most.
He will be indifferent between playing for any team valuing him at
more than $20.
Given a tax on economic rent of 90%, with income
--- Eric Crampton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Fred Foldvary wrote:
2) The government does not know the economic rent among the basketball
teams, but it does know that the next best opportunity if he does not
play basketball is $100,000. The government taxes the income
[Tax neutrality] would be one that would not impact any person or
group more than any other person or group. I.e., there would be no
redistributive effects from the taxation.
Dan
I don't think that type of neutrality is possible.
Suppose there is a poll tax, where everyone pays the same
Fred, ( Susan)
even more than direct/indirect, you need to specify what is neutral.
You have not yet adequately done so.
As I try to do this, I realize that neutral must apply to some other characteristic,
like a car's neutral color, or a car in neutral (gear).
So, a policy change can be
Dear Tom,
By neutral I actually thought you mean one that wouldn't prejudice people's
economic behavior. Opponents of the income tax often accuse it of
discouraging work, saving, and investment and encouraging consumption. I
thus thought that a neutral tax by comparison would be one that
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:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By neutral I actually thought you mean one that wouldn't prejudice
people's economic behavior.
By that definition I can't imagine any neutral tax.
Why can you not imagine that a tax on economic rent is neutral?
Fred Foldvary
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Susan Hogarth [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.
I don't understand this. Could you expand it a bit, please?
Susan Hogarth
Suppose a basketball star
--- Susan Hogarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has there *ever* been
an instance where one type of tax has entirely replaced another, or even
replaced in some 'revenue-neutral' fashion for even a few years, the tax
it is proposed to 'replace'?
Yes, prior to the Civil War, the US government
Tom Grey wrote:
Thus, increasing a land tax and decreasing other local taxes can be
revenue neutral, (and I would support such a change) but insofar as
it will encourage some behavior and discourage other (eg idle land
will cost more), it is NOT incentive neutral.
Reducing dividend taxation
rent, it directs (provides
incentives ) resources to their most valued use.
- Original Message -
From: Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: Neutral taxation?
--- Susan Hogarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A tax on economic
From: Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The question under debate is whether there is neutral taxation.
If the star plays for a team that pays him $1 million, and the government
taxes $800,000 of that, he will continue to play, so the tax did not alter
his incentives; the tax is neutral.
You
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
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
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
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
they *may*, in fact, want?
FF:
But the relevant issue was neutral taxation, not the desirability of
government per se. The tax issue needs to be addressed GIVEN that
government exists and takes revenue.
SH:
My apologies for straying off with the 'what would be the point?'
comment. I was thinking out-loud
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
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
