--- 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 i
> [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
--- 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 inco
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 baske
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
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
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 t
--- 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.
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
>
In a message dated 1/17/03 9:47:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Here's my prediction of what will happen: a 20-30 percent sales tax
>
>will be implementen - but because of massive fraud (making headlines,
>
>etc.), the sales tax will be changed to a VAT (valua dded tax) like we
>
>
>have in E
es his services at $1,000,000.
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.
Fred Foldvary
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
any other 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?
> --- Susa
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 taxati
--- 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 s
--- Susan Hogarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> < 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 gets $1 million per year. If he did not play
basketball, th
--- [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:
> 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
> you need to specify what is "neutral".
> Tom Grey
A neutral tax has no impact on economic incentives, thus has a zero
marginal rate, and has no effect on labor vs. leisure.
By definition, economic rent is income not needed to put a factor into its
most productive use, and thus a tax on economi
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
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
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
<>
I don't understand this. Could you expand it a bit, please?
Susan Hogarth
Triangle Beagle Rescue of NC
www.tribeagles.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DBL:
<>
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 some 'revenue-neutral' fashion for even a few years, the tax
ch a statement. Isn't the idea that there
could be such a thing as a neutral tax simply a belief that central
planning *can*, in fact, provide a better value on 'services' than the
marketplace?
But perhaps I don't understand the term 'neutral taxation'. I took it to
mean
> 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
--- [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 t
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 entitle
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
ob fine.
But many folks would not want to have private armies around, so the point
in having government collect taxes and providing defense is to prevent
private parties from doing so.
But the relevant issue was neutral taxation, not the desirability of
government per se. The tax issue needs t
In a message dated 1/16/03 3:31:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< --- [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.
F
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: <>
It seems to me that we have a problem with the meaning of "neutrality" here.
Tom seems to se
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 servi
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:
<>
Of course not. How does that apply to governments and taxation, though?
Susan Hogarth
Trian
--- 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.
Give
--- [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 no
--- Susan Hogarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> < 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, b
> 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 ge
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
nothing while everyone else pays something.)
This kind of rhetoric neve
<>
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'.
Hmm, I guess that's truly not possible, though. Yes, I agree :)
Susan Hogarth
Triangle Beagle Rescue of N
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 n
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
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 unburdensom
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., the
44 matches
Mail list logo
