View source for Tax at creation and destruction

== Should one tax at creation of value or destruction of value ?==

<pre>
<teralaser> Should taxes apply at value creation (=income) or value destruction (=consumption) ?
<teralaser> If you assume creation comes at the same time as consumption and are proportional, I guess there is no difference.
<teralaser> So, one has to look at the times where the creation and destruction don't follow each other.
<teralaser> I guess today , it is already popular to postpone taxes at creation for retirement purposes (401k, pensions)
<teralaser> Lets imagine there can be periods where value destruction or value creation takes overhand.
<teralaser> In periods of upperhand value destruction (bad economic times?), this is a time, where you don't want to tax too hard, no ?
<teralaser> In periods of upperhand value creation (booms), this is a time, where taxation doesnt matter as much, and thus you'd want to tax higher, no ?
<teralaser> On other hand, if you wish to create a society where savings and investment are encouraged, you'd want taxation at the destruction phase, and not tax heavily at creation.
<teralaser> So, unfortunately for those idealists, I find, you should both tax income and sales.
<pavlicek> Booms and recessions are usually defined in terms of consumption, aren't they?
<pavlicek> If when you talk about good and bad times, you basically talk about periods of higher and lower consumption, consumption tax revenues would closely track the health of the economy.
<Lasker> consumption doesn't drastically change; it's the capital goods industries that suffer more during recessions and depressions, so I don't really think you can judge it by consumption
<teralaser> It depends on exactly what is consumption and what is investment.
<teralaser> Is a house for instance consumption ?
<Lasker> when I think of "consumption" I think of what one does with consumer goods
<pavlicek> It's a consumer durable.  It provides a utility stream over time.
<pavlicek> Which Austrian are you quoting there, Lasker?
<Lasker> pavlicek: none; they've all melded in my brain into a single glowing mass
<pavlicek> Capital goods industries suffer because of excess capacity caused by underconsumption, according to the vast, non-Austrian majority of economists.
<Lasker> yes, well, they're wrong ;)
<Lasker> it isn't underconsumption that starts the recession in the first place
<pavlicek> Recessions can have all sorts of causes.
</pre>
----
Ok here the discussion jump to bubble and bursts.
See [[pavlicek]] , [[teralaser]], [[Lasker]] , [[optimal tax]]