Difference between revisions of "Tax at creation and destruction"
From EconWiki
m |
m (Reverted edits by Scaffolding (Talk) to last revision by Admin) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Ok here the discussion jump to bubble and bursts. | Ok here the discussion jump to bubble and bursts. | ||
See [[pavlicek]] , [[teralaser]], [[Lasker]] , [[optimal tax]] | See [[pavlicek]] , [[teralaser]], [[Lasker]] , [[optimal tax]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 22:38, 10 April 2011
Should one tax at creation of value or destruction of value ?
<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.
Ok here the discussion jump to bubble and bursts. See pavlicek , teralaser, Lasker , optimal tax
