I tend to think so. However, I also try to keep an open mind, so I'm reading Laurence S. Seidman's The USA Tax: A Progressive Consumption Tax. Some of it at least intrigues me.
http://www.amazon.com/USA-Tax-Progressive-Consumption/dp/0262514532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367070497&sr=1-1&keywords=usa+tax+a+progressive+consumption+tax
He-and other progressive consumption tax proponents-argue that while it's understandable that most tend to assume it's a contradiction in terms this is because when we hear about a consumption tax we think of a sales tax, or a flat tax both of which he agrees are not progressive.
However, he argues a household consumption tax can be made progressive by having graduated rates, maintaining the Earned Income Tax Credit, a Social Security tax credit and a generous payroll tax credit.
The overall theory of the consumption tax is that it takes away distortions that discourage savings and investment while maintaining the current level of progressivity.
Again, I find all this counterintuitive. With all this talk that we should stop discouraging saving and investment, no one ever offers any proof that this is what we're actually doing. It also sounds quite unKeynesain-why do we want to discourage consumption and why is savings here preferred to consumption-doesn't consumption spending drive the economy"
What does intrigue me it could be revenue neutral. Of course, itf it were up to me I'd rather have it revenue positive- if we can make it neutral why not improve on it?
While it sounds unKeynesian it's also very interesting that Nicholas Kaldor supported it-indeed, he was one of the first.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415489059/ref=gno_cart_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ANILSG0184L7S
As did Rawls in his epic Theory of Justice.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674017722/ref=gno_cart_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3VAO4UBK04PVP
Even Keynes said of it: perhaps theoretically sound but practically impossible
Don't get me wrong I have a lot more questions than answers but I'm intrigued.
For me the optimum tax code has these two elements
1). As progressive as possible
2). While generating as much revenue as possible.
http://www.amazon.com/USA-Tax-Progressive-Consumption/dp/0262514532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367070497&sr=1-1&keywords=usa+tax+a+progressive+consumption+tax
He-and other progressive consumption tax proponents-argue that while it's understandable that most tend to assume it's a contradiction in terms this is because when we hear about a consumption tax we think of a sales tax, or a flat tax both of which he agrees are not progressive.
However, he argues a household consumption tax can be made progressive by having graduated rates, maintaining the Earned Income Tax Credit, a Social Security tax credit and a generous payroll tax credit.
The overall theory of the consumption tax is that it takes away distortions that discourage savings and investment while maintaining the current level of progressivity.
Again, I find all this counterintuitive. With all this talk that we should stop discouraging saving and investment, no one ever offers any proof that this is what we're actually doing. It also sounds quite unKeynesain-why do we want to discourage consumption and why is savings here preferred to consumption-doesn't consumption spending drive the economy"
What does intrigue me it could be revenue neutral. Of course, itf it were up to me I'd rather have it revenue positive- if we can make it neutral why not improve on it?
While it sounds unKeynesian it's also very interesting that Nicholas Kaldor supported it-indeed, he was one of the first.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415489059/ref=gno_cart_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ANILSG0184L7S
As did Rawls in his epic Theory of Justice.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674017722/ref=gno_cart_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3VAO4UBK04PVP
Even Keynes said of it: perhaps theoretically sound but practically impossible
Don't get me wrong I have a lot more questions than answers but I'm intrigued.
For me the optimum tax code has these two elements
1). As progressive as possible
2). While generating as much revenue as possible.
Interesting... Mike, have you ever heard of this:
ReplyDeleteAutomatic Payment Transaction Tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Payment_Transaction_tax
http://www.brianripley.com/1/post/2011/11/apt-tax.html
http://pragcap.com/when-the-government-debits-our-bank-accounts/comment-page-1#comment-143474
BTW, why are you "evilsax?" What makes you so evil?
Nothing other than you can't always take what I say literally. Thanks for the links sir!
ReplyDeleteBTW, I can't believe that Blogger doesn't automatically recognize URLs in the comments and turn them into links! I really have to type out that a href=... business every time if I want it to appear as a link?
ReplyDeleteHere, I'll make at least one of them easier.
ReplyDeleteI don't even know you to do that neat trick of linking it to a word. How do you do it?
DeleteI don't know how to type it out exactly w/o Blogger interpreting it... so I'll add extra underscores:
Delete<_a href="http://www.pragcap.com/"_>the phrase I want to make into a link <_/a>
Just remove the underscores.
Wow. I don't know anything about that programming language stuff-it's Greek to me.
DeleteIt's HTML ... which is related to XML, etc. I don't know much about it/them either, but I just used Google searching for
DeleteHTML adding URL
1st link came back with this:
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp
Alternatively you could add a link when you make a post, and then switch from the "Compose" view of the Blogger post editor to the "HTML" view and see what it did. You'll see the same thing. Monkey see monkey do. That's what I do, and that's how I created and edited tables on my blog. I just matched up what was there on the HTML tab from an example (like on the page above) and swapped in what I actually wanted to be there instead of their example table. Google and a little knowledge can make you very dangerous!
The links come out ok when I compose-for awhile they weren't working either but it's ok now. The comments section are the problem.
Deleteyeah I noticed they weren't working for a while. Certainly "Compose" is easier to deal with... but if you ever want to know what the HTML is for what you just did in Compose (so you can add it to a comment on somebody else's blog) you can type it out in compose and then look at the resulting HTML. Bold face, italics, underline, tables, links, etc. Then just cut and paste that!
DeleteTom I must be slow, type what out in compose? The URL?
DeleteFor example, take your post here, that you've already written in Compose (presumably). Now suppose you wanted to see the HTML for a link... just switch to the HTML tab to see. The same would work for bold face, underline, italics, adding colors (assuming you'd used those in compose), etc.
DeleteFor example, I just did that with one of my posts on blogger: I found the HTML corresponding to a table, so now I'll try posting that here (let's see what happens!):
Didn't work! "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed: TABLE"... OK, so let's try bold face w/ underline (also cut and paste from my blog):
Didn't work either... didn't like the underline... so now just boldface?
To an entity with a Fed deposit account:
How do I switch to the HTML tab?
DeleteCheck this out. See the picture of the Blogger post editor? Where it says "Cooking 101?" Look directly under the "101" part. That's what the button looks like. The one that says "HTML" directly to the right of the one that says "Compose." After you compose something, you can see what it was translated into in terms of the HTML. Conversely, you can edit or paste some HTML, and then switch to Compose to see what it will look like when published. Since Compose doesn't include a tool for making tables, I Googled "example HTML table," found one on a website somewhere, and then cut and pasted it into the HTML tab, and then switched to Compose to see what it looked like. Then I iterated to make it look how I wanted.
DeleteOk Tom. Finally get it-LOL. TK
DeleteYeah if there's a way to change it I don't know it. You just ave to cut and paste.
ReplyDeleteSaddly cutting and pasting is easier. I know, it's not a biggie, but it seems Blogger is behind the times in this regard. MOST other blog hosting sites don't seem to have this annoying lack of a feature. I have to go look up that href business every time if I want to use it, because it's not easy for me to remember. BTW, I'm sure you're already aware of the Krugman article Cullen comments on here, but since I first encountered Cullen's (mostly praising) response to it, I thought I'd share.
DeleteYes, youre certainly right there. Cut and paste is-much-easier.
ReplyDelete