New answers tagged

4

This answer simply points out what is, I think, an important part of 1muflon1's answer. There are two ways to think of consumption taxes: One is to tax certain consumption goods with a VAT. Making this progressive is an uphill battle and will cause a lot of distortions that have little to do with distributional concerns. On the other hand, you can simply tax ...


2

Trying to make consumption taxes more progressive is not impossible but it is uphill battle since any consumption tax is inherently regressive since lower income people spend larger share of their income on consumption than higher income people (see discussion of this in Blanchard et al. Macroeconomics: A European Perspective). Probably the most ...


0

In Australia, Prosper compiled a survey of all economic rents and came to the conclusion that the Australian government could effectively be funded with rents alone. This is without taking into account that abolishing taxes will further increase the value of economic rents, i.e. in the absence of taxation firms and households will have more net income to pay ...


0

Shares, and many other financial instruments as well, are financial assets assets, through which people save not consumption of goods and services. Consequently, neither GST (goods and services tax) or value added tax (which is in economics a type of consumption tax) can apply to stocks or many other financial instruments as they do not represent ...


1

The acronym itself might be new but the idea actually predates 2009, and is generally rejected in mainstream economics. For example, see Feldstein (1977) which shows that in fact even tax on pure land rents can be shifted onto other factors, which implies that all taxation can't be just shifted onto land. ——————————————————— This part addressed question if ...


Top 50 recent answers are included