Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: "tonyp" <tonyp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 00:33:37 -0400
"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
But that goes back to the old question - what is earned
and what is unearned? That question seems resistant to
objectification.
Defining what is "earned" is a mug's game. Tony Soprano and his crew
consider the money they steal and extort to be "earned".
The only reason we care about dividing incomes into "earned" and "unearned"
is because we foolishly allow our government to _tax_ them differently. The
standard theory is that taxing returns to capital at the same rate as wages
would inhibit capital investment. But is that assumption correct? If
correct, does it in any sense _optimize_ capital investment?
It surely does not _maximize_ capital investment. Cap gains tax cuts do not
seem to have done a bit of good for the savings rate of the US. We are the
world's biggest debtor. In the aggregate, and on net, we are _not_
investing, because we are not saving. Does anybody here believe that if we
eliminate cap gains tax altogether we will reverse the trend toward
_dis_saving?
-- TP
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: royls
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- References:
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Prev by Date: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Next by Date: Re: "Earning" One's Wage
- Previous by thread: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Next by thread: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|