Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca
Thanks for that. So the money quote is:
"And the thinking is that world number one where people with valuable skills take a large share of their labor income and transform it into capital goods is ultimately a richer world than the world in which such people just go out to a lot of fancy dinners."
To me, it's half an analysis. There is only evaluation of whether to invest or spend once I have money. It ignores my incentives to go out and actually work.
I see nowhere in the equation a question of two scenarios:
1. With higher LTCG Tax, lower labor tax. I have a million in the bank earning me 50k a year. I need to get a job and want to get a job due to incentives in tax.
2. With lower LTCG Tax, higher labor tax. I have a million in the bank earning me 50k a year. I don't need or want to get a job as tax disincentives me.
So the authors scenario paints a 'I spend or I invest' scenario. Both good as either the money's in capital or its funding a restaurant. Maybe there is some economics that says its slightly better to have this money invested. My scenario paints a 'I work or I sit on my butt' scenario. One absolutely better than the other.
So IMO macro economic factors still favor low labor taxation. Likewise, who do we want to tax? Someone who sits on their butt all day or the guy who is putting long hours and doing 'the right thing' by working.
Maybe I'm wrong here. But I think its much more likely that there are very powerful special interests that are selling a bill of goods that have no merits because there is alot of money at stake for people sitting on cash. And I see it highly likely that someone who is buried in macro economics and reads this stuff (liberal or not) can be sold on it.
Thanks for that. So the money quote is:
"And the thinking is that world number one where people with valuable skills take a large share of their labor income and transform it into capital goods is ultimately a richer world than the world in which such people just go out to a lot of fancy dinners."
To me, it's half an analysis. There is only evaluation of whether to invest or spend once I have money. It ignores my incentives to go out and actually work.
I see nowhere in the equation a question of two scenarios:
1. With higher LTCG Tax, lower labor tax. I have a million in the bank earning me 50k a year. I need to get a job and want to get a job due to incentives in tax.
2. With lower LTCG Tax, higher labor tax. I have a million in the bank earning me 50k a year. I don't need or want to get a job as tax disincentives me.
So the authors scenario paints a 'I spend or I invest' scenario. Both good as either the money's in capital or its funding a restaurant. Maybe there is some economics that says its slightly better to have this money invested. My scenario paints a 'I work or I sit on my butt' scenario. One absolutely better than the other.
So IMO macro economic factors still favor low labor taxation. Likewise, who do we want to tax? Someone who sits on their butt all day or the guy who is putting long hours and doing 'the right thing' by working.
Maybe I'm wrong here. But I think its much more likely that there are very powerful special interests that are selling a bill of goods that have no merits because there is alot of money at stake for people sitting on cash. And I see it highly likely that someone who is buried in macro economics and reads this stuff (liberal or not) can be sold on it.
