tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post7708280958203954201..comments2024-03-02T09:41:35.809-08:00Comments on Donkeylicious - A Blog by Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot: Nicholas's Pony Tax Reform PlanNeil Sinhababuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-70748336256485600482012-12-07T12:09:08.113-08:002012-12-07T12:09:08.113-08:00We're very much on the same page here, Nick - ...We're very much on the same page here, Nick - I could have written most of this myself.<br /><br />A couple of tweaks I'd do, if I were king for a day: <br /><br />1) I'd cap total deductions at a flat $50,000 in lieu of the AMT.<br /><br />2) I'd tax cap gains as regular income, but allow the basis to be adjusted for inflation. <br /><br />That would mean that if you (the generic 'you', not the literal one) had bought some stock for $5000 back in 1972, and sold it for $15,000 now, you'd get to take a loss on it, but that's only fair - in real terms, you really did take a loss on it. <br /><br />But if someone bought stock for $5000 yesterday and sold it for $15,000 today, it would be taxed at their marginal rate, which it ought to be.<br /><br />And yeah, finance Social Security with some combination of carbon taxes (or auctioning off cap-and-trade allowances) and a financial transactions tax. These taxes are good on the merits - the best thing to tax is something you want to have less of - and the payroll tax is regressive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-16225357532241654362012-12-06T09:24:28.365-08:002012-12-06T09:24:28.365-08:00"There's no substantial reason to believe..."There's no substantial reason to believe that cutting the half that is levied on top of contracted pay ~ the "employer's contribution" ~ would lead to higher income. Certainly not at and near the minimum wage, which is where the incidence of a gas tax would be the highest"<br /><br />I thought the economist consensus is that this all payroll taxes are effectively borne by the employee (this was one of the reasons some centrist and center-left economists backed away from Bill Clinton's health care plan -- the increase in "employer contribution" to payroll taxes would have been borne by workers).<br /><br />Now, it may take some time, a vibrant labor market, and a political economy that does more to put its thumb on the scale for workers, so, it might not be true today.Nick Beaudrothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02794690208464883973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-75834793367122391002012-12-06T08:18:06.966-08:002012-12-06T08:18:06.966-08:00A cut in payroll taxes that come out of contracted...A cut in payroll taxes that come out of contracted pay ~ the half of the payroll tax that is the "employee's contribution" ~ would feed through to higher disposable income.<br /><br />There's no substantial reason to believe that cutting the half that is levied on top of contracted pay ~ the "employer's contribution" ~ would lead to higher income. Certainly not at and near the minimum wage, which is where the incidence of a gas tax would be the highest.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.com