Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (222302)	3/6/2005 12:30:59 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575614

My friend, who's a PhD student in economics, says that his studies say just the opposite... Yeah, yeah, yeah. and Greenspan's comments bear this out. You have a national sales tax (consumption tax, whatever), to encourage savings, which lowers consumption and reduces productivity. I can find nothing in Greenspan's comments that "bear this out". He [correctly] pointed out that a consumption tax presents innumerable transition problems. If you have a link/quote supporting your statement I would appreciate your posting it. Your argument, in effect, is that we shouldn't encourage savings because that will reduce productivity. I think your PhD student might want to gyrate on this concept a bit.

To: SilentZ who wrote (222302)	3/6/2005 3:57:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575614

"Despite its allure of eliminating the current tax bias against saving, a true consumption tax runs into fervent opposition from some (mostly liberal) economists. The one objection to a consumption tax that is based on pure economics is that it would require a higher tax rate in order to raise the same revenue as the income tax. That is because saved income is gone from the tax base. For this reason a consumption tax would be less neutral between work and leisure than an income tax. Advocates of a consumption tax maintain that the gains from additional saving and investment would outweigh the losses from less work effort. It is, however, impossible to know with certainty whether that is correct. The practical objection to a consumption tax used to be that it is too complicated to monitor the amounts that people save or dissave each year. But that actually can be done quite easily, as we have learned with more than a decade of experience with IRAs. Moving to a complete consumption-tax system for the individual tax code would entail little more than allowing universal, unlimited IRAs and doing away with penalties for early withdrawals. That is, everyone would be able to contribute any amount he or she liked to an IRA or similar saving account and deduct the contribution from taxable income. Investment income would accumulate tax-free in the account, but all withdrawals, including principal, would be added to taxable income. People would not have to pay a penalty if they withdrew funds before waiting until age fifty-nine and a half, as they do now. Another objection to a consumption tax is that it would be regressive (i.e., it would fall most heavily on those with the lowest incomes). The fear is that the tax burden would be shifted to labor because returns to saving and investments—which constitute a much larger share of income in the upper brackets—would not be taxed. That is partly true. IRAs, for example, have precisely the effect of making returns to saving tax-free. The objection, however, ignores two facts: income from existing capital would be tax exempt only if it was saved, and labor income that was saved would get the same exemption. " econlib.org