A pior imposição de Bush
Obviamente é o imposto! Tabarrok, do The Independent Institute (um bom think tank!) tem um comentário sobre a proposta do presidente Bush. Quem conhece o conceito de equivalência ricardiana verá que o autor está fortemente influenciado pelo mesmo.
Mas...se você não gosta de pensar que os indivíduos sejam ricardianos, então talvez os cortes de impostos sejam bons mesmo...ou não?
WHEN A "TAX CUT" ISN'T ONE
It sounds like a bad joke told by an economically literate stand-up comic: When is a "tax cut" not really a tax cut? When it isn't offset by a reduction in government spending. In that case, it is more accurate to call the "tax cut" a deferred tax increase. (That's why the joke's not funny!)
According to Alexander Tabarrok, research director of the Independent Institute, this is precisely the case with President Bush's proposed "tax cut"; it's really a tax shift, Tabarrok argues, to a future where taxes already were expected to increase significantly to pay for growing Social Security and Medicare liabilities.
"To grasp the difference between a tax cut and a tax shift, we must first understand that what ultimately drives taxes is spending," writes Tabarrok in an op-ed carried last week by United Press International.
"If spending increases, as it has under the current administration, then sooner or later taxes must increase (or inflation, a type of tax, will go up).... If spending isn't cut, then less taxes today means more taxes tomorrow. Thus, the Bush tax cut plan is really a plan for future tax increases....
"Conservatives used to argue that the public didn't want big government but was fooled by deficit financing and other hidden taxes into thinking that it costs less than it actually does. Today, conservatives seem to believe that the public does want big government and that the only way to curb government growth it is to fool the public with lower taxes today so that the costs of government will be so high tomorrow that no one will accept the offer. How cynical.
"Will deficits in fact force future administrations to cut spending? It's possible but I am fearful. The combination of changing demographics and current tax cuts is seeding out economy for a fiscal 'perfect storm.' When the storm hits there will be a crisis, and as economist and historian Robert Higgs has ably demonstrated in CRISIS AND LEVITHAN, small government rarely does well in a crisis."
See "What Tax Cut?" by Alexander Tabarrok (5/22/03) http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030521Tabarrok.html
Also see:
"Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft," by Edward Feser (THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW, Fall 200) http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/tir52_feser.html
Independent Institute archives on taxation, see http://www.independent.org/archive/taxation.html
Obviamente é o imposto! Tabarrok, do The Independent Institute (um bom think tank!) tem um comentário sobre a proposta do presidente Bush. Quem conhece o conceito de equivalência ricardiana verá que o autor está fortemente influenciado pelo mesmo.
Mas...se você não gosta de pensar que os indivíduos sejam ricardianos, então talvez os cortes de impostos sejam bons mesmo...ou não?
WHEN A "TAX CUT" ISN'T ONE
It sounds like a bad joke told by an economically literate stand-up comic: When is a "tax cut" not really a tax cut? When it isn't offset by a reduction in government spending. In that case, it is more accurate to call the "tax cut" a deferred tax increase. (That's why the joke's not funny!)
According to Alexander Tabarrok, research director of the Independent Institute, this is precisely the case with President Bush's proposed "tax cut"; it's really a tax shift, Tabarrok argues, to a future where taxes already were expected to increase significantly to pay for growing Social Security and Medicare liabilities.
"To grasp the difference between a tax cut and a tax shift, we must first understand that what ultimately drives taxes is spending," writes Tabarrok in an op-ed carried last week by United Press International.
"If spending increases, as it has under the current administration, then sooner or later taxes must increase (or inflation, a type of tax, will go up).... If spending isn't cut, then less taxes today means more taxes tomorrow. Thus, the Bush tax cut plan is really a plan for future tax increases....
"Conservatives used to argue that the public didn't want big government but was fooled by deficit financing and other hidden taxes into thinking that it costs less than it actually does. Today, conservatives seem to believe that the public does want big government and that the only way to curb government growth it is to fool the public with lower taxes today so that the costs of government will be so high tomorrow that no one will accept the offer. How cynical.
"Will deficits in fact force future administrations to cut spending? It's possible but I am fearful. The combination of changing demographics and current tax cuts is seeding out economy for a fiscal 'perfect storm.' When the storm hits there will be a crisis, and as economist and historian Robert Higgs has ably demonstrated in CRISIS AND LEVITHAN, small government rarely does well in a crisis."
See "What Tax Cut?" by Alexander Tabarrok (5/22/03) http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030521Tabarrok.html
Also see:
"Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft," by Edward Feser (THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW, Fall 200) http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/tir52_feser.html
Independent Institute archives on taxation, see http://www.independent.org/archive/taxation.html
<< Home