Monthly Archives: August 2009

Current tax theories and policies are wrong

A Harvard Working Knowledge paper identifies “eight general lessons suggested by optimal tax theory as it has developed in recent decades:

1)Optimal marginal tax rate schedules depend on the distribution of ability;
2) The optimal marginal tax schedule could decline at high incomes;
3) A flat tax, with a universal lump-sum transfer, could be close to optimal;
4) The optimal extent of redistribution rises with wage inequality;
5) Taxes should depend on personal characteristics as well as income;
6) Only final goods ought to be taxed, and typically they ought to be taxed uniformly;
7) capital income ought to be untaxed, at least in expectation; and
8) In stochastic, dynamic economies, optimal tax policy requires increased sophistication.”

Does your head hurt? So does mine!

Taxes are justified and legitimized by one principle only: the life, the work, and revenues produced by any given individual could not have happened without the resources pooled together by a given society.

A legitimate tax is then:
1. A price paid in recognition of common resources consumed (the why)
2. A price paid to ensure the continuation of a world in which common resources make possible individual achievement (the what for)

A less legitimate, but defensible purpose for tax collection would be to ensure the survival of those not fit to provide for themselves. When taxes are collected in excess of the minimum necessary to ensure survival, the excess portion is illegitimate!

Given the above, there is only one principle on the tax amount due by any revenue producing individual (as a percentage of the total needed to sustain the system, the calculation of which is often questionable): as the fairest reflection possible of what common resources were consumed to produce the individual’s revenue.

It is absolutely wrong to tax based on income brackets. A million $ produced by the mind of an innovator that has consumed air, sunshine, and stale bread locked in his room to dream up a new business model should not be taxed in the same way as a million $ produced by a public notary for distributing rubber stamps. One gives much and takes little from the system, the other takes much and gives little in return. In fact, the later does not give anything because he does not create anything; he merely functions as a cog in a well oiled machine.

Ok. That is all I had to say about this for now.

Ah, one more thing: in all fairness, I have not read what the authors of this working paper have to say. I merely reacted to these eight principles of “optimal” tax policy identified in their research. For all I know, they may have continued by making wonderful points and bringing valuable contributions to this field of inquiry.

Too many people?

I could not help throwing my two cents in for the ongoing debate organized by The Economist: “This House believes that the world would be better off with fewer people”

Dear Sir,

If we define the world as the entire planet (i.e. our environment) and we define better-off as free from factors that lead to its destruction (or at least those caused by the human species) then there is only one possible answer: the world would be better off with fewer people (i.e. less destructive factors or less intense).

The weak point in the argument above is the unquestioned correlation between the number of people and the intensity of their destructive effect. It fails to account for the possibility that it is not how many people there are, but how they lead their life that leads to destruction (this is only one illustration of how narrow this interpretation could be, but to a great degree it holds water).

The debate, however, has evolved in a discussion the pros and cons of ACTION to premeditatedly reduce the growth of global population – thus taking as a given that many=bad ;) .

This reduction can be achieved only in two ways: decrease rate of procreation or increase rate of mortality. Each of these alternatives deserves a debate of its own; however, one gets the feeling that any coercive action would be ethically questionable.

Sincerely,
CC

Wasted Minds

I find it baffling that we keep isolating our young in universities that are largely cut off from the world of economic endeavor, then express frustration and surprise at how very little prepared newly graduates are to tackle the “real world”. Not to even mention all that wasted energy in fictitious case studies and projects, when there are so many actual problems deserving of time and energy…

So, I dream of a university that differs in two major points from what we have as the norm today:

1. Teach fundamentals, not specializations – teach students how to think, how to know themselves, how to distinguish between right and wrong based on their own judgment, and more importantly, know they have the obligation to themselves and each other to do something about it.

2. Apply these fundamentals to actual problems, either in their immediate communities (in person) or globally (enabled by technology). What counts is that the creative and work capacity of these students is not wasted in meaningless exercises that lack the texture and subtlety of genuine problems to have any real educational value.

I think I am going to create myself a company. I will call it the “real world”, albeit I dislike this academic cliché. In this context, however, the fuss about getting some “real world” experience affords an amusing pun as well as a marketing device. The business model of the “real world” would rely on aggregating actual business problems/projects (priority given to the communities in which the various “real world” branches would be active) and making them available to student teams coordinated by a professor, who would solve/deliver in exchange for credit AND financial reward (though less than what a consultant would charge). This company will be the first iteration, the primitive first step towards the type of hybrid educational/economic institution I have in mind.

Would it be difficult? Yes, because it takes convincing many different entities to buy into such a system. Would it be worth it? You tell me…