tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9208928.post8649747206004299910..comments2024-03-19T03:16:26.691-04:00Comments on Start Making Sense: Should Obama consider proposing a progressive consumption tax?Daniel Shavirohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14710628584922961682noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9208928.post-75531392164271833342013-03-16T10:23:58.438-04:002013-03-16T10:23:58.438-04:00It was great to see the old printshop and everyone...It was great to see the old printshop and everyone who works there again. I am excited to see a printing business still operating and growing, great job guys <a href="http://www.onlinereputationsinc.com/" rel="nofollow">Reputation Marketing</a><br /><br />Claudio Timberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880066121135513407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9208928.post-4156527505795617222013-03-01T07:29:44.370-05:002013-03-01T07:29:44.370-05:00This is an excellent post I seen thanks to share i...This is an excellent post I seen thanks to share it. It is really what I wanted to see hope in future you will continue for sharing such a excellent post. <a href="http://www.fivestarmarketing.net" rel="nofollow">reputation repair</a><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09988824537426226265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9208928.post-47469966213784267392010-12-10T20:24:29.899-05:002010-12-10T20:24:29.899-05:00Thanks for the comment, and it's welcome notwi...Thanks for the comment, and it's welcome notwithstanding low comment rates here. I will say this: the consensus that I feel has to a degree emerged among (many) experts about a progressive consumption tax predates recent concern about really significant wealth concentrations at the top and their broader social effects. In an optimal income tax model people at the top simply have a lower marginal utility of a dollar, but certainly when the concentration reaches a certain point one may have to think about externality-type stories (like pollution) that may affect the outcome.Daniel Shavirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710628584922961682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9208928.post-36129905073747006062010-12-10T17:45:33.612-05:002010-12-10T17:45:33.612-05:00Interesting post (as always). I noticed there are...Interesting post (as always). I noticed there are not a lot of comments on your blog. So I am assumption you wouldn't object to a comment from different perspectives. <br /><br />I guess I do not believe in my gut that a progressive consumption tax would be distributionally neutral any more than the 86 act was distributionally neutral. This is because I have come to view the tax code for what it is, a purely political instrument and its provisions largely the result of rent seeking (to use a fancy word for the exercise of political power) by the owners of capital (human and otherwise) in the country who own the country itself. The code is not the result of pristine economic modeling, at all. While I know that the modeling does support your claim and the work done in this area is excellent, I suspect the conclusions are wrong for (at least) the following reasons: 1. in the real politics of any implementation a consumption tax would be too good an opportunity for further wealth transfers to the owners of the country; 2. I still think an income tax is a more effective tax on the power of capital than a consumption tax (an income tax taxes the potential exercise of power - the Mafia Don's threat to act is the real source of power- not just the occasional bribe); and 3. I am not at all sanguine about equilibrium theory in general, or highly abstracted modeling in particular as conclusively settling distributional or even efficiency issues in a meaningful way. <br /><br />I've been reading David Kay Johnston's work on the political economy of the code, Duncan Foley and Samuel Bowles' work on equilibrium theory and Saez' work on distributional realities. It's sort of affected my perspective!PChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240500491603424525noreply@blogger.com