Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

I've got a comment here on the recent repeal of the (new) Mass. "tech tax"

Expand Messages
  • walterhorn
    It s somewhere on the first page of comments. Pretty easy to pick out, I guess. W
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      It's somewhere on the first page of comments.  Pretty easy to pick out, I guess.

      W
    • walterhorn
      Not sure what happened to the link. I ll try again:
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 22, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

         Not sure what happened to the link.  I'll try again:


        http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/20/angelo-scaccia-lonely-vote-against-tech-tax-repeal-not-swayed-crocodile-tears-massachusetts-business/z0H1zaTAfyjBHVcjqCjjDO/story.html



        ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

        It's somewhere on the first page of comments.  Pretty easy to pick out, I guess.

        W
      • roy_langston
        Well done, Walter! (By some miracle, I was actually able to open a message on the now totally unusable group for the first time in weeks!) -- Roy Langston ...
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 22, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          Well done, Walter!


          (By some miracle, I was actually able to open a message on the now totally unusable group for the first time in weeks!)


          -- Roy Langston



          ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          It's somewhere on the first page of comments.  Pretty easy to pick out, I guess.

          W
        • DavidH
          Walter, Interesting comment, especially this part: Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to put the poorly conceived and regressive system we have back in
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 23, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Walter,
            Interesting comment, especially this part:
            "Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to put the poorly conceived and regressive system we have back in the tube without blowing up needed government services."

            Would a just tax system have to blow up "needed" services? Why would it?

            david harrell.
          • walterhorn
            I didn t mean to imply that a just tax system per se would require the elimination of any needed services. (I have no opinion on that.) The problem I was
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 24, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

               I didn't mean to imply that a just tax system per se would require the elimination of any needed services.  (I have no opinion on that.)  The problem I was referring to is that repeal of the current taxes is much easier than enactment of better ones.  There are many (many!) more votes out there for decreasing income taxes than for creating LVT.  That's the toothpaste/tube problem, and why tinkering (which is almost certain to produce very little improvement) is safer for those most dependent on government services.


              W



              ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

              Walter,
              Interesting comment, especially this part:
              "Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to put the poorly conceived and regressive system we have back in the tube without blowing up needed government services."

              Would a just tax system have to blow up "needed" services? Why would it?

              david harrell.
            • k_r_johansen
              W: Even worse IMO, the taxes that should go first, if economic reasoning is to be applied, are the likes of the ones that Mass failed to implement; transaction
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 24, 2013
              • 0 Attachment

                W: Even worse IMO, the taxes that should go first, if economic reasoning is to be applied, are the likes of the ones that Mass failed to implement; transaction taxes like broad based sales/services / VAT. They are stealthy little buggers with big budget implications(especially in northern Europe), and rebalancing away from those to property or income (in that order), will be very difficult. With income-taxes, yes, it´s a challenge, but there are all sorts of things you can do to smooth that along, as the income tax code is amenable to a lot of tinkering. OTOH removing sales/VAT, you can´t do the same swaps, and it´s not entirely clear that people, sometimes not even economists, realize who wins and who looses, since the tax burden is distributed an unknown amount between producer/consumer. Which is partly why they are so damaging.

                To boot, the EU even bans lowering VAT below a certain treshold.

                So whatever you do, tax-reformers in countries who still have a relatively low burden of these taxes; fight them as much as you can! Yes I´m looking at you, FairTax supporters...


                Kj



                ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                 I didn't mean to imply that a just tax system per se would require the elimination of any needed services.  (I have no opinion on that.)  The problem I was referring to is that repeal of the current taxes is much easier than enactment of better ones.  There are many (many!) more votes out there for decreasing income taxes than for creating LVT.  That's the toothpaste/tube problem, and why tinkering (which is almost certain to produce very little improvement) is safer for those most dependent on government services.


                W



                ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                Walter,
                Interesting comment, especially this part:
                "Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to put the poorly conceived and regressive system we have back in the tube without blowing up needed government services."

                Would a just tax system have to blow up "needed" services? Why would it?

                david harrell.
              • walterhorn
                Good points, KJ. ... W: Even worse IMO, the taxes that should go first, if economic reasoning is to be applied, are the likes of the ones that Mass failed to
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 24, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                   Good points, KJ.



                  ---In landcafe@yahoogroups.com, <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:

                  W: Even worse IMO, the taxes that should go first, if economic reasoning is to be applied, are the likes of the ones that Mass failed to implement; transaction taxes like broad based sales/services / VAT. They are stealthy little buggers with big budget implications(especially in northern Europe), and rebalancing away from those to property or income (in that order), will be very difficult. With income-taxes, yes, it´s a challenge, but there are all sorts of things you can do to smooth that along, as the income tax code is amenable to a lot of tinkering. OTOH removing sales/VAT, you can´t do the same swaps, and it´s not entirely clear that people, sometimes not even economists, realize who wins and who looses, since the tax burden is distributed an unknown amount between producer/consumer. Which is partly why they are so damaging.

                  To boot, the EU even bans lowering VAT below a certain treshold.

                  So whatever you do, tax-reformers in countries who still have a relatively low burden of these taxes; fight them as much as you can! Yes I´m looking at you, FairTax supporters...


                  Kj



                  ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                   I didn't mean to imply that a just tax system per se would require the elimination of any needed services.  (I have no opinion on that.)  The problem I was referring to is that repeal of the current taxes is much easier than enactment of better ones.  There are many (many!) more votes out there for decreasing income taxes than for creating LVT.  That's the toothpaste/tube problem, and why tinkering (which is almost certain to produce very little improvement) is safer for those most dependent on government services.


                  W



                  ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                  Walter,
                  Interesting comment, especially this part:
                  "Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to put the poorly conceived and regressive system we have back in the tube without blowing up needed government services."

                  Would a just tax system have to blow up "needed" services? Why would it?

                  david harrell.
                • bruno moser
                  Taxes don t pay for services, they pay for the interest that is loaned to us (out of thin air and with government conspiracy) by the banksters.
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 24, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Taxes don't pay for services, they pay for the interest that is loaned to us (out of thin air and with government conspiracy) by the banksters.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

                    :)

                    b.


                    On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:42 PM, <calhorn@...> wrote:
                     

                     Good points, KJ.



                    ---In landcafe@yahoogroups.com, <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:

                    W: Even worse IMO, the taxes that should go first, if economic reasoning is to be applied, are the likes of the ones that Mass failed to implement; transaction taxes like broad based sales/services / VAT. They are stealthy little buggers with big budget implications(especially in northern Europe), and rebalancing away from those to property or income (in that order), will be very difficult. With income-taxes, yes, it´s a challenge, but there are all sorts of things you can do to smooth that along, as the income tax code is amenable to a lot of tinkering. OTOH removing sales/VAT, you can´t do the same swaps, and it´s not entirely clear that people, sometimes not even economists, realize who wins and who looses, since the tax burden is distributed an unknown amount between producer/consumer. Which is partly why they are so damaging.

                    To boot, the EU even bans lowering VAT below a certain treshold.

                    So whatever you do, tax-reformers in countries who still have a relatively low burden of these taxes; fight them as much as you can! Yes I´m looking at you, FairTax supporters...


                    Kj



                    ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                     I didn't mean to imply that a just tax system per se would require the elimination of any needed services.  (I have no opinion on that.)  The problem I was referring to is that repeal of the current taxes is much easier than enactment of better ones.  There are many (many!) more votes out there for decreasing income taxes than for creating LVT.  That's the toothpaste/tube problem, and why tinkering (which is almost certain to produce very little improvement) is safer for those most dependent on government services.


                    W



                    ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <landcafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                    Walter,
                    Interesting comment, especially this part:
                    "Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to put the poorly conceived and regressive system we have back in the tube without blowing up needed government services."

                    Would a just tax system have to blow up "needed" services? Why would it?

                    david harrell.




                    --
                    Royal Land Economics
                    Bern, Philadelphia, Hanoi, Les Prés-d'Orvin, East-Africa, East-USSA

                    A must-watch: Real Estate 4 Ransom  http://vimeo.com/38500767

                    2 thoughts 2 remember:
                    "A man can't ride on your back unless it's bent." -- Dr. Martin Luther King

                    "Wer die Wahrheit nicht kennt, ist nur ein Dummkopf. Wer sie aber kennt, und sie eine Lüge nennt, ist ein Verbrecher." -- Galileo Galilei


                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.