I think most economists (all if they are sober) would agree that making any item tax deductible -- whether it is deposits into a Health vSavings Account or acquiring a human pet (a.k.a. " a child") is regressive under a progressive income tax structure.
That most non-economists do not get it is well known. It creates this seeming "paradox."
In the US at least many items are made tax deductible, e.g. employer-paid health insurance premiums or deposits into a tax preferred Health Savings Account.
There must be a religion which furnishes the ethical platform for such a regressive deal. Would Jesus have supported it? What about Calvinism?
Here I do need help.
Uwe
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Oliver [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Tax code
The reason I asked the following question was because I was trying to
see how many people would fall for Schelling's old paradox. i.e. if you
ask:
If there were child exemptions in the tax code, such that a standard tax
exemption is allowed for each child, should the exemption be larger for
the rich than for the poor?
most people say no.
But if you ask:
Should the childless poor pay as large a surcharge as the childless
rich?
most people also say no.
The paradox is that you cannot logically reject both statements.
But no-one was interested, so it doesn't matter.
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
|