 |
 |
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