3 ms·

What exact problem are you trying to solve? I can think of a lot that this would cause. Analyze any specific tax policy deeply enough and you’ll find that ther

by jl2718 5y ago

What exact problem are you trying to solve? I can think of a lot that this would cause. Analyze any specific tax policy deeply enough and you’ll find that there is no way to fix something that starts off as unnecessary and harmful.

joshlemer 5y ago
The problem is that poorer people or renters generally are subsidizing richer people or homeowners generally. Depending on if your view is that Canadian governments are too big or too small, you'd say that renters are being unfairly overtaxed and should be given a break, or that homeowners are not paying their fair share and should be taxed more.
- jl2718 5y ago
  A lot of home owner occupant tax advantages were specifically introduced to disadvantage landlords. If you get rid of them, it may make the problem worse because there will be no way out of the rental trap. Separately, there are many tax laws that are written specifically to benefit landlords, and these disadvantage renters directly. The whole ‘fair share’ of taxes argument presumes that the aggrieved group would pay less if others paid more. This wholly unsupported. Government extracts what citizens will bear.
  - joshlemer 5y ago
    Well I guess in that framing, I as a renter am expressing that I am not willing to bear this tax burden, and so will be voting accordingly.
    - jl2718 5y ago
      You should always vote for less taxes on yourself. Voting for more taxes on other people does not reduce your taxes.
      - medvezhenok 5y ago
        I would say that there are moral positions where you should vote for more taxes on yourself (and others like you), not less. Because always voting for less taxes for yourself is a zero sum game where everybody loses, since the government has to be funded somehow (and I prefer it to be done via taxes versus inflation, which is much more regressive).
        jl2718 5y ago
        1. Price inflation is almost unrelated to monetary inflation. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=O2ZH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=O2ZH 2. Tax collection does not change a governments ability or willingness to incur debt. 3. Government spending may not be related to ‘needs’ of the citizens. It’s just a collection of organizations and employees. They get promoted based on spending. Effectiveness is impossible to measure.
        medvezhenok 5y ago
        1. Sort of - the connector between the two is fiscal policy. We had tight fiscal policy in 2008 - that's why we saw no/muted general inflation after the crisis. We had comparatively loose fiscal in 2020 - hence the inflation now - it's not explained solely by supply chain problems and demand shifts from services to goods (though that's also a significant part of it). Monetary inflation builds the potential for price/goods/CPI inflation - whether than potential is realized depends on fiscal policy and the supply response (more redistribution => more inflation - if productive capacity can't catch up, or if we limit supply - for example ESG / anti-oil stance). 2. Governments employ debt because of the political price of raising taxes. Issuing debt is basically taxing savers via inflation over the medium term - it's more "invisible", since the government will eventually have to devalue or default on its debt in real terms (the U.S. has done it twice in the last century - in 1934 and 1971, and it's possible that a third one is coming in the next decade. It's a little trickier since the currency is no longer gold backed, but it's de-facto oil-backed. If oil goes to $10K / barrel (hypothetically), that's as good as US defaulting on its debt as far as foreign creditors are concerned). 3. True, though there are transparency measures that monitor government spending and we have rough measures of effectiveness. Government is to people what the FED is to banks - the provider of needs of last resort. It might not give you the best service or work efficiently, but it will be there when everything else goes bankrupt or refuses to work. There are things that are unprofitable and unenviable to do in a capitalist system - and we rely on the government to do them.
  - brankoB 5y ago
    > The whole ‘fair share’ of taxes argument presumes that the aggrieved group would pay less if others paid more. I don't think it does presume that. I can want another group to pay their fair share of taxes without necessarily wanting my own taxes lowered.

by jl2718 5y ago

joshlemer 5y ago

The problem is that poorer people or renters generally are subsidizing richer people or homeowners generally. Depending on if your view is that Canadian governments are too big or too small, you'd say that renters are being unfairly overtaxed and should be given a break, or that homeowners are not paying their fair share and should be taxed more.

jl2718 5y ago
A lot of home owner occupant tax advantages were specifically introduced to disadvantage landlords. If you get rid of them, it may make the problem worse because there will be no way out of the rental trap. Separately, there are many tax laws that are written specifically to benefit landlords, and these disadvantage renters directly. The whole ‘fair share’ of taxes argument presumes that the aggrieved group would pay less if others paid more. This wholly unsupported. Government extracts what citizens will bear.
- joshlemer 5y ago
  Well I guess in that framing, I as a renter am expressing that I am not willing to bear this tax burden, and so will be voting accordingly.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    You should always vote for less taxes on yourself. Voting for more taxes on other people does not reduce your taxes.
    - medvezhenok 5y ago
      I would say that there are moral positions where you should vote for more taxes on yourself (and others like you), not less. Because always voting for less taxes for yourself is a zero sum game where everybody loses, since the government has to be funded somehow (and I prefer it to be done via taxes versus inflation, which is much more regressive).
      - jl2718 5y ago
        1. Price inflation is almost unrelated to monetary inflation. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=O2ZH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=O2ZH 2. Tax collection does not change a governments ability or willingness to incur debt. 3. Government spending may not be related to ‘needs’ of the citizens. It’s just a collection of organizations and employees. They get promoted based on spending. Effectiveness is impossible to measure.
        medvezhenok 5y ago
        1. Sort of - the connector between the two is fiscal policy. We had tight fiscal policy in 2008 - that's why we saw no/muted general inflation after the crisis. We had comparatively loose fiscal in 2020 - hence the inflation now - it's not explained solely by supply chain problems and demand shifts from services to goods (though that's also a significant part of it). Monetary inflation builds the potential for price/goods/CPI inflation - whether than potential is realized depends on fiscal policy and the supply response (more redistribution => more inflation - if productive capacity can't catch up, or if we limit supply - for example ESG / anti-oil stance). 2. Governments employ debt because of the political price of raising taxes. Issuing debt is basically taxing savers via inflation over the medium term - it's more "invisible", since the government will eventually have to devalue or default on its debt in real terms (the U.S. has done it twice in the last century - in 1934 and 1971, and it's possible that a third one is coming in the next decade. It's a little trickier since the currency is no longer gold backed, but it's de-facto oil-backed. If oil goes to $10K / barrel (hypothetically), that's as good as US defaulting on its debt as far as foreign creditors are concerned). 3. True, though there are transparency measures that monitor government spending and we have rough measures of effectiveness. Government is to people what the FED is to banks - the provider of needs of last resort. It might not give you the best service or work efficiently, but it will be there when everything else goes bankrupt or refuses to work. There are things that are unprofitable and unenviable to do in a capitalist system - and we rely on the government to do them.
- brankoB 5y ago
  > The whole ‘fair share’ of taxes argument presumes that the aggrieved group would pay less if others paid more. I don't think it does presume that. I can want another group to pay their fair share of taxes without necessarily wanting my own taxes lowered.