3 ms·
> why don't you add an extra tax on ... yachts They tried that, back in November 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States https://en.wikip
by pwg 3y ago
> why don't you add an extra tax on ... yachts
They tried that, back in November 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States
It covered more than just yachts, but the biggest loser was the yacht industry, which saw sales plummet:
[quoting wikipedia]: The federal government estimated that it would raise $9 billion in excess revenues over the following five-year period. However, only two years after its imposition, in August 1993, at the behest of the luxury yacht industry, President Bill Clinton and Congress eliminated the "luxury tax" citing a loss in jobs.[6]
Atwood, Liz. "Boat dealers predict sales increase Luxury tax repeal helps ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BUSINESS". baltimoresun.com. Retrieved 23 August 2019.
[end wikipedia quote]
It turns out that luxuries are just that, luxuries, and the rich were more than willing to "do without" yet another yacht (or other luxury good) while the tax was on the books, and the tax never netted the "budget gains" its proponents predicted it would net, due to sales of all the taxed goods dropping off precipitously.
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoIsn't it still a win for the economy if the production that would have been wasted on yachts is instead invested to further increase productivity?
- i_like_waiting 3y agoHow is building yachts for people who demand it more wasteful than producing perfumes, collectibles or nicer lamps? Who gets to decide what is waste as long as there is demand?
- ryandrake 3y agoIn a democracy, ultimately the public should get to decide. Even if "taxing yachts" is not a win for the economy it might be a win for society. The USA is way too timid when it comes to using the tax code to incentivize and shape companies' and people's behavior. We really need to "re-internalize" the costs that big business and the rich externalize onto the public, and one way to do this is to impose very narrowly-directed taxes at things that the public bears but doesn't benefit from.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 3y agoIt’s not wasted in the slightest. That’s why it’s absolutely a loss. A loss, felt in particular, by the many thousands of people employed in the vast supply chain which is the yacht building industry. I’m not sure what you mean by production being “invested to further increase productivity” - seems like a non-sequitur.
- opportune 3y agoThis is the lump of labor fallacy in reverse isn't it? Those people would eventually be employed by other industries - both the labor and $ formerly going to yachts would be used somewhere else.