Tax, Tax, Tax, Tax the Job creator and the wealthiest!

There are three articles I would like to share, with on-going European Debt crisis and the opening of US presidential candidacy competition heat up such topic: Where the tax should come from ? How we shall view tax in this global financial system?



First, two theoretical perspectives:
Krugman: Tax the Job Creator
The Case of Progressive Tax: From Theory to Policy Recommendation,  by Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez
Simply put, the arguments from these economist are simple. Translate into plain English, they are saying that we have to create a tax system which make the "everbody happier." In economic terminology, it means that we would have the optimization of "aggregate welfare."

so, if we take a dim from the rich and give it to the poor, the loss of welfare from the rich is smaller than the increase of welfare from the poor. Voila~, the society (as a whole) feel much happier!!! (oh, one crucial sentence should be noted in Diamond and Saez paper: "whenever the society values more equality of income"

Of course things won't goes that easy. Because taxation decrease the incentive of works, and transfer also deter the incentive to supply labor, such taxation system should be designed carefully in between the trade off of equality and efficiency, which is the center of the debate through centuries!

How the tax rate should be, if not specifying a feature, really really high.
As I noted in my other post , the top bracket tax rate indeed was around  90% before!

Then the current events: Romney is under fire and Buffet points to solution: Congress should work better!! 
Do not Blame Romney, Blame the law
Romney is paying some 15% of tax, allegedly. Buffet admitted that he pays quite little tax, considering his income. So, the question would be, how American shall modify the tax system, instead of finger-pointing and play who-pay-more-and-who-pay-less game?

So, Will 2012 be the Next 1932? 
We will see.

大過年寫這篇文章有種喜感, 誰不想從政府那兒多拿一個"紅包"呢? (:P)
這個議題本來就想寫, 最近的新聞剛好符合這個概念,讓內容不僅僅是限於一篇學術文章.

共和黨總統參選人Romney被爆出他繳的稅跟他的所得並不相稱(15%的實質稅率). 透過共和黨內部的炮火又把租稅的議題拉上檯面. Buffet出面緩頰(或者是說改變瞄準目標並增強火力?), 指稱該被責備的人不是Romney, 他也只是依法行政繳稅, 你們國會議員得做些事情才行(而不是一直在挖洞給財政部跳)

從Krugman的專欄上看到一篇學術文章, 我們理想上的概念是: 我們看的是總體社會的概念, 從富人手上拿一塊錢, 富人所損失的"福利",小於窮人拿到這一塊錢所增加的"福利". 也就是說, 有失, 必有得, 而且總體社會的"福利"可是增加的. 按照這個想法來看, 累近稅制不僅僅強烈具有公平正義性, 而且最高所得的稅率可得要更進一步增加才是. 以我之前的文章 查到的資料來看, 美國甚至曾經有過接近90%的最高稅率.

當然, 這樣的所得稅在台灣看來不太行得通, 我還曾經看過有人argue說台灣競爭力低落是因為稅率太高, 有能力賺更多錢的人寧可到鄰近的華人地區, 如香港或者新加坡工作.甚至韓國也還比我們好得太多.這個argument有點太過粗糙, 也不在這篇文章的討論範圍之內. (p.s. 重點是收來的稅怎麼分配, 而不是真的少收稅就是好事) 然而, 看著別的國家在對於稅制的攻擊跟反省, 對於家鄉每次稅制改革委員會雷聲大雨點小的遠大目標, 不知道什麼時候才會明確的提出公平跟效率這兩個衝突概念的折衝給社會大眾理解.