Comment author:DanielLC
08 May 2013 11:36:05PM
4 points
[-]
the prevention of inherited structures of power through inheritance tax and less income inequality
I have two problems with this. First, part of the idea of personal property is that you can do what you want with it. That's what makes it a good incentive. If what you want to do with it is give it to your kids, it's not the governments place to stop you and accuse you of nepotism. If you want to be nepotistic, then the economy can offer you the opportunity of giving money to your kids as incentive, and we will be better for it.
The second problem is that it's hard to stop. Unless they stop you from giving money away as well, it just means that only people who don't know they're about to die get taxed.
I most certainly do not think you are born with the rights to your parents money. If I did, I'd be against the use of wills.
free education for all to ensure equality of opportunity
If they just gave you money, you'd still have all the opportunity, and then some because now you can do something else with the money. It's not a good use of resources for everyone to be educated, and subsidizing it wastes money just as surely as subsidizing corn.
information campaigns to help end harmful social roles/scripts/stereotypes of gender, race and sexuality.
That sounds like a straight-up public good. The main problem here is that you're giving the government free reign over propaganda, and that might not be something you want to trust them with.
Personally, I'm what I'm thinking of calling a quasi-libertarian. I do think you should generally try to get the government from being involved, but what's more important is that when they are involved, they use market forces to their advantage, rather than just ignoring them.
Comment author:Oceanlab
09 May 2013 06:37:24AM
1 point
[-]
"It's not a good use of resources for everyone to be educated, and subsidizing it wastes money just as surely as subsidizing corn."
Corn doesn't come with positive externalities, education does. Subsidizing education is surely one of the best uses of government revenue imaginable. The "how" of it is a different matter. I'm not a fan of public school monopolization of education subsidies.
As a general rule, it is efficient and wise to tax negative externalities and subsidize positive externalities. This should be the primary function of tax policy.
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
I have two problems with this. First, part of the idea of personal property is that you can do what you want with it. That's what makes it a good incentive. If what you want to do with it is give it to your kids, it's not the governments place to stop you and accuse you of nepotism. If you want to be nepotistic, then the economy can offer you the opportunity of giving money to your kids as incentive, and we will be better for it.
The second problem is that it's hard to stop. Unless they stop you from giving money away as well, it just means that only people who don't know they're about to die get taxed.
I most certainly do not think you are born with the rights to your parents money. If I did, I'd be against the use of wills.
If they just gave you money, you'd still have all the opportunity, and then some because now you can do something else with the money. It's not a good use of resources for everyone to be educated, and subsidizing it wastes money just as surely as subsidizing corn.
That sounds like a straight-up public good. The main problem here is that you're giving the government free reign over propaganda, and that might not be something you want to trust them with.
Personally, I'm what I'm thinking of calling a quasi-libertarian. I do think you should generally try to get the government from being involved, but what's more important is that when they are involved, they use market forces to their advantage, rather than just ignoring them.
"It's not a good use of resources for everyone to be educated, and subsidizing it wastes money just as surely as subsidizing corn."
Corn doesn't come with positive externalities, education does. Subsidizing education is surely one of the best uses of government revenue imaginable. The "how" of it is a different matter. I'm not a fan of public school monopolization of education subsidies.
As a general rule, it is efficient and wise to tax negative externalities and subsidize positive externalities. This should be the primary function of tax policy.