The chinese better learn how to keep their tumor growing without the “blood” of USDs being injected into their klepto-economy. Just wait until we sanction a SOE or Policy Bank…the plates will all stop spinning.3073328
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
With only a consumption tax in place, would you pay this consumption tax on the purchase of capital goods/ bonds/ investments?
As in, if I wanted to buy £100 worth of an index fund, would this initial expenditure be taxed or no?
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
I keep hearing in the news how President Trump is pressuring Jerome Powell to significantly lower interest rates to stave off a recession. In spite of that, he has only lowered them modestly and not as much as Trump would like. I am not very familiar with economics, so could someone ELI5 how lowering interest rates helps prevent recessions and why Jerome Powell is reluctant to lower them as much as the president wants.
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
For a school project of mine, I am writing a newspaper article about the problem of scarcity in economics, and I can basically choose however I want to approach that for my article.
I was wondering what leftist politics and theories will deal with this, considering that the problem of scarcity is frequently used as a critique for the labour theory of value.
If you would like to share any sources of links about a philosopher or economist who dealt with these criticisms it would be greatly appreciated!
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
Prefacing this by saying I don't know so much about economics so please go easy on me.
Economists seem to overwhelmingly favour eliminating corporate taxes. As I understand, the reasons behind this tend to be that they're rather easy to avoid, and shift tax burden towards the cost of labour. I can sympathize with the idea that the status quo with multiple-deductions and rather easy profit-shifting isn't great, but I'm not convinced the proposed alternative will be much better.
Here lies my query: Wouldn't a 0% corporate tax just lead to people "incorporating" themselves and claiming spending as business expenditure, thereby bypassing income tax?
/u/RobThorpe explained the issue very well here:
One problem is so called "closely held" businesses. Let's say that I do business as a sole-trader, I don't incorporate my business as a firm. I employ many people and make a lot of money. By not incorporating I'm not liable to pay corporation tax. I'm only liable to pay income tax on my earnings. Suppose that corporation tax were reduced to zero. In that case I could incorporate my business at no cost. This is not a problem so far. In fact it puts small businesses on a level pegging with larger ones.
The problem here is that I can use the firm to remunerate myself directly and side-step income tax. I could, for example, buy my home computer through the firm for business use, but also use it for personal use. Every small businessman I've met does that. There are dozens of ways that I could push my personal expenses onto my firm. It's not fraud if I own the firm completely. Additionally, I can modulate my net profits to reduce my income tax and capital gains tax bills. I can invest in years where my income tax liability is high and take profits in year's when it's low.
For sole-traders the income tax laws usually regulate these things, but for firms they may not, or may not do it so well. If there's corporation tax then any oversights in the rules are not so important. That's because many businesses owned by one person will remain unincorporated to avoid corporation tax.
There are special laws on so-called "closely held" corporations. Those address some of these issues. If there were no corporation tax then they would be more important.
My description here tilted towards the UK & Irish situation because that's the one I understand the best. The short answer is…. If corporation tax were removed then the rules on many other taxes would have to be very carefully thought through and implemented. If they were not then it would open up the way for a lot of perfectly legal tax-avoidance.
Some people propose a policy similar to that in Estonia, where only dividends are taxed (20% in the aforementioned case). It's a clever proposal, but it doesn't alleviate the issue of self-incorporation. It does however at least hit the people raking in the most cash. Couldn't it just cause businesses to hoard money however?
I was personally thinking about taxing revenue at e.g 5% instead of a higher tax on profits. As I understand, this will hit supermarkets and other higher-turnover (did I use that term correctly?) businesses. This will shift costs to consumers. I don't think is is necessarily a terrible idea however, as being able to hit tech-giants and other big business with a 5% tax will produce more than enough revenue to implement stuff like UBI/NIT/other dividends to boost consumer purchasing power.
So yeah, is abolishing corporate taxes (on profits) a good way to go? What are the alternatives? Would taxing dividends/revenue be a viable alternative?
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
I know some economists favor progressive consumption taxes instead of capital taxes because present and future consumption should be treated equally.
However, isn't a billionaire's consumption usually small compared to their wealth? How would you make should that billionaires pay the highest tax rate of any group without creating harmful distortions to the economy?
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
First, I know this post should be in r/GradAdmissions, but as a new user, for some reason if you don't have enough karma you post won't show up, so I posted on here, and any help would be appreciated!
I am in a bit of a unique situation. I graduated from undergrad about 5 years ago, and I have been working in industry in that time. However, now, I want to go back to get a PhD in Economics. My question is how do the recommendations work? My main concern is my undergrad was a double major in Math/Econ, and I didn't work exlusively with 3 different economic professors. I did do research for a Math/CS professor and for an Econ professor. In addition, since I worked in industry for 5 years, I was planning on getting a recommendation from someone I worked with who isn't a PhD. My goal in undergrad was never to get into a PhD Economics program, so I didn't do what most people would have done in undergrad.
Thus, although I am applying for a PhD Economics program, I plan on getting a recommendation from 1 Econ PhD, 1 Math/CS PhD, and 1 person from my industry who has a Masters. Is that acceptable for an Econ PhD applicant or am I completely screwed here? There's no way I can find 3 PhD Economics recommendations at this point (no one I worked with in my job has a PhD in Economics). Do I just have to reach out to professors to do work on the side, or is it possible to apply with this type of background?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks
Btw, if there are any PhD Econ Profs on here, I would totally be willing to do some free research right now.
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
I'm a community organizer in Chico, where the population increased from an estimated 93,000 to 112,000 or around 20% on November 8, 2018. Before the fire rent burden in Butte County was the highest in the state, and Chico had a <3% vacancy rate.
Almost immediately afterwards, Chico became listed as 'hottest real estate market in the country' as home prices exploded. While home sales may be slowing, demand for low-income rentals is off-the-charts and shows no sign of abatement. The city is temporarily allowing RV camping, but not nearly as much as there is need for. Many landlords immediately took advantage, raising rents, but they are limited to 10% by an emergency price-gouging ordinance. This has created a 'bifurcated' situation of so-far stable, comparatively low rents on one end, with the other extreme being the new luxury apartments which were in construction before the disaster.
Given that Chico has the national norm of building restrictions which prevent population beyond the housing capacity to be absorbed in shantytowns, what precedents are there for a 20% overnight population increase? What effects can we predict on the rental market, in the short, mid, and long-term? What policy responses seem urgent to you?
All recommendations of case studies, literature, observation, and inferences which would inform the situation we will greatly appreciate.
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
This is not a statement about right or wrong or anything, I just heard this somewhere and wanted to know if the argument was valid.
Apparently farmers in Brazil are complicit in the burning of the amazon to get access to more land. I guess lets assume this is true. Someone argued that this will only hurt them, because it will cause a rightward shift in supply of agricultural crops, lowering the price. Is this argument valid? or would the increase in quantity sold increase the overall profits?
I guess I am confused here thinking in terms of the industry supply and demand where there would be a supply shift, and the profit for a particular farmer.
Original post here -+- Economics For Your Momconomics on eBay!!
Economics For Your Momconomics 