The Quiz
We are, as everyone knows, having a good hard look at our taxation system at the moment. Something that would be most useful is if those engaging in that debate would read through the papers in this blog post.
There is always a trade off between raising the necessary money to keep the ship of state in sail worthy condition and the distortions caused by those taxes: as well as the future growth which those taxes will prevent. There are, however, a few basic lessons we can all learn about what those trade offs are. More, that among those trade offs there are actually a few free lunches. We can have both faster growth, less distortion and the money needed for the State by changing the mix of taxes.
The theoretical literature predicts that most or all of the burden of corporate taxes is passed on to workers. Here are five recent empirical studies that demonstrate the point…….It might be argued that since all taxes generate distortions, there’s no particular reason to object to corporate taxes. But it turns out that corporate taxes are among the most damaging policy instruments in a government’s toolkit. The optimal tax mix is heavy on consumption taxes, light on corporate taxes, and somewhere in between on personal income taxes.
I very strongly recommend you to read this and to disseminate the information therein.
So, anyone got any ideas about how to get those inside the Treasury to take a peek?
JERUSALEM – What exactly
happened on the high seas off the Gaza-Israel coast remains in
murky waters.Already though, the implications of Israel’s
assault on the peace flotilla of
civilian vessels headed with humanitarian relief supplies for the
besieged
Palestinian territory are becoming starkly clear.
Despite the unexpected loss of lives the killings might just remain
another
incident in the long chain of bloody confrontations [...]
WASHINGTON – It is all too clear
why we can’t seem to protest our way out of this war.
And as a result, the war itself may
never end. In fact, Gen. Stanley McChrystal recently
suggested that “Operation
Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan may be just that – “enduring”
– for a very, very long time.
But what is just as important as [...]
For six days in late May 2010,
Emergency, an Italian NGO providing surgery and basic health care in
Afghanistan since 1999, welcomed us to visit facilities they operate
in the capital city of Kabul and in Panjshir, a neighboring province.
We lived with their hospital staff at both places and accompanied them
in their weekly trips to various FAPs (first [...]
Some universities have declared they will ignore the results of A-level resits, writes Jack Grimston in the Sunday Times. Students will have to pass them first time. Since between a third and a half of students resit papers, this will have quite an effect. The medical school at UCL and Bath University’s prestigious architecture course are among those implementing this policy.
One can see their point, given the large numbers gaining 3 A-levels. How are universities to pick the most talented among so many who qualify? Other institutions are demanding the new A*, with Churchill College at Cambridge being the first to demand two A*s to qualify.
Yet there is another factor. This new policy basically tells students that they only get one chance. A-levels already subject them to immense pressures, and the new policy will only increase them. It rules out the idea that you can have another go, and puts all the eggs in the basket of your first attempt.
Not everyone does get it right first time. F1 drivers get more than one practice lap; high jumpers get more than one shot at it. Not everything in life works perfectly first time out. We learn from our mistakes and we improve on our efforts.
Some university admissions tutors tell me that they already question resit passes, asking the candidates what made them under-perform the first time. This seems reasonable, for there is often a reason. But the idea that you cannot learn and try again, and that second attempts don’t count, is not a message we should be putting across.
Life itself is not like that. Sometimes you get it wrong and come back for another go, experienced now and wiser, and you make a go of it. Ask Lord Mandelson.
Paul Krugman is fretting that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is listening to the “Pain Caucus“, since it is recommending austerity measures. Not to worry Mr. Krugman, Team Profligacy is on the case! From Spiegel: Europe is eager to begin paying down sovereign debt. The US wants to see Germany and France continue stimulus measures. (…) Washington is concerned that, should Europe overreach in its rush to cut government spending, it could endanger the fragile economic recovery that has taken hold on the Continent and around the globe. In particular, the US would like to see countries like Germany and France continue… Continue ReadingRelated posts:
Gen. Smedley Butler on War Being a Racket :: Government Gangsters :: Oil Spill :: Iraq Veterans Against the War :: Memorial Day Cliches :: Drinking and the Military :: Puke in Afghanistan :: Old Veteran Defends Home with Firearm :: Some shortwave preacher makes an absurd claim about the oil spill. :: Brother Stair :: Phone Books for Toilet Paper :: Census Threats :: Mark Interviews Buzz
It’s something most seasoned pot smokers already know, but still it’s nice to get more scientific confirmation: Marijuana doesn’t make you wreck your car.
It could be stress, hunger, or anemia, and it’s fixable, says Philip Kingsley.
Indian farmers don’t require banks. Article by Siddesh Mayenkar and Rajendra Jadhav.
Does Capricorn One tell any truths about the US government? Article by Frederick C. Szebin.
Not as ridiculous as it sounds.
2,000 lobbyists bribe congressmen for the big banks. Article by Matt Taibbi. NB: strong language.
It’s a lullaby of lies, says Justin Raimondo.
One of FDR’s pro-communists put it there.
Recent Comments