g*****n
发帖数: 357 | 1 哈佛经济学教授Greg Mankiw比较沃伦桑德斯和杨安泽的税收政策，用精练语言几分钟
说明为什么杨安泽提出的UBI和增值税是靠谱的，而沃伦和桑德斯的税收政策不靠谱。
Greg Mankiw是享誉世界的宏观经济学权威，它是世界上最畅销的宏观经济学课本的著
作者。 | l*******g
发帖数: 27064 | 2 天天找这个权威，那个权威，就是不提
丫的支持aa祸害华裔，而且ubi的钱根本没法解决 | D********r
发帖数: 135 | 3 VAT比富人税靠谱，这个是毋庸置疑的。Warren和Sanders富人税属于打土豪分田地，
在动乱时期很有用，在和平时期根本没戏，更何况现在富人的钱根本不是实物，想分
都难。
【在 g*****n 的大作中提到】
: 哈佛经济学教授Greg Mankiw比较沃伦桑德斯和杨安泽的税收政策，用精练语言几分钟
: 说明为什么杨安泽提出的UBI和增值税是靠谱的，而沃伦和桑德斯的税收政策不靠谱。
: Greg Mankiw是享誉世界的宏观经济学权威，它是世界上最畅销的宏观经济学课本的著
: 作者。
| d*****g
发帖数: 106 | 4 Harner 什么态度？ Joe 支持UBI?
【在 g*****n 的大作中提到】
: 哈佛经济学教授Greg Mankiw比较沃伦桑德斯和杨安泽的税收政策，用精练语言几分钟
: 说明为什么杨安泽提出的UBI和增值税是靠谱的，而沃伦和桑德斯的税收政策不靠谱。
: Greg Mankiw是享誉世界的宏观经济学权威，它是世界上最畅销的宏观经济学课本的著
: 作者。
| l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 5 教授本身哪里有支持. 他只是说一个理论比另外一个理论靠谱.
这个税收政策上面, 他只是说两堆shit里面, 一堆shit卖相比另外一堆shit好而已.
【在 g*****n 的大作中提到】
: 哈佛经济学教授Greg Mankiw比较沃伦桑德斯和杨安泽的税收政策，用精练语言几分钟
: 说明为什么杨安泽提出的UBI和增值税是靠谱的，而沃伦和桑德斯的税收政策不靠谱。
: Greg Mankiw是享誉世界的宏观经济学权威，它是世界上最畅销的宏观经济学课本的著
: 作者。
| g*****n
发帖数: 357 | 6 What's wrong with you?
【在 d*****g 的大作中提到】
: Harner 什么态度？ Joe 支持UBI?
| g*****n
发帖数: 357 | 7 Yang vs. Warren: Who Has the Better Tax Plan?
By N. Gregory Mankiw
In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Elizabeth
Warren, of Massachusetts, and Andrew Yang, a former tech executive and
entrepreneur, have both proposed bold plans for redistributing economic
resources.
Their plans are as different as can be. Only Mr. Yang’s is practical.
Let’s start with some undeniable preliminaries. First, we live in a time of
great economic inequality. Economists debate the roles of technology, trade
and public policy in explaining this fact. But there is no doubt that
disparities in income and wealth are far greater today than they were half a
century ago.
Second, reasonable people can disagree about the role the government should
play in addressing this inequality. The issue involves not just economics
but also political philosophy. Like most people, I have opinions on this
thorny question, but I won’t try to resolve it all here.
Instead, let’s consider a simpler question: Assume that one way or another,
the government is going to pursue new policies to increase the equality of
economic outcomes. Given that assumption, what is the best approach?
Senator Warren has proposed a new tax on millionaires and billionaires.
Every year, households would be taxed 2 percent on wealth exceeding $50
million or 3 percent on wealth exceeding $1 billion. The revenue, Senator
Warren has said, would fund programs such as universal child care and
tuition for public higher education.
The political appeal is clear. Millions of Americans would benefit from this
new public spending, while a small sliver of the population would bear the
cost. According to a new paper by the University of California, Berkeley
economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who helped to design the Warren
plan, less than 0.1 percent of families would pay this tax.
Determining how much those families would owe, however, would be devilishly
difficult. One problem is that many kinds of wealth have no market valuation.
Take Rihanna. She is fabulously wealthy, but to put a number on her wealth,
the I.R.S. would have to also estimate the present value of her songs and
their possible future royalties. Sometimes, such intangible assets are sold
on markets — Michael Jackson once bought the rights to Beatles songs — but
often there is no market price for them.
How popular will her songs be decades from now, and how much money will they
bring in? Any estimate would be an educated guess, at best, yet it would
have to be made.
I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score. Now You Can Get Yours, Too.
A similar situation arises for many family businesses. When businesses are
sold, accountants often attribute significant value to an intangible asset
called good will. To assess a wealth tax, the I.R.S. would have to estimate
the good will of every family business that hasn’t been sold.
Good will is hard to measure: It includes things like a business’s brand
name, reputation, technology and its network of customers and contacts.
Simple formulas that the I.R.S. might use to calculate this could result in
substantial inequities and perhaps litigation.
More important, Senator Warren’s tax would likely raise less revenue than
its proponents believe, as rich people would take actions to avoid it.
For example, the Warren tax may provide an incentive for high-wealth couples
to divorce. Whereas a married couple could exempt $50 million of wealth
from the tax, two unmarried partners could each exempt $50 million for a
total of $100 million. Given the 2 percent tax rate, married couples could
avoid $1 million per year in taxes by divorcing.
Giving money to adult children would also reduce a family’s tax liability.
A married couple with three adult children could, by divorcing and gift-
giving, exempt $250 million from the Warren tax.
In addition, rich folk planning to bequeath much of their wealth to charity
would have an incentive to accelerate that giving during their lives,
shrinking the wealth base subject to the Warren tax. And I could go on:
There are countless ways for people with vast resources to avoid a complex
tax like this one.
In short, what Senator Warren’s proposal enjoys in political appeal, it
lacks in workability.
Mr. Yang has a very different approach. He proposes implementing a value-
added tax and using the revenue to provide every American adult with a
universal basic income of $1,000 per month, which he calls a “freedom
dividend.”
It’s easy to see how the Yang proposal would work. Value-added taxes, which
are essentially sales taxes, have proven remarkably efficient in many
European countries. And the universality of the dividend would make it
simple to administer.
The Yang proposal would not only be more workable than the Warren plan, but
it would also target those who spend lavishly.
Consider two hypothetical C.E.O.s, each earning $10 million a year.
Spendthrift Sam spends all his money living the high life. He drinks
expensive wine, drives Ferraris and flies a private jet to extravagant
vacations. Frugal Frank lives modestly, saving most of his earnings and
accumulating a large nest egg. He plans to leave some of it to his children
and grandchildren and the rest to charity.
Ask yourself: Who should pay higher taxes?
The Warren proposal hits the frugal executive hard but leaves the
spendthrift without a scratch. The Yang proposal hits the spendthrift hard
and takes a smaller bite from the frugal person who has saved his money. If
you, like me, think that society could benefit from fewer spendthrifts and
more savers, Mr. Yang’s proposal makes much more sense than Senator Warren
’s.
And if the goal is to raise substantial revenue from rich taxpayers to
strengthen the social safety net, Mr. Yang’s plan is more likely to succeed.
Persuading voters to embrace Mr. Yang’s idea, however, won’t be easy.
Under his plan, lower-income families would get back more than they pay in
taxes, but everyone would see their taxes increase. Higher taxes are always
a hard sell.
Mr. Yang’s plan is more likely to work. Whether it can win over public
opinion remains to be seen. | D********r
发帖数: 135 | 8 VAT在世界上那么多国家实施了，富人税都撤回了，政策的可行性上一目了然。
【在 g*****n 的大作中提到】
: Yang vs. Warren: Who Has the Better Tax Plan?
: By N. Gregory Mankiw
: In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Elizabeth
: Warren, of Massachusetts, and Andrew Yang, a former tech executive and
: entrepreneur, have both proposed bold plans for redistributing economic
: resources.
: Their plans are as different as can be. Only Mr. Yang’s is practical.
: Let’s start with some undeniable preliminaries. First, we live in a time of
: great economic inequality. Economists debate the roles of technology, trade
: and public policy in explaining this fact. But there is no doubt that
| D***I
发帖数: 1957 | 9 可行是可行，可是必然会带来物价上涨，全民买单
我们右派不希望被多抢劫
而且杨电诈的vat能收多少钱，算来算去也就8k亿，还有2万多亿从何而来？
别指望民猪党不加别的税
最后就是从工作群体抢走2k，再发1k。同时面临物价大涨。
如果加不了别的税，ubi就是个纸面的大忽悠，永远实现不了
如果你是工作交税的群体，支持杨电诈那就是纯傻逼行为
【在 D********r 的大作中提到】
: VAT在世界上那么多国家实施了，富人税都撤回了，政策的可行性上一目了然。
| i********e
发帖数: 1782 | | D***I
发帖数: 1957 | 11 感觉他们的作为和轮子非常相像
就是各种自我洗脑，美化要支持的对象，证明自己选择正确
【在 i********e 的大作中提到】
: 羊粪就跟传销一样让人讨厌
| g*****n
发帖数: 357 | 12 这点你说的对，增值税本质上是一种消费税，用增值税来付UBI本质上是从高消费的人
身上收税来补贴穷人。好处是对不同消费品可以征收不同的税率来减少对基本民生的影
响。在贫富分化的社会， 通过限制高消费来保障穷人的基本生活需求在道德上是站得
住脚的，从长远看也是维护社会稳定必须要做的。物价低但很多人朝不保夕，或者物价
高但所有人生活有基本保障，后者的社会更健康。
【在 D***I 的大作中提到】
: 可行是可行，可是必然会带来物价上涨，全民买单
: 我们右派不希望被多抢劫
: 而且杨电诈的vat能收多少钱，算来算去也就8k亿，还有2万多亿从何而来？
: 别指望民猪党不加别的税
: 最后就是从工作群体抢走2k，再发1k。同时面临物价大涨。
: 如果加不了别的税，ubi就是个纸面的大忽悠，永远实现不了
: 如果你是工作交税的群体，支持杨电诈那就是纯傻逼行为
| l*********n
发帖数: 1410 | 13 笑死我了。差点背过气去，这话出自铁杆川粉口中，哈哈哈哈。
【在 D***I 的大作中提到】
: 感觉他们的作为和轮子非常相像
: 就是各种自我洗脑，美化要支持的对象，证明自己选择正确
| D********r
发帖数: 135 | 14
如果VAT和UBI不能同时执行，那就是抢劫，这个没人有意见。但如果两个能
够同时实行，你还说这是对中产的抢劫，属于无理取闹。如果你觉得我说的
不对，在VAT和UBI同时实行的前提下，你举个例子，中产如何被抢劫了。
这个版里2.8T是怎么筹的贴过不下五次，如果你对于Yang怎么打算的还没有
理解，那我只能认为你是选择性失明。你可以对他提出的任何一点有疑问，
比如我就对UBI提升经济得到新的收入抱有很大怀疑。但你视而不见，总是
在强调除了这800B，其他钱从哪里来，就显得很无聊了。
Yang的网站明说了要加其他税：https://freedom-dividend.com/
欢迎对其中要加的税每一项提出你的反驳意见，让大家看看Yang的设想有多
不合理。
有理说理。声音大，骂得凶不代表有道理。有道理，不扣帽子，大家也会买账，
没道理，乱扣帽子，只会让别人不屑。
【在 D***I 的大作中提到】
: 可行是可行，可是必然会带来物价上涨，全民买单
: 我们右派不希望被多抢劫
: 而且杨电诈的vat能收多少钱，算来算去也就8k亿，还有2万多亿从何而来？
: 别指望民猪党不加别的税
: 最后就是从工作群体抢走2k，再发1k。同时面临物价大涨。
: 如果加不了别的税，ubi就是个纸面的大忽悠，永远实现不了
: 如果你是工作交税的群体，支持杨电诈那就是纯傻逼行为
|
|
