Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

April 14 2014

male51ira

Joey Plazo and Andrea Trent Analyze Tax Implication on Emerging Nations at the Kuala Lumpur Business Summit

Among the most often discussed issues in economics is how tax rates relate to economic growth. Promoters of tax cuts assert that a reduction in the tax rate will lead to increased economic growth and prosperity. Others maintain that if we all reduce taxes, almost all of the benefits will proceed to the affluent, as those are the ones who pay the most taxes. What exactly does economic theory indicate regarding the connection between economic growth and taxation?

Income Taxes and Excessive Instances

In examining economic policies, Joseph Plazo claims thatit is consistently useful to analyze excessive instances. Extraordinary instances are situations such as "What if we had a 100% income tax rate?", or "What if we increased the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour?". While wholly unrealistic, they do give very bare examples of what focus crucial economic variants will move when we alter a government policy.

Joseph and Andrea speculate that a postulate. Suppose that we lived in a society without taxation. We are going to worry about the way the government finances its plans later on, but for now we'll suppose they have ample money to fund all of the programs we've today. In case there are no taxes, then the authorities doesn't bring in any income from taxation and citizens don't spend any time worrying about how to evade taxes. If someone has a wage of $10.00 an hour, they get to keep that $10.00. If this type of society were possible, we could observe that folks would be somewhat productive as any income they get, they keep.

Now consider the opposing case. Taxes are actually set to be 100% of income. Any cent you get goes to the authorities. It may seem the authorities would earn lots of cash this way, but that's not likely to happen. If I don't get to keep anything out of what I get, why would I go to work? I'd rather spend my time reading or playing baseball. Actually, going to work would risk my ability to survive. I'd be much better off spending my time trying to think of methods to get the things I desire without giving them to the government. I'd spend a great deal of my time trying to grow food in a hidden garden and bartering with others for the things I must survive. I'dn't spend any time working to get a business if I did not get anything from it. Society as a whole would not be quite productive if everybody spent a sizable part of their time looking to evade taxes. The government would bring in very little income from tax, as very few individuals would go to work if they did not make an income from it.

While these are extraordinary cases, they do exemplify the effect of taxes and they are useful guides of what happens at other tax rates. A 99% tax rate is horribly like a 100% tax rate, and if you ignore set prices, having a 2% tax rate is not much different from having no taxes whatsoever. Return to the individual getting $10.00 an hour. Can you think he'll spend more time at the office or less if his take home pay is $8.00 rather than $2.00? I'd bet you that at $2.00 heisn't likely to spend plenty of time at work and he is going to spend a lot of time trying to make a living from the prying eyes of authorities.

Taxes as well as Other Ways of Funding Government

In the case where government can fund spending outside tax, Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent see the following:

Productivity declines as the tax rate increases, as individuals decide to work less. The more complicated the tax rate, the more time individuals spend evading taxes as well as the less time they spend on more productive action. So the lower the tax rate, the higher the worth of all the goods and services created.

Authorities tax revenue doesn't necessarily increase as the tax rate increases. The government will get more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, but they will not get more at 100% than they will at 10%, because of the disincentives high tax rates cause. Consequently there's a peak tax rate where government revenue is highest. The connection between income tax rates and government revenue could be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve.

Clearly, government systems are not self-funding.

This leads to the problem on tax cuts. Are tax cuts as bad as Capitalists like to exhort?

A tax cut does not necessarily help or damage an economy. You need to consider what the revenue from those taxes is being spent on before you'll be able to discover the result the cut will have to the market. Out of this discussion, however, we see the next general tendencies:

Cutting taxes and wasteful spending can help an market because of the disincentive effect due to taxation. Cutting taxes and beneficial plans may or may not benefit the economy.

A certain amount of government spending is necessary on the military, law enforcement, along with the court system. A state which doesn't spend an acceptable amount of money in these types of areas will obtain a blue market. A lot of spending in these places is wasteful.

A country also wants infrastructure to truly have a high amount of financial action. A lot of the infrastructure cannot be adequately supplied by the private sector, so authorities must spend cash in this area to make sure economic growth. Nevertheless too much spending, or spending in the incorrect infrastructure might be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If people are naturally inclined to spend their particular money on education and health care, afterward taxation used for social programs probably will slow economic growth. Societal spending which targets low income families is much better for the economy than worldwide plans.

If people aren't inclined to spend towards their particular instruction and health care, then there can be a gain to suppling these goods, as society as a whole gains from a healthier and knowledgeable workforce.

Before I get an inbox filled with hate mail, I'm not proposing that the government end all societal programs. There may be many benefits to these programs that aren't measured in economic growth. A slowdown of economic growth is likely to happen as these plans are enlarged, nevertheless, so that should often be considered. If the program has enough other advantages, society as a whole may want to have lower economic growth in return for further social plans.

True this article oversimplified some crucial problems. However that's typically required in a first look for an economic problem. I plan on dealing with many of these particular issues in more depth as time goes on. I'd love to hear your take to the matter and everything you'd like to see covered in more depth later on

Joseph Plazo is an entrepreneur and attorney in the Ateneo De Manila University. He provides pro bono consulting to local government and SMEs. Andrea Trent functions as a finance adviser in the ADB and delivers bookkeeping oversight at the WHO.

Ateneo

male51ira

Joey Plazo and Andrea Trent Discuss Tax Effects on Emerging Economies at the Kuala Lumpur Business Summit

Among the most often discussed issues in economics is how tax rates relate to economic growth. Promoters of tax cuts assert that the decrease in the tax rate will result in increased economic growth and prosperity. Others assert that if we all reduce taxes, almost all the advantages will proceed to the rich, as those are the ones who pay the most taxes. What exactly does economic theory suggest concerning the connection between economic growth and taxation?

Income Taxes and Excessive Cases

In examining economic policies, Joseph Plazo maintains thatit is consistently useful to study extreme cases. Excessive cases are situations like "What if we had a 100% income tax rate?", or "What if we increased the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour?". While wholly unrealistic, they do give very crude examples of what direction key economic variants will transfer when we alter a government policy.

Joseph and Andrea speculate that the postulate. Suppose that we lived in a society without taxation. We'll worry about the way in which the government finances its programs later on, but for now we'll presume they have enough cash to finance most of the programs we've today. In case there are no taxes, then the authorities will not bring in any income from tax and citizens do not spend any time worrying about how to evade taxes. If a person has a wage of $10.00 an hour, they really get to keep that $10.00. If this type of society were potential, we could see that people would be rather productive as any income they make, they keep.

Now look at the opposing case. Taxes are now set to be 100% of income. Any cent you make goes to the government. It may appear that the authorities would bring in lots of money this means, but that is not likely to happen. If I do not get to keep anything out of what I earn, why would I go to work? I'd rather spend my time reading or playing baseball. Actually, going to work would risk my power to survive. I'd be a lot better off spending my time trying to think of strategies to get the things I want without granting them to the authorities. I'd spend a lot of my time looking to grow food in a hidden garden and bartering with others for the things I must live. I'dn't spend any time working for a company if I did not get anything from it. Society as a whole would not be quite productive if everybody spent a large part of the time attempting to evade taxes. The authorities would bring in almost no income from tax, as very few folks would head to work if they didn't make an income from it.

While all these are extreme cases, they do illustrate the consequence of taxes plus they are useful guides of what occurs at other tax rates. A 99% tax rate is really just like a 100% tax rate, and should you blow off set prices, having a 2% tax rate isn't much different from having no taxes whatsoever. Go back to the individual getting $10.00 an hour. Can you believe he'll spend more time at the office or less if his take home pay is $8.00 rather than $2.00? I'd bet you that at $2.00 he's not planning to spend plenty of time at the office and he's going to spend a lot of time wanting to earn a living from the prying eyes of authorities.

Taxes as well as Other means of Funding Authorities

In the instance where government can finance spending outside taxation, Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent see the following:

Productivity drop as the tax rate increases, as people choose to work less. The higher the tax rate, the more time people spend evading taxes and the less time they spend on more productive action. So the lower the tax rate, the higher the value of all goods and services produced.

Government tax revenue doesn't necessarily increase as the tax rate increases. The government will bring in more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, but they will not get more at 100% than they will at 10%, due to the disincentives high tax rates cause. Consequently there's a peak tax rate where government revenue is greatest. The association between income tax rates and government revenue can be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve.

Clearly, government programs are not self-funding.

This results in the dilemma on tax cuts. Are tax cuts as poor as Capitalists like to exhort?

A tax cut does not absolutely help or damage an market. You must consider what the revenue from those taxes will be spent on before you are able to establish the result the reduction will have on the economy. Out of this discussion, however, we see the following general tendencies:

Cutting taxes and wasteful spending may help an economy because of the disincentive effect due to taxation. Cutting taxes and useful plans might or might not help the economy.

A specific quantity of government spending is required on the military, law enforcement, as well as the court system. A country which doesn't spend an adequate amount of money in these areas will get a miserable market. A lot of spending in these types of areas is wasteful.

A nation also wants infrastructure to have a high amount of economic action. Substantially of the infrastructure cannot be adequately provided by the private sector, so governments must spend money in this area to make sure economic growth. Nevertheless too much spending, or spending on the incorrect infrastructure can be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If people are naturally inclined to spend their own money on education and health care, then taxation used for social programs is likely to slow economic growth. Social spending which targets low income families is far better for the economy than worldwide programs.

If folks are not inclined to pay towards their own education and health care, then there can be a benefit to suppling these goods, as society as a whole benefits from a healthy and knowledgeable work force.

Before I get an inbox filled with hate mail, I am not proposing that the government stop all social programs. There can be several benefits to these plans that aren't measured in economic growth. A slowdown of economic growth is likely to occur as these programs are enlarged, however, so that should often be kept in mind. If the plan has plenty of other benefits, society as a whole may wish to have lower economic growth in return for much more societal programs.

True this post oversimplified some very important problems. However that is generally essential in a first look for an economic problem. I intend on dealing with some of these particular issues in more depth in the near future. I'd love to hear your take on the dilemma and what you'd like to see covered in more depth in the near future

Joseph Plazo is an entrepreneur and lawyer in the Ateneo De Manila University. He provides pro bono consulting to local government and SMEs. Andrea Trent functions as a finance adviser in the ADB and renders accounting supervision at the WHO.

resource

Tags: payroll taxes
male51ira

Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent Discuss Tax Implication on Growing Nations at the Kuala Lumpur Business Summit

Some of the most frequently discussed issues in economics is how tax rates relate to economic growth. Promoters of tax cuts promise that the decline in the tax rate will lead to increased economic growth and prosperity. Others maintain that if we all reduce taxes, virtually all the gains will visit the affluent, as those would be the people who pay the most taxes. What exactly does economic theory indicate about the connection between economic growth and taxation?

Income Taxes and Extraordinary Instances

In studying economic policies, Joseph Plazo declares thatit is always helpful to study excessive cases. Extreme instances are scenarios for example "What if we had a 100% income tax rate?", or "What if we raised the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour?". While completely unrealistic, they do give quite bare examples of what focus essential economic variables will transfer when we change a government policy.

Joseph and Andrea suppose that the postulate. Suppose that we lived in a society without taxation. We are going to worry about the way the government fund its plans later on, but for now we'll suppose they have adequate money to fund most of the plans we've nowadays. In case there are no taxes, then the government doesn't get any income from taxation and citizens do not spend any time worrying about the best way to evade taxes. If someone has a wage of $10.00 an hour, they get to keep that $10.00. If such a society were potential, we could see that people would be rather productive as any income they bring in, they keep.

Now contemplate the opposing case. Taxes are actually set to be 100% of income. Any cent you bring in goes to the government. It might appear that the government would get lots of cash this means, but that is probably not going to happen. If I don't get to keep anything out of what I make, why would I go to work? I'd rather spend my time reading or playing baseball. In fact, going to work would risk my power to endure. I'd be a lot better off spending my time attempting to develop strategies to get the things I need without giving them to the authorities. I'd spend a great deal of my time attempting to grow food in a hidden garden and bartering with others for the things I need to live. I'dn't spend any time working to get a business if I did not get anything from it. Society as a whole would not be very productive if everybody spent a substantial part of the time attempting to evade taxes. The government would earn almost no income from tax, as very few people would visit work if they did not get an income from it.

While all these are extraordinary cases, they do illustrate the consequence of taxes and they're useful guides of what occurs at other tax rates. A 99% tax rate is very just like a 100% tax rate, and if you blow off group prices, having a 2% tax rate isn't much different from having no taxes whatsoever. Go back to the person bring in $10.00 an hour. Do you believe he'll spend more time at work or less if his take home pay is $8.00 rather than $2.00? I'd bet you that at $2.00 heisn't planning to spend lots of time at the office and he's going to spend a lot of time looking to earn a living away from the prying eyes of authorities.

Taxes and Other Ways of Funding Authorities

In the instance where government can finance spending beyond taxation, Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent see the following:

Productivity drop as the tax rate increases, as people decide to work less. The more complicated the tax rate, the more time individuals spend evading taxes and the less time they spend on more productive task. So the lower the tax rate, the higher the worth of all the goods and services made.

Government tax revenue does not necessarily improve as the tax rate increases. The authorities will get more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, but they will not get more at 100% than they'll at 10%, as a result of disincentives high tax rates cause. Thus there's a peak tax rate where government revenue is greatest. The association between income tax rates and government revenue could be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve.

Clearly, government systems are not self-funding.

This results in the issue on tax cuts. Are tax cuts as terrible as Capitalists like to exhort?

A tax cut does not necessarily help or damage an economy. You must consider exactly what the revenue from those taxes is being spent on before you are able to discover the result the cut will have on the market. From this discussion, though, we see the next general tendencies:

Cutting taxes and wasteful spending will help an economy due to the disincentive effect due to tax. Cutting taxes and beneficial programs may or may not benefit the market.

A certain amount of government spending is necessary on the military, law enforcement, and the court system. A country which does not spend an adequate amount of cash in these regions will have a depressed market. A lot of spending in these types of regions is wasteful.

A state also needs infrastructure to really have a high level of financial activity. Much of the infrastructure cannot be satisfactorily given by the private sector, so governments must spend cash in this area to make sure economic growth. Yet too much spending, or spending in the incorrect infrastructure could be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If individuals are naturally inclined to spend their particular money on schooling and health care, then tax useful for social systems probably will slow economic growth. Social spending which targets low income families is much better for the market than universal programs.

If folks are not inclined to invest towards their own instruction and health care, then there can be a benefit to suppling these goods, as society as a whole benefits from a healthy and knowledgeable workforce.

Before I get an inbox filled with hate mail, I'm not proposing that the authorities stop all social programs. There may be many benefits to these plans that aren't measured in economic growth. A slow down of economic growth will probably happen as these plans are enlarged, yet, so that should continually be kept in mind. If the plan has enough other advantages, society as a whole may wish to have lower economic growth in return for more societal plans.

Admittedly this article oversimplified some crucial dilemmas. However that's usually crucial in a first look for an economic problem. I intend on dealing with some of these specific issues in more depth in the near future. I'd want to hear your take on the dilemma and what you'd like to see covered in more depth as time goes on

Joseph Plazo is an entrepreneur and attorney in the Ateneo De Manila University. He provides pro bono consulting to local government and SMEs. Andrea Trent serves as a finance adviser in the ADB and delivers accounting supervision at the WHO.

Asian Development Bank

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl