« Football, and happiness | Main | Push-pin vs poetry »

December 11, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jock

Only if one insists on taxing labour. Land wold be better.

John Gibson

Yes, but this is only using the criterion of Ramsey's "optimal tax theory", and there are many other relevant criteria which it doesn't address. Plus, of course, it is completely neutered and blind on the issue of the size of the public sector ... I betcha that 25% tax/GDP sub-optimal a la Ramsey is a lot better than 35% tax/GDP Ramsey-optimal. Still, I suppose it gave the authors ample opportunity to show how clever they are.

Dave Cole

"Some men might be so bad at childcare that children are better off with their mother. In such cases, incentives for women to go out to work would backfire."

Cole's corollary to Dillow's dictum:

Some women might be so bad at childcare that children are better off with their mother. In such cases, incentives for men to go out to work would backfire.

james c

You are confusing the taxation of immuatable characteristics (height and looks) with the application of a different rate of taxation on income for men and women.

The two ideas are completely different.

The first is based on equity (you tell us that short, ugly people have less fun so lets give them more money), whilst the second is based on efficiency (taxation distorts the choice of mothers to work or care for their children).

jameshigham

I understand that they're planning to tax more than two children now. Why stop thee? Why not tax windows or bring in the poll tax again?

dearieme

It would stop all the tedious lying about height.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad