|
Ed Dodson responding...
Michael Bindner wrote (7/7/03):
As I have written on both my web sites, redistributional taxes and the
empowerment of youth are a way to remove the concern of life versus property, by
simply instituting a negative income tax in the spirit of the Earned Income Tax
Credit (only larger by 6 times) to remove this concern. Using corporate
rather than personal income taxes is considered a better vehicle for this, as it
more neatly integrates the payment into salary and by doing so hastens the day
that employee-owned firms adjust salary for child birth as a matter of course,
ending the need for tax incentives for this purpose. Continuing to
rely on personal income taxes, or even capital credit for each child, keeps the
government's hand in this question forever. Adjusting corporate taxes is
therefore the more libertarian alternative.
Ed Dodson here:
The Kelso-Adler vision of universal capitalism
mitigates but does not replace, in my view, the potential for a citizens
dividend to be collected and distributed out of the nation's rent fund. As the
classic political economists all understood, rent is that portion of wealth
accruing to those who control land that is better located or has greater
potential productivity than what is available at the margin. As such, rent
ought to serve as the primary source of public revenue; then, what is left
over can be distributed as a citizens dividend. Potentially, taxes on
productive economic activity (i.e., on earned incomes both personal and
business and on commerce) can be reduced and/or eliminated.
|