> There are actually lots of viewpoints from which that set of "ideal goals" are not ideal.
Perhaps, but I deliberately left the goals vague. I think they represent what an average taxpayer would think. Do you have any specific examples of other goals might be?
> Well, if its just like our current system but for that change, the main difference will be a tax cut for high income earners and reduced revenue.
In that video he specifically argues against that idea. He says revenue should increase, and one side effect would be that corporate declarations should increase since there is less financial incentive to find ways to "hide" income.
I'm not sure about that. 40% of hojillion dollars is more than 25% of hojillion dollars, but 25% of hojillion dollars is still plenty to hire a smart accountant.
No, that's not the point. The point is that lowering the tax rates on top earners changes the behavior of those top earners. I am not convinced that's true. If I can pay a team of accountants $1 million / year to hide $100 million, then whether it is taxed at 25% or 40%, I'm still as big a fool (or patriot) to hand over 24 million I don't have to as 39.
> No, that's not the point. The point is that lowering the tax rates on top earners changes the behavior of those top earners. I am not convinced that's true.
Why not? Do you think there is no limit on the amount a corporation would be willing to spend for each dollar they can remove from their tax declaration?
I think there is a limit. I even think it is below break-even, since they need to put in effort to go about it. I don't think it is clear at all that the proposed change pushes enough money past that limit. A big part of it depends on the structure of the costs of tax avoidance. Obviously, if every effective means of tax avoidance costs 30 cents on the dollar for any amount of money, lowering the rate from 40% to 25% would be hugely effective, though putting it at 29% would raise still more revenue. My position is that it's hugely unclear, and enough things have changed since Milton Friedman made those claims that it is open whether - even if he was correct at the time - they still hold true.
Perhaps, but I deliberately left the goals vague. I think they represent what an average taxpayer would think. Do you have any specific examples of other goals might be?
> Well, if its just like our current system but for that change, the main difference will be a tax cut for high income earners and reduced revenue.
In that video he specifically argues against that idea. He says revenue should increase, and one side effect would be that corporate declarations should increase since there is less financial incentive to find ways to "hide" income.