Live data from Hacker News

Bar Stool Economics

doc.cat-v.org

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#11
post #8
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel makes chips in many such countries, like costa rica and Malaysia. There are many countries around the world with good standards of living and lower taxes and lower overall regulatory burden. Plus with Internet businesses and the easy ability to have virtual office with employees living remotely, you can locate your business in a jurisdiction that is more favorable. Intel or Microsoft can't move, but starting a…

> > Bolivia or Burma or Afghanistan > Intel makes chips in many such countries, like costa rica and Malaysia. many "such" countries... there is a _HUGE_ difference in freedom, social economic development and stability between these two sets of countries. i dont reckon the infrastructure in the first set of countries would be sufficient for intel to consider it.

And infrastructure in the second set of countries might not be sufficient for these companies forever without them paying something for it's support:

It is ironic, of course, that the very tax exemptions granted to Intel and other TNCs under the rules of the Zona Franca, means that these companies do not directly contribute to an increase in the tax revenue needed for significant improvements in infrastructure and education that they benefit from. It is unfortunate that these companies do not appreciate the need to contribute to the generation of the country specific assets they are looking for. But it is even more unfortunate that the government does not recognize the need for such a contribution either. The tax reform attempts that have been sent to the congress only timidly open up the possibility of taxes on TNCs, and with the fear that perhaps these firms will decide to leave the country, in search for more favorable treatment in other developing countries. Of course, these fears are well grounded as firms (like the comments by Intel above) have made it very clear that they do not want to be taxed.

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/DP13Paus_CorderoApr08.pdf

as the article continues:

Stopping the tax rate race to the bottom among developing countries ultimately requires the imposition of tax floors at a global level, a formidable challenge.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#12
Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bill. I had to laugh, though i dont think it's realistic.

The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this.

I feel another problem is more important than scaring out the rich by higher taxation: when tax money is largely used for public services like schools and health care that the rich dont use as they prefer the better private alternatives. In Kamerschen's words this will give the rich the feeling they pay more for the beer, that they dont even drink!

Coming from the netherlands, i value that public schools and hospitals are being used regardless of pay grade. This justifies paying tax for everyone, and gives a sense of fair chances in society regardless your social-economic background.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#13
What if we consider the motivations of the bar owner here? If the bar owner cut prices with the intention of stimulating more spending on alcohol (as tax cutting is generally presented as a fiscal stimulus) then they would probably give the biggest discounts to those who were most price-sensitive...

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#15
post #12

Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bill. I had to laugh, though i dont think it's realistic. The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. I feel another problem is more important than scaring out the rich by hig…

The rich might not use public schools and hospitals, but they benefit vastly more than the poor from other services that governments provide, such as economic stability, protection of property rights, infrastructure giving them better access to markets etc.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#16
Instead of throwing rocks at rich folks or regurgitating what some professor told us in college, let's change the experiment such that perhaps we can look at it from a fresh perspective.

Let's say that everybody at the bar is happy. The rich guy has what he wants, and the poor guy has what he wants. They all have a good time. Let's even assume that after the new rules the rich guy decides not to move and comes back to the bar. Maybe because his likes the band.

Now the poor guy finds a business opportunity making the amount the rich guy is making. What happens? What would you do?

The poor guy would be an idiot to take the job. After all, he has everything he wants, plus free beer. There is no reason to take on some new work with tremendous responsibilities and risks for no reason. For the politically incorrect among you: if the poor are completely happy, society stagnates. People very very rarely build huge businesses simply because of altruism. For the PC among you, stress breeds learning. Challenge breeds invention. That stress or challenge can be internal or external to a person, but it must exist in most of us for our society to continue to progress.

Now realize that there are 97 poor guys for every rich guy.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#17

Instead of throwing rocks at rich folks or regurgitating what some professor told us in college, let's change the experiment such that perhaps we can look at it from a fresh perspective. Let's say that everybody at the bar is happy. The rich guy has what he wants, and the poor guy has what he wants. They all have a good time. Let's even assume that after the new rules the rich guy decides not to move and comes back t…

Your idea of a fresh perspective is build a straw man to imply that the poor are all lazy?

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#18

Instead of throwing rocks at rich folks or regurgitating what some professor told us in college, let's change the experiment such that perhaps we can look at it from a fresh perspective. Let's say that everybody at the bar is happy. The rich guy has what he wants, and the poor guy has what he wants. They all have a good time. Let's even assume that after the new rules the rich guy decides not to move and comes back t…

Your logic only holds in a world made only of beer and work. As you add other things to the model, the rich guy's advantage increases, creating more motivation to work.

I think you vastly underestimate greed if you think having healthcare and not having to worry about where their next meal is coming from is going to kill motivation. We've got whole industries devoted to giving you a reason to spend money.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#19
This article has nothing to do with Dr Kamerschen, here's an extract from his page at http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

"Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics" or “Bar Stool Economics” or anything similar to that. Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it and he has no opinion on its merits."

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#20
post #12

Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bill. I had to laugh, though i dont think it's realistic. The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. I feel another problem is more important than scaring out the rich by hig…

The EU had this problem but that's only because their tax regimes are regionally differentiated. Affluence flight is probably only a problem when one region of a country has significantly higher taxes than another, which would seem to imply that raising the federal income tax rate in America wouldn't cause the rich to leave because they have no where to go really. It may not be pleasant for the rich but wealth transfers are necessary for a stable, modern society; after all who will buy their products if everyone but them is poor?
Post reply on HN