Greece to raise gambling tax to 35%! - Page 2

On May 28 2016 01:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 27 2016 19:44 Stroggoz wrote:   On May 27 2016 10:34 Baalim wrote: Taxations function is to take money away from the economy to provide services like education, transportation, security, healthcare etc. When an economy is performing badly you should reduce these services and lower taxes, take a hit on the quality of life for a while so that the economy can grow again and when you stabilize you can tax an invest again, to increase taxes while your economy is tanking is the perfect recipe for a disaster. This might sound over simplistic but it actually is that simple, its just that loans and bailouts make this effect much more difficult to see, you can keep providing services and subdidizing crap making the economy grow but getting a huge debt in the process and later on, that debt crushes you if the economy doesnt recover at the needed rate, and people really dont really know wtf happened since it was a delayed effect. this is contrary to economic theory, during a recession you have to spend more so businesses can continue selling goods. If people stop spending , business stop selling, and it creates a vicious cycle. Over 90 percent of the bailout simply went to german and french bankers anyway. Exactly that is my point, in a recession you need liquidity on the streets, and how do you do that? the best way is to reduce taxation so people purchasing power and businesses profit margins are bigger, another one is the good old fiat favourite, fuck around with the money supply and try find the sweet spot where hyperinflation doesn't fuck you even harder than the recession, sadly it happens often because governments care about their term not the next one. But again that is exactly what im suggesting... increase liquidity, sacrifice services and qualify of life until the economy is stable.

ah yes i agree on cutting taxes, but cutting services decreases aggregate demand while cutting taxes increases aggregate demand. Btw i have no formal education in economics but have read first year text book plus lots of literature on economics from about 10 different schools, probably a much wider perspective than ur average neokeynsian proffessor.

Hyperinflation is really not at all a risk. Its actually interesting, one of the reasons hitler was so popular was that he acheived a 0 percent unemployment rate in 1938 through miltary spending and the economy came out of a depression while america didnt until the war. So germanys advice to greece and their inflation fearmongering is pretty hypocritical given their own history which they selectively cherrypick.

Baal gets so much shit for being right

On May 28 2016 02:06 uiCk wrote: [ Show nested quote + In general, however, since a luxury good has a high income elasticity of demand by definition, both the income effect and substitution effect will decrease demand sharply as the tax rises   Luxury tax is based on the concept of positional goods, which are scarce goods whose value arises as status symbols largely from their ranking against other positional goods. This creates a zero-sum game in which the absolute amount of goods purchased is less relevant than the absolute amount of money spent on them and their relative positions. Agents competing in such a game for pure positional goods do not lose utility if some of this money is taken as tax, because their utility comes as status from the amount of money (displayed to be) spent rather than the use-value of the goods themselves. For a pure positional good, a luxury tax is the perfect form of taxation because it raises revenue without any adverse utility effects.[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax Two things that happen here A) most people who can afford luxury goods are already paying a premium for said luxury good, so an increase does usually little difference to this consumer -> more taxes collected B) the more price sensitive ones will shift habits and consume diferent products (that might be and probably are more beneficial )

Yes I am not in general against a luxury tax in these conditions if it serves as a wealth redistribution form, what I would be strongly against is an overall tax increase since that would reduce liquidity and worsen the depression.

That being said this tax appears to me that it will kill the industry and that would be counterproductive and instead of increasing revenue it would decrease it

On May 28 2016 05:53 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 28 2016 01:20 Baalim wrote:   On May 27 2016 19:44 Stroggoz wrote:   On May 27 2016 10:34 Baalim wrote: Taxations function is to take money away from the economy to provide services like education, transportation, security, healthcare etc. When an economy is performing badly you should reduce these services and lower taxes, take a hit on the quality of life for a while so that the economy can grow again and when you stabilize you can tax an invest again, to increase taxes while your economy is tanking is the perfect recipe for a disaster. This might sound over simplistic but it actually is that simple, its just that loans and bailouts make this effect much more difficult to see, you can keep providing services and subdidizing crap making the economy grow but getting a huge debt in the process and later on, that debt crushes you if the economy doesnt recover at the needed rate, and people really dont really know wtf happened since it was a delayed effect. this is contrary to economic theory, during a recession you have to spend more so businesses can continue selling goods. If people stop spending , business stop selling, and it creates a vicious cycle. Over 90 percent of the bailout simply went to german and french bankers anyway. Exactly that is my point, in a recession you need liquidity on the streets, and how do you do that? the best way is to reduce taxation so people purchasing power and businesses profit margins are bigger, another one is the good old fiat favourite, fuck around with the money supply and try find the sweet spot where hyperinflation doesn't fuck you even harder than the recession, sadly it happens often because governments care about their term not the next one. But again that is exactly what im suggesting... increase liquidity, sacrifice services and qualify of life until the economy is stable. ah yes i agree on cutting taxes, but cutting services decreases aggregate demand while cutting taxes increases aggregate demand. Btw i have no formal education in economics but have read first year text book plus lots of literature on economics from about 10 different schools, probably a much wider perspective than ur average neokeynsian proffessor. Hyperinflation is really not at all a risk. Its actually interesting, one of the reasons hitler was so popular was that he acheived a 0 percent unemployment rate in 1938 through miltary spending and the economy came out of a depression while america didnt until the war. So germanys advice to greece and their inflation fearmongering is pretty hypocritical given their own history which they selectively cherrypick.

I didnt mean hyperinflation was a current risk for Greece, I have no idea how they are handling the money supply, what im saying is that in a depression governments desperate to increase liquidity have often made the mistake of being shortsighted and print so much money that they create imperinflation, I assume Greece is being watched too closely for this shit to happen but who knows, it has happened so many times, I think since the political system is build on popularity it pushes leaders to do the thing that is best right now, not for the future.

On May 28 2016 05:58 Trav94 wrote: Baal gets so much shit for being right

Story of my life brother

On May 28 2016 09:52 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 28 2016 02:06 uiCk wrote: [   In general, however, since a luxury good has a high income elasticity of demand by definition, both the income effect and substitution effect will decrease demand sharply as the tax rises   Luxury tax is based on the concept of positional goods, which are scarce goods whose value arises as status symbols largely from their ranking against other positional goods. This creates a zero-sum game in which the absolute amount of goods purchased is less relevant than the absolute amount of money spent on them and their relative positions. Agents competing in such a game for pure positional goods do not lose utility if some of this money is taken as tax, because their utility comes as status from the amount of money (displayed to be) spent rather than the use-value of the goods themselves. For a pure positional good, a luxury tax is the perfect form of taxation because it raises revenue without any adverse utility effects.[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax Two things that happen here A) most people who can afford luxury goods are already paying a premium for said luxury good, so an increase does usually little difference to this consumer -> more taxes collected B) the more price sensitive ones will shift habits and consume diferent products (that might be and probably are more beneficial ) Yes I am not in general against a luxury tax in these conditions if it serves as a wealth redistribution form, what I would be strongly against is an overall tax increase since that would reduce liquidity and worsen the depression. That being said this tax appears to me that it will kill the industry and that would be counterproductive and instead of increasing revenue it would decrease it

Did you even understand th basic econ 101 in that quote? Fucking doubt it, considering your "i underatand but Derp Derp Derp"