Månedsarkiv: maj 2012

Hvor langt bagefter os er andre lande?

Af Christian Bjørnskov · Udgivet 29. maj 2012 · 7 svar

 

Det er ofte svært at kommunikere til ikke-økonomer og studerende, hvor langt bagefter nogle ulande er. Problemet bliver, at når de ikke har en fornemmelse for afstanden, falder de for billige argumenter om, hvordan man ‘bare’ kan hjælpe ulande. Så her er en alternativ måde at gøre det på. Jeg har kombineret CIAs opdaterede BNP-mål (i købekraftsparitet, dvs. reel købekraft) med Maddisons historiske BNP-tal. Mens man skal passe meget på – BNP-tallene fanger for eksempel ikke kvalitetsforbedringer, der reflekteres i priserne! – giver figuren en vis fornemmelse, særligt hvis man har været i et eller flere af landene. Helt kort: Figuren viser, på hvilket tidspunkt i historien vi i Danmark havde samme købekraft som et givent land har i dag.

PS: Karl-Iver spørger om skalaen. Bemærk at Y-aksen er logaritmen til BNP per capita og starter ved 7.

Inspiration fra 2020 Tax Commission

Af Nikolaj Stenberg · Udgivet 26. maj 2012 · 1 svar

I følge TV2 News’ program om politisk kommunikation, Mogensen & Christiansen, har RAF-regeringen tilrettelagt den indeværende weekend/miniferie ned i mindste detalje, forstået således, at væsentlige dele af den skattelovspakke, regeringen fremlægger på tirsdag, vil blive offentligt kendt før offentliggørelsestidspunktet.

At dømme ud fra dagens skatte-overskrifter, er der dog ikke meget at komme efter (som skatteyder): Berlingskes Nyhedsbureau skriver, at mennesker i arbejde, efter planen, skal fratages DKK 4100 mindre p.a., medens skatteministeren i Politiken gentager, hvad mange andre har sagt i (næsten) generationer. Det var vel også pointen i dét den tidligere statsminister sagde på YouTube, den anden dag, da han annoncererede sit partis hovedpunkter i skattereformen: Regeringens reformplan er ikke andet end paper-pushing.

Men når nu RAF-regeringens udspil offentliggøres på tirsdag, hvorfor så bruge tiden indtil da på at spekulere over, hvad det indeholder. Særligt, når tiden f.eks. kan bruges på at kigge over på bare den anden side af Nordsøen.

Illustration af 2020 Tax Commission's forslag

Illustration af 2020 Tax Commission's forslag

I UK har 2020 Tax Commission udsendt sin endelige rapport (her som pdf og her i flash) om det engelske skattesystem og den indeholder, så sandt som det er sagt, idéer, der burde give stof til eftertanke i Danmark. – Også selvom der er strukturelle forskelle i skattesystemernes opbygning.

Rapporten, der er fyldig og (mere vigtigt) veldokumenteret, konkluderer, at et mål om vækstskabelse kun nås, hvis parlamentet og regeringen reformerer skattesystemet, så skattesatserne sættes lavere og systemet i sig selv bliver mere simpelt og gennemsigtigt. Dét, mener 2020 Tax Commission, kan opnås således:

1. Taxes should be cut to 33 per cent of national income
2. Marginal tax rates should not exceed 30 per cent, and the personal allowance should rise to £10,000
3. Taxes on capital and labour income disguised as business taxes should be abolished, and replaced with a tax on distributed income
4. Transaction, wealth and inheritance taxes should be abolished
5. Other consumption taxes need to stay for now, but transport taxes should be cut
6. Local authorities should raise half of their spending power from local taxes

2020 Tax Commission eksemplificerer selv resultatet af en realisernig af de seks punkter således:

The proposals would result in substantial tax cuts for households across the income distribution. A two earner household, with an income of around £28,000, would receive a tax cut of around £3,400, for example. They would also provide a significant boost to economic growth. The increase in GDP after 15 years would be 8.4 per cent – this is equivalent to an additional £5,000 per family in 2012 –13.

For at gøre det hele lidt lettere at forstå markedsføre, har 2020 Tax Commission lavet en video i OK-længde, som forklarer planen. Videoen, som denne blogs læsere selvsagt gerne må dele på sociale medier, er her:

Så skulle weekendlæsningen være på plads.

Opdatering 28. maj 2012: Rapporten er nu omtalt hos Cobden Centre, Institute of Economic Affairs og The Spectator

“No interest group has adequate incentive…”

Af Nikolaj Stenberg · Udgivet 23. maj 2012 · 15 svar

Prof. Jonathan H. Adler skriver i The Atlantic om reguleringsmæssige miljøbeskyttelsestiltag og tragedy of the commons; og tilbyder i den forbindelse et mildt skulderklap til den eksisterende miljøregulering (“There have been significant environmental gains in many areas over the past fifty years, and traditional regulatory strategies deserve some of the credit, but modern environmental regulation is hardly a model of efficient governmental intervention“). Det, der får mig til at ville henvise til artiklen her på bloggen, er citatet nedenfor, som jeg egentlig synes indrammer debatten for og imod miljøbeskyttelsesregulering (og regulering indenfor andre retsområder) ganske glimrende:

One thing that Hardin [forfatteren til tragedy of the commons-artiklen] overlooked is that the political process often replicates the same economic dynamic that encourages the tragedy of the commons — a dynamic fostered by the ability to capture concentrated benefits while dispersing the costs. Like the herder who has an incentive to put out yet one more animal to graze, each interest group has every incentive to seek special benefits through the political process, while dispersing the costs of providing those benefits to the public at large. Just as no herder has adequate incentive to withhold from grazing one more animal, no interest group has adequate incentive to forego its turn to obtain concentrated benefits at public expense. No interest group has adequate incentive to put the interests of the whole ahead of the interests of the few. The logic of collective action discourages investments in sound public policy just as it discourages investments in sound ecological stewardship. This, in addition to the pervasiveness of special-interest rent seeking, explains many of the failings of centralized regulation. So despite the environmental gains of the past half-century, real challenges remain, and the tragedy of the commons is still with us.

 

Helt kort: Legitimitet, partiskhed, konservatisme

Af Nikolaj Stenberg · Udgivet 22. maj 2012 · Skriv et svar

I forlængelse af forrige blogindlæg er jeg blevet opmærksom på, at Ilya Somin, har lavet en udførlig og ganske link-holdig tekst, om hyppigt bruge ikke-juridiske argumenter for, at højesteret skal opretholde forsikringspligten i ACA/ObamaCare. Selv siger han (indledende) om dem:

Even if correct, none of these arguments actually prove that the Court should uphold the mandate as a legal matter. A decision that is perceived as “illegitimate,” partisan, and unconservative can still be legally correct. Conversely, one that is widely accepted, enjoys bipartisan support, and is consistent with conservatism can still be wrong…

Højesteret og ObamaCare – aktivisme eller tilbageholdenhed?

Af Nikolaj Stenberg · Udgivet 22. maj 2012 · 1 svar

Wall Street Journal har en glimrende leder om den udfordring det er, for den amerikanske højesteret, at skulle tage stilling til Affordable Care Act, alias ObamaCare. WSJ-lederen fokuserer på de offentlige ytringer rettet mod navngivne højesteretsdommere, som politiske aktører over den seneste tid er kommet med og bemærker særligt Pat Leahy’s kommentar om, at retspræsident Roberts, hvis retten når frem til, at ACA-loven (eller dele deraf) er forfatningsstridig, for al fremtid vil blive opfattet som en partisk aktivist: ”The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court” osv.

The elite liberal press has followed with pointed warnings that Mr. Roberts has a choice—either uphold ObamaCare, or be portrayed a radical who wants to repeal the New Deal and a century of precedent. This attack is itself clearly partisan, but it’s worth rehearsing the arguments to show how truly flawed they are.

WSJ bemærker hertil (mine fremhævninger):

The first fallacy is defining judicial activism as overturning a Congressional law. Since Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in 1803, the High Court has overturned hundreds of laws in part or whole. The real measure of activism is whether the Court’s reasoning is rooted in Constitutional principle. If it is, the Court is not activist but is adhering to the highest legal principles.

Regarding the Affordable Care Act, we’d argue that upholding the individual mandate to buy health insurance requires far more judicial activism. That’s because if the Court finds this federal mandate to be Constitutional, it will have no principle on which to limit future purchase mandates.

Once health insurance can be mandated, Congress will inevitably find that other products or services are equally essential to national well-being. Future Courts will either have to find all such purchase mandates to be legal, in which case there is no limiting principle, or they will have to pick and choose, which means an endless exercise in policy-making.

Far better for judicial modesty—and the reputation of the Court—to draw the line that the Commerce Clause forbids Congress from mandating that individuals engage in commerce because such police powers are reserved for the states. This is the truly restrained judicial position.

The most dishonest argument is the liberal media chant that overturning the law means overturning the New Deal era’s Commerce Clause precedents. This is propaganda. None of the plaintiffs advocated that any precedents be overturned, even though in our view some of those cases deserve to be overturned. Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who argued for the plaintiffs before the Court, explicitly denied any such desire.

HT: Randy Barnett.