All of this stuff you keep putting up to support your contention that APT is a bad idea frankly does not impress me.
It is not meant to impress you.
It is provided for others who read these threads that they may discern fact and evidence from mere claim. To weigh that evidence and come to their own conclusions.
. If one were so inclined, an equivalent amount of stuff could be brought up favoring the case for APT
Then show it, I have done the research all I find to support the claims of the APT are the claims of it's author, agains the empirical evidence of the actual functioning of the tax system, with insights of economists as to the theoretical underpinnings of why a transaction tax will fail to meet the APT claimed goals.
I'm comfortable with APT based on common sense and intuition.
In otherwords your basis is that of no experience at all. You deny the evidence of history and modern era trials of the APT system, and persist in what amounts to blind belief in what you want to believe, a not the reality of practical application and experience of others who have indeed tried your tax system and failed for substantive fault laying with the theoretical basis of the tax itself.
As you've made amply obvious, you have a strong bias against APT.
I never heard of the APT until you people brought it here, I just took the effort to track down the history and economics of it and found it wanting.
I have no obligation to prove APT to you, any more than you have an obligation to disprove it.
You have the burden of proof where you want others to accept your tax system, especially where a body of empirical evidence clearly indicates severe problems with it.
My point is that in spite of your very admirable effort in putting up all this stuff here for us to see, you have not convinced me personally that APT won't work.
You are welcome to your beliefs however, beliefs not founded in fact and logic become little more than mere fantasy and superstition.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--John Adams
Fundamental tax reform is in order. The existing tax regimen is an ad hoc mixed bag of political and economic pragmatism, and is a relic of the now passing industrial era.
That is a fact on which we both may agree.
APT is a fundamentally different approach
Merely being different or unknown to you, is not a basis for fundamental soundness of a system.
that addresses the needs of the present and the future.
Empirical evidence and theoretical underpinnings of the failure of APT type taxes in numerous countries in history as well as current era suggest strongly otherwise.Apparently the best that can be said for it on an experiential basis is what is indicated by Tanzi as a result of empirical evaluation of Latin American versions of the APT:
The following empirical data suggests a 0.25% APT tax on banking & finance yields ~1% of GDP tax revenues. By extension a full APT would cover an incidence base of approximately 4 times banking transactions, good for approximately 4% of GDP in tax revenue production.
The current federal tax system yields more than 5 times the level of a universal APT.
| Tanzi, V.(2000). "Taxation in Latin America in the Last Decade." Center for Reasearch on Economic Development and Policy Reform Working Paper Series, 76. Stanford: Stanford University.
Page 31: Financial Transactions or Bank Debit Taxes In its more recent versions the tax seems to have generated less difficulties, at least in the short run, and more revenue than in earlier years and the tax has acquired some strong supporters. There is very little popular opposition to it, it is relatively easy to administer, and it generates significant revenue. If it is applied at a very low rate, it may conform with a kind of "honey bee" approach to taxation whereby each collection is so small that it does not elicit a response on the part of the taxpayer. However, at higher rates and especially over a longer time frame this tax would likely have higher costs. The bank debit tax is essentially an excise imposed on a specific activity, namely the use of bank checks. If the tax rate is small and the elasticity of demand for bank checks is low, the tax may not generate attempts at avoidance. However, if the rate becomes higher, individuals may realize that there are ways of avoiding this tax. Use of cash instead of checks would be one such way. Use of dollars would be another. Arranging to make payments through foreign accounts would be still another. Use of barter would be a further one. If the tax leads to a reduction in financial transactions, it would inevitably affect the efficiency of the economy. However, it is fair to state that almost all taxes have costs. Therefore, the choice must be made among second or even third best options. If the bank debit taxes are used at low rates and only for periods of transition to better revenue sources, then, maybe, they deserve a less negative reaction than most tax experts would give them. However, they should not become permanent features of tax systems.
|
Somehow I do not see 4% of GDP sufficient for the revenue needs of this or any nation.