A Quote by Edward C. Prescott

The purpose for a tax system is to collect needed revenue at the least cost to the people. — © Edward C. Prescott
The purpose for a tax system is to collect needed revenue at the least cost to the people.
Using static scoring, tax cuts are broadly assumed to 'cost' a raw amount of reduced revenue. With dynamic scoring, the new revenue likely to flow from increased economic activity produced by a tax cut is considered, improving the accuracy of the projection.
The Value-Added Tax, a sales tax that applies at every level of business transactions, is an easy tax for governments to collect, and a hard tax to evade. So it makes the job of raising revenue easier. The revenues from the VAT can then be used to lower taxes on income and saving and investment. The Value-Added tax doesn't penalize work or saving; it's a tax on buying stuff.
Remember back in the nineties, a bunch of Democrats decided to tax luxury items, including yachts? They figured it was not fair that some people could afford yachts, and so since they could, they said, "We're gonna tax the hell out of yachts at the point of sale, 'cause it's not fair. We need to collect revenue from all this!" What happened was that the people who actually build the yachts lost their jobs because people stopped buying them.
Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan... Collect our own revenue from personal income tax... Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts... [E]ach province should raise its own revenue for health... It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta.
The Value-Added Tax, a sales tax that applies at every level of business transactions, is an easy tax for governments to collect, and a hard tax to evade.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that in 2016, the corporate income tax raised $300 billion in revenue, while what it called 'targeted subsidies' cost about $270 billion. In other words, Congress could eliminate the subsidies and cut the corporate rate nearly in half without any significant loss in revenue.
I'm still one who says that we can get rid of the Internal Revenue Service if we would pass the fair tax, which is a tax on consumption rather than a tax on people's income, and move power back where the founders believed it should have been all along.
Individuals and businesses must participate in a national discussion about a simpler tax system, one that collects sufficient revenue to meet appropriate federal responsibilities, but one resting on a broader, fairer tax base without penalizing saving and investing, the backbone of a strong, decentralized and thriving economy.
Both ground- rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.
If we don't do something to simplify the tax system, we're going to end up with a national police force of internal revenue agents.
If you tell people, 'that old banger of yours, we're going to tax the hell out of it,' they'll rightly tell you to get lost. But if you tell people that when they next buy a car, the tax will be adjusted so that the cleanest ones will cost less and the polluting ones will cost more, most people would say 'fair enough.'
I am very concerned about anything that says 'revenue' because let's just be honest; revenue for Democrats has become code for tax increases.
We must move from revenue-neutral to revenue-reducing tax reform, because the federal government spends far too much money.
When two working people decide to marry, their federal income tax is usually increased. As soon as one spouse earns at least 20 percent of a married couple's total income, the couple pays a 'marriage tax.' ... The United States is the only major industrialized nation in the free world in which the tax cost of the second [married] earner's entry into the work force is higher than that of the first. On one hand, our government's social policy is to help working women earn equal salaries to those of men, but on the other we have a tax structure that penalizes them when they do so.
People can yawn all they want when a conservative mentions the tax system. But there is no doubt that when we have a tax system that punishes businesses and workers for producing then it becomes financially advantageous for everyone just to import cheaper goods from abroad.
I'll give you a simple formula for straightening out the problems of the United States. First, you tax the churches. You take the tax off of capital gains and the tax off of savings. You decriminalize all and tax them same way as you do alcohol. You decriminalize . You make gambling legal. That will put the budget back on the road to recovery, and you'll have plenty of tax revenue coming in for all of your social programs, and to run the army.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!