Greg Mankiw links to this presentation of The Case for Tax Competition.
Steve Horwitz and I were in graduate school with Dan.
« Russ Roberts Making Sense on the Trouble with Economic Stimulus Policy Packages | Main | Back to the Basics »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451eb0069e200e54ff8ed7f8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tax Competition:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Peter J. Boettke: Living Economics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
Christopher Coyne: Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails
Paul Heyne, Peter Boettke, David Prychitko: Economic Way of Thinking, The (12th Edition)
Steven Horwitz: Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective
Boettke & Aligica: Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School
Peter T. Leeson: The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates
Philippe Lacoude and Frederic Sautet (Eds.): Action ou Taxation
Peter Boettke: The Political Economy of Soviet Socialism: the Formative Years, 1918-1928
Peter Boettke: Calculation and Coordination: Essays on Socialism and Transitional Political Economy
Peter Boettke & Peter Leeson (Eds.): The Legacy of Ludwig Von Mises
Peter Boettke: Why Perestroika Failed: The Politics and Economics of Socialist Transformation
Peter Boettke (Ed.): The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics
I understand the reasons why Dan Mitchell and many economists advocate a flat tax and praise the move towards flat taxes in Eastern Europe as putting pressure for fiscal reform in the West of Europe and elsewhere. I agree, on the other hand, with fiscal equality: it seems fair to me that everyone should pay an equal share for the public goods everyone benefits from. But things aren’t all that great with the “flat tax revolution” in Eastern Europe from a free market point of view. The flat tax systems introduced in Eastern Europe actually lead to higher government fiscal revenue – and this is usually the reason why they were adopted in the first placed – because of the reduction in bureaucratic costs and mismanagement, the Laffer effect and the instauration of fiscal control on a larger share of the underground economy. Consequently, higher government revenue allowed higher government spending on new welfare programs.
Posted by: Bogdan Enache | January 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Well then that is a case for a lower flat tax rate, rather than an indictment of the flat tax itself.
Posted by: Robert S. Porter | January 20, 2008 at 11:27 AM