Adam Collyer explains the difference.
Or as I would put it: what's the point in taxing or means testing away Child Benefit in order to finance a modest tax cut for the people who now no longer receive it? That doesn't reduce the size of 'the state' one bit, and given all the extra admin and hassle involved, it probably increases the size of 'the state'.
Big Green Bills
1 hour ago
3 comments:
YES. Universal, non-means-tested benefits are the best kind of benefit, because they don't require an army of bureaucrats to enforce, hence the money is a straight transfer not a deadweight loss. See also: really simple, non-dodgeable forms of taxation. Mark, I wonder if you can think of a really simple, non-dodgeable form of taxation?
Yes, three cheers for Child Benefit! My sole grouse with it is that it is only available to some children. It should be made available to all children by raising the age limit to 180 and removing the "in fulltime education" proviso. Then it would be perfect. So perfect that we could pay for it by removing all other social security pyments, unemployment benefits, etc. and laying off the staff who currently administer the current labyrinthine system.
JB, D, yup, universal benefits are the least bad benefits.
As to the tax you mention, would you be thinking of a tax that requires a minimum of admin, is impossible to evade but easy to avoid, has no deadweight economic costs, encourages optimum use of land and buildings, does not tax wealth generating activities, captures once and once only the unearned gains from state-protected local monopolies, which is broad based, keeps the state on its toes when deciding how to spend it and where everybody knows to the penny how much they pay? If only there were such a tax...
Post a Comment