Tag Archives: taxation

Arnold Harberger

If taxes are to be levied, or income imputed, on the basis of the value of agricultural and/or residential properties, it is important that assessment procedures be adopted which estimate the true economic value of property with reasonable accuracy. […] The economist’s answer to the assessment problem is simple and essentially foolproof: allow each property owner to declare the value of his own property, make these declared values a matter of public record, and require that an owner sell his property to any bidder who is willing to pay, say, 20 percent more than the declared value. This simple scheme is self-enforcing, allows no scope for corruption, has negligible costs of administration, and creates incentives, in addition to those already present in the market, for each property to be put to that use in which it has the highest economic productivity. The beauty of this scheme, so evident to economists, is not, however, appreciated by lawyers, who object strongly to the idea of requiring the sale of properties, possibly against the will of their owners. The economist can retort here that if owners value their property at the price at which they would be willing to sell, they should not be unwilling to sell at a price 20 percent higher.

Arnold Harberger, ‘Issues of Tax Reform in Latin America’, Fiscal Policy for Economic Growth in Latin America: Papers and Proceedings of a Conference Held in Santiago, Chile, December, 1962; under the Auspices of Joint Tax Program Organization of American States, Inter-American Development Bank, Economic Commission for Latin America, Baltimore, Maryland, 1965, p. 290

Liam Murphy & Thomas Nagel

Private property is a legal convention, defined in part by the tax system; therefore, the tax system cannot be evaluated by looking at its impact on private property, conceived as something that has independent existence and validity. Taxes must be evaluated as part of the overall system of property rights that they help to create. Justice or injustice in taxation can only mean justice or injustice in the system of property rights and entitlements that result from a particular tax regime.

Liam Murphy & Thomas Nagel, The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice, New York, 2002, p. 8

Carlos Santiago Nino

Es común que se diga […] que los argentinos no desaprobamos socialmente [la evasión impositiva], y me parece que ello ocurre en parte porque no se percibe el carácter socialmente dañoso que ella tiene. La respuesta de muchos es que “no vale la pena pagar impuestos, porque ellos solo sirven para que se los roben los funcionarios, o para pagar la ineficiencia estatal”. Es obvio que esta respuesta carece de base racional: por más corrupción que haya o por más ineficiencia que afecte a la administración pública, ella solo puede incidir en una proporción marginal en el destino de los impuestos. Que una parte importante de las contribuciones tienen un destino de bien público lo atestigua la existencia en el ámbito público de escuelas, universidades, bibliotecas, fuerzas de seguridad y de defensa, calles y rutas, parques, etcétera. Parece que la desconfianza al Estado que se da típicamente en nuestro país obnubilara la relación causal entre las contribuciones de los ciudadanos y los servicios públicos que los mismos ciudadanos utilizan. Es como si aquellas contribuciones las absorbiera el Estado para beneficio de los funcionarios, y los servicios se financiaran con maná del cielo. Es muy difícil encontrar a alguien que perciba en la evasión impositiva de otro un daño directo para sus intereses.

Carlos Santiago Nino, Un país al margen de la ley: estudio de la anomia como componente del subdesarrollo argentino, Buenos Aires, 1992, pp. 188-189