- UID
- 774610
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-6-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
还有一篇讲美国政府为了刺激房市,推出政策给贷款购房者提供税收优惠,然后经济学家对此进行反驳,一个三个原因:1是这个改变了需求,如果供给不具有弹性,会提高房子的价格;2忘了;3是这个反而会加剧贫富分化什么的,因为这个政策对于高收入的人比对低收入的人更有利(有题,给了5个选项,问你哪种情况符合文中提到的这个概念)(by godfatherl)
考古已经确认(感谢wwc008love)
v1:第一篇说了对买房的人的贷款利息实行tax deduction。目的是鼓励人们买房,贷款。
然后文中说了三个留有说这个tax deduction不好。
第一是造成没有商业贷款可待,银行的前都带给个人买房了。(没记准确)
第二是使得房价升高。说如果对demand补贴的话,如果supply 没有弹性的话,房价会升高。LZ是经济学出身,所以这篇文中不难
第三个事这个deduction是累退的,有题目问可以证明累退的例子跟analogy题比较像。
最后文中说,为了促进小政府的公平性,不需要其他新的program(出题点),只要对全州统一进行一个固定数量的税收减免就行了
V2:关于美国联邦政府,提供subsidy给买房子的人,有tax deduction。然后后面三段分别写了这样减税有什么不好的。
有一段是说这样做如果供给不变的话,就会提升价格(有一个细节题)。我记得这一篇在哪见过。貌似是JJ里的。
V3: tax deduction. 第一段说提出了taxdeduction, 专家criticize。后面三段说了三个方面。第一个,mortgage什么的;第二个,提到一个情况是inelastic了会怎么样,(至少有两道题的选项中提到过这个地方);第三个,不平等,高收入的人benefit多。(有一题问以下哪个描述的是跟文章这种情况相似,我选了一个也是说穷人没有有钱人买什么东西划算~大概意思了)。随后一段说,政府还是就整一个对于所有人都一样l的tax方案吧,这样能公平点。有主旨题。细节题、推断题(都很复杂,选项巨长),还有一个问最后一段提出的那个方案的。
V4:还有就是tax deduction:
文章脉络不难,但是细节考得很多,推理也多,很难区分。我记得很清楚就是问哪个案例是
符合累退的定义的(文章里有原句解释的),我选了一个有累进概念的,但是很不确定。还有提到纽约等城市房子供给少,所以降税会提高房价(几个题的选项都涉及了,得关注点)。还有主旨,我选了一个说是评论一个政策还是啥的。
背景资料以参考文献(感谢superzhaos)
At first blush, the mortgage interest income taxdeduction seems like a greatthing. You get to deduct your mortgage interest from your income. This savesyou money and encourages homeownership nationwide (believed to produce positiveexternalities such as crime reduction, community, etc.).
But beneath the surface, themortgage tax deduction disproportionately benefits the wealthy and createsperverse incentives and market distortions that are plainly bad for America. Ideal with these issues one by one:
(1) Good for the rich: since theUS tax code allows the deduction of mortgage interest directly from yourincome, those that benefit the most are those with the most income. The verypoor cannot afford to buy a home, so they do not benefit at all. Poorhomeowners benefit very little because they do not pay much in income taxes.But the wealthy receive huge tax breaks from the interest on their jumboMcMansion mortgages.
(2) Perverse incentives: becauseof the huge mortgage interest tax break, high income earners are then encouraged(and subsidized) to buy ever more expensive mansions and borrow even more moneythrough ever larger jumbo mortgages.
What to Do Next
The rational policy choice wouldbe to eliminate the mortgage tax deduction. The federal government can stillencourage homeownership (distinguished from mansion-buying) by instituting aHousing Tax Credit. The credit could be cost-neutral and take the average costper family of the current deduction, and give that amount out as a tax creditto any family or individual who wishes to purchase a home. A standard creditwould make sure that regardless of a family's income they would receive thesame nominal incentive. This would provide more incentive for poor people tobuy a home (the credit would likely be worth more to them than the currentdeduction) and waste less taxpayer money on subsidizing the mansions of thewealthy. Moreover, such a policy could potentially spur homeownership amonglower-income families which could help us dig our way out of the housingcrisis. Let's hope the next president has the foresight to do something aboutthis
|
|