Does an amnesty raise the “moral hazard” issue?
I think it does. That is part of the consideration when thinking about this: The effect on what I’ll call honest or compliant taxpayers. It’s as similar an analogy to what was going on with Wall Street bailouts as you can make. Those who are playing by the rules and are being conservative in their financial affairs are not getting the benefit in the same way. The question is, how is that going to affect the longer-term impact? Is there a question of fairness? Does an amnesty favor the rich? It depends on the nature of the amnesty. But most are likely to aim for wealthier taxpayers. From a government’s tax perspective, that’s where you’re going to get more of a bang — there’s more liability there. If you want to provide an amnesty for potential significant liability, it’s not going to be the lower-income taxpayers. They are not usually the target. Are there times or targets where you wouldn’t want to extend an amnesty? You want to ask to what extent is the behavior that is potentially f
Related Questions
- The sixth ballot issue asks for permission to raise the development charge from $0.10 per square foot to $0.50 per square foot. What does this mean?
- Do I have to be a member to raise an issue/concern regarding the treatment of native Australian wildlife?
- Does an amnesty raise the "moral hazard" issue?
