|An aspect of fiscal policy|
A luxury tax is a tax on luxury goods: products not considered essential. A luxury tax may be modeled after a sales tax or VAT, charged as a percentage on all items of particular classes, except that it mainly affects the wealthy because the wealthy are the most likely to buy luxuries such as expensive cars, jewelry, etc. It may also be applied only to purchases over a certain amount; for instance, some U.S. states charge luxury tax on real estate transactions over a limit.
A luxury good may be a Veblen good, which is a type of good for which demand increases as price increases. Therefore, the effect of a luxury tax may be to increase demand for certain luxury goods. In general, however, since a luxury good has a high income elasticity of demand by definition, both the income effect and substitution effect will decrease demand sharply as the tax rises.
Luxury tax is based on the concept of positional goods, which are scarce goods whose value arises as status symbols largely from their ranking against other positional goods. This creates a zero-sum game in which the absolute amount of goods purchased is less relevant than the absolute amount of money spent on them and their relative positions. Agents competing in such a game for pure positional goods do not lose utility if some of this money is taken as tax, because their utility comes as status from the amount of money (displayed to be) spent rather than the use-value of the goods themselves. For a pure positional good, a luxury tax is the perfect form of taxation because it raises revenue without any adverse utility effects.
In the United States, many states used to collect state sales tax through the use of "luxury tax tokens", instead of calculating a percentage to be paid in cash like the modern-day practice. Tokens could be purchased from the state and then used at checkout instead of rendering the sales tax in cash. Presumably, the purpose of the practice was to remove the incentive for stores and businesses to avoid reporting income. Some tokens were copper or base metal while some were even plastic.
A luxury tax of 10% on boats over $300,000 and aircraft over $1 million was proposed in 2010 by finance minister Simeon Djankov. Parliament approved the tax for a temporary 3-year period.
In Norway, at the beginning of last century, oil-powered cars, sugar products, and chocolates were viewed as luxury goods. Today few Norwegians consider sugar or chocolate a luxury, but the luxury taxes on these goods remain.
In November 1991, The United States Congress enacted a luxury tax and was signed by the former President George H.W. Bush. The goal of the tax was to generate additional revenues to reduce the federal budget deficit. This tax was levied on material goods such as watches, expensive furs, boats, yachts, private jet planes, jewelry and expensive cars. Congress enacted a 10 percent luxury surcharge tax on boats over $100,000, cars over $30,000, aircraft over $250,000, and furs and jewelry over $10,000. The federal government estimated that it would raise $9 billion in excess revenues over the following five-year period. However, only two years after its imposition, in August 1993, the Congress decided to eliminate the “luxury tax” since it did not achieve its main objective. However, the luxury automobile tax remained in effect until 2002. A luxury tax still applies in some states for products deemed unnecessary or nonessential, a category in which non-luxury products often fall into.
In sports, the Luxury tax is the incremental tax team owners have to pay for their teams going over the salary cap, basically a financial penalty for high-spending teams.
In popular culture
One of the squares on the Monopoly board game (U.S. edition) is labeled "luxury tax". While there is a picture of a sparkling diamond ring on the square, the only effect is that whoever lands on this square must pay $75.00 to the bank.
- • Robert H. Frank (2008). "consumption externalities," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• _____ (1997). "The Frame of Reference as a Public Good," Economic Journal, 107(445), pp. 1832-1847.
• _____ (2005). "Positional Externalities Cause Large and Preventable Welfare Losses," American Economic Review, 95(2), pp. 137-141 (close Bookmarks tab & press +).
- ""Chocolate tax" should go". Aftenposten. 20 June 2007. Event occurs at 14:07. Archived from the original on 26 June 2007. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
- "Good Riddance to the Luxury Tax". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-04-20.
- "Another Debate On The "Luxury" Tax On Tampons". 011-21 CBS DFW. 10 February 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2018.
- Frank, Urbina (11 October 2018). "How does the NBA's luxury tax work?". Hoops Hype. Retrieved 16 October 2018.
|Wikinews has related news: US Congress to Re-Establish the Luxury Tax|