3 ms·

>Also, what prevents them from moving out of the jurisdiction? Exit tax, having to give up citizenship. > (brining their skills and capital with them). What

>Also, what prevents them from moving out of the jurisdiction? Exit tax, having to give up citizenship. > (brining their skills and capital with them). What skills does the inheritance class have exactly? Why do we want to incentivize the hoarding of wealth? What creates more jobs: 100k investment in your company 10k new customers for your company >(very) progressive consumption tax? So we want to provide disincentives to consume? We want to incentivize saving money over spending money? Seems like a negative for the economy - people will consume less, or they will consume elsewhere. What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere, say purchasing a yacht in spain - then having it delivered to their US home. How about buying a BMW in germany, having it shipped to the US. This is something a poor person cannot do, but a rich person can. Especially on the types of goods we would most want to tax based on consumption (luxury goods) So now you are hurting the local economy by depressing local consumption, hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption, meanwhile the rich can easily afford to avoid taxes and have things shipped from overseas.

cpursley 11y ago
> Exit tax, having to give up citizenship. This is borderline fascism. A modern day Berlin Wall. Besides, the US already charges an exit tax for those who relinquish their citizenship (which is a growing trend - and it's not rich people doing it). > What skills does the inheritance class have exactly? I agree this is a problem, and a growing one. But I think you over estimate the % of wealth by inheritance vs. earned. Either way, I'd rather have these folks living, spending and investing that money in my community. > We want to incentivize saving money over spending money? Yes, people would consume less and save more. This is a good thing as thrift vs. debt would be encouraged. Debt payments transfer money the banking class and contribute to the up/down economic cycles. > What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere Not likely except perhaps on small portable items. Anyways, you can't just purchase a vehicle overseas and register it in the US due to differences in vehicle safety. And import tariffs can be modified to mitigate. > ...hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption... This is why it must be very progressive. Basic necessities should be either tax free or close to it. And used goods sold person-to-person (non retail) should not be taxed at all. In fact, this would be better for low income folks. Instead of taxes withheld from each paycheck, only to be returned at the end of the tax season but with no interest payed, they'd get all of their paycheck. Overall, this encourages thrift and introduces more control over how much tax one pays. It also gives conscientious objectors a legal way to reduce their tax. That's pretty powerful if you're say against the war in Iraq or against planned parenthood. Oh, and illegal immigrants and those participating in black market activities are instantly brought into the taxation system as there is no longer such a thing as income tax avoidance. There's billions on the table here.

cpursley 11y ago

> Exit tax, having to give up citizenship. This is borderline fascism. A modern day Berlin Wall. Besides, the US already charges an exit tax for those who relinquish their citizenship (which is a growing trend - and it's not rich people doing it). > What skills does the inheritance class have exactly? I agree this is a problem, and a growing one. But I think you over estimate the % of wealth by inheritance vs. earned. Either way, I'd rather have these folks living, spending and investing that money in my community. > We want to incentivize saving money over spending money? Yes, people would consume less and save more. This is a good thing as thrift vs. debt would be encouraged. Debt payments transfer money the banking class and contribute to the up/down economic cycles. > What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere Not likely except perhaps on small portable items. Anyways, you can't just purchase a vehicle overseas and register it in the US due to differences in vehicle safety. And import tariffs can be modified to mitigate. > ...hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption... This is why it must be very progressive. Basic necessities should be either tax free or close to it. And used goods sold person-to-person (non retail) should not be taxed at all. In fact, this would be better for low income folks. Instead of taxes withheld from each paycheck, only to be returned at the end of the tax season but with no interest payed, they'd get all of their paycheck. Overall, this encourages thrift and introduces more control over how much tax one pays. It also gives conscientious objectors a legal way to reduce their tax. That's pretty powerful if you're say against the war in Iraq or against planned parenthood. Oh, and illegal immigrants and those participating in black market activities are instantly brought into the taxation system as there is no longer such a thing as income tax avoidance. There's billions on the table here.