4 ms·
You are right that it tends to be slightly regressive w.r.t annual income. However, every dollar earned that is eventually converted into something tangible mu
by ShabbyDoo 17y ago
You are right that it tends to be slightly regressive w.r.t annual income. However, every dollar earned that is eventually converted into something tangible must be taxed. So, it's eventually flat if earnings are ever enjoyed.
Is flat fair? There's nothing inherently "fair" about a zero second derivative. I'm actually ok with some sort of government rebate for the first N dollars of taxation to reduce the burden on America's (relatively) poor people.
- nixme 17y agoExcept that the rich or even moderately well-off never convert even close to all their money into something tangible while the poor almost always must immediately. The rich don't live paycheck to paycheck. They save, invest, go on vacation, etc. They defer the second taxation (sales/use) to a later date or place -- they have choices where the poor do not. So while it might seem flat theoretically, it becomes regressive quickly. But we probably agree on more than we disagree. I actually agree that flat isn't fair and that the current situation isn't fair to b&m stores either. I just don't think the solution is to interfere with interstate commerce. States need to enforce use taxes, or if that turns out to be unenforceable, which I suspect it might, rethink their taxation strategy. By the way, not sure why you were downvoted. I upvoted to correct that. Thanks for the discussion -- it got me thinking about this situation quite a bit.