3 ms·

People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford to pay more for a lot of things. But if you tried to charge one person more for an identical candy bar or te

People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford to pay more for a lot of things. But if you tried to charge one person more for an identical candy bar or television or movie ticket just because they make more money, everyone would instantly see this as unjust. Why should government services be any different? I'd be a lot more content with differential tax rates if the money I'm saving to start my next business - and create jobs for Americans - was exempt. Every dollar I give the government is a dollar they're going to spent a whole lot less efficiently than I will.

SamAtt 17y ago
Your example is bad because people making over $250,000 generally don't use most Government services. A better example would be if the person came in to buy a TV and you forced him to buy a TV, DVR and surround sound system for the guy standing behind him in line.
- rbranson 17y ago
  This assumes that the only way in which you benefit from Government services is by directly using rarely-used entitlement programs (welfare, etc). The rich certainly benefit from an educated workforce that the government bankrolls, roads to drive their cars on, police & fire protection (which is often significantly better in more affluent areas), homeland security, etc.
idoh 17y ago
That's called a consumption tax, which has a lot of intellectual advantages over the current regime. Income = Consumption + Savings. Right now we tax income, but it's possible to tax consumption instead. That would encourage more saving and less consumption, which is probably a good thing for the country (but probably won't happen any time soon because in the short run businesses wouldn't stand for it).
- Poiesis 17y ago
  Would more saving and less consumption be good for the country? I'm not saying it's a bad idea for individuals--it's what we do personally--but it seems like the economy as a whole would stagnate based on my completely unqualified armchair economist opinion.
  - rbranson 17y ago
    You are correct. Consumption taxes are, in effect, tariffs on commerce. Theoretically, you should try to push these down as much as possible, so that money flows between economic actors with as little burden as possible. A "solution" to the economic burden of income taxes that increases the overhead cost of transactions and encourages hoarding of money is not a solution at all.
  - idoh 17y ago
    There would be stagnation if the economy is a closed system. But in a world with multiple economies, the ones that channel income into accumulating more income-producing assets will grow their income faster than the ones that don't.

SamAtt 17y ago

Your example is bad because people making over $250,000 generally don't use most Government services. A better example would be if the person came in to buy a TV and you forced him to buy a TV, DVR and surround sound system for the guy standing behind him in line.

rbranson 17y ago
This assumes that the only way in which you benefit from Government services is by directly using rarely-used entitlement programs (welfare, etc). The rich certainly benefit from an educated workforce that the government bankrolls, roads to drive their cars on, police & fire protection (which is often significantly better in more affluent areas), homeland security, etc.

idoh 17y ago

That's called a consumption tax, which has a lot of intellectual advantages over the current regime. Income = Consumption + Savings. Right now we tax income, but it's possible to tax consumption instead. That would encourage more saving and less consumption, which is probably a good thing for the country (but probably won't happen any time soon because in the short run businesses wouldn't stand for it).

Poiesis 17y ago
Would more saving and less consumption be good for the country? I'm not saying it's a bad idea for individuals--it's what we do personally--but it seems like the economy as a whole would stagnate based on my completely unqualified armchair economist opinion.
- rbranson 17y ago
  You are correct. Consumption taxes are, in effect, tariffs on commerce. Theoretically, you should try to push these down as much as possible, so that money flows between economic actors with as little burden as possible. A "solution" to the economic burden of income taxes that increases the overhead cost of transactions and encourages hoarding of money is not a solution at all.
- idoh 17y ago
  There would be stagnation if the economy is a closed system. But in a world with multiple economies, the ones that channel income into accumulating more income-producing assets will grow their income faster than the ones that don't.