5 ms·

What about the consumption taxes we have on the books? Gas tax? Hugely regressive. Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? Value-added tax? Wouldn't

What about the consumption taxes we have on the books? Gas tax? Hugely regressive. Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? Value-added tax? Wouldn't those continue to "destroy the middle class"? What about the tax of inflation that serves to redistribute wealth from savers to debtors? (middle class -> government) Also interesting how you know better than others how they should arrange their financial lives. Would like to hear your thoughts on the "productive ways" the "oligarchs" could better deploy their capital.

marknutter 10y ago
Or cigarettes? Or lottery tickets? Or the AMA penalty?
skybrian 10y ago
It depends. If the proceeds from the carbon tax get paid out equally to all citizens (similar to basic income) then it's not regressive.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> What about the consumption taxes we have on the books? The broader they are, the more likely liberals are to oppose them, and oppose expanding them. Replacing the progressive income tax system with something regressive isn't something that's going to get support on the left. > Gas tax? Hugely regressive. But very narrow. > Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? Many liberals support the concept of carbon taxes as a behavior control mechanism, but not as the main way of funding government, and many raise concerns about the regressive impact. But, with them, the goal is to limit the thing being taxed and fund efforts to improve our ability to avoid it, not be the primary funding method for government. > Value-added tax? Virtually all the support I've seen on this in the US is on the right (often competing against flat tax proposals.) > What about the tax of inflation that serves to redistribute wealth from savers to debtors? (middle class -> government) While the classical middle class (e.g., Marx's petit bourgeoisie) are net holders of assets, the "middle class" as the term is used in modern discussions in the US (which is largely the middle income segment of wage laborers) aren't really net savers.
- nightski 10y ago
  Having studied the fair tax in a fair bit of depth I can say that it probably would not penalize net spenders. In fact, they would probably be better off. Not only would you have more money to spend, but goods and services would likely cost less. There are numerous reasons for this given in easily accessible sources on the fair tax proposal.
prostoalex 10y ago
If you followed recent headlines, tax on sugary drinks has been a subject in Democratic primaries. Even though high-fructose corn syrup has been linked to obesity, diabetes and myriad of other problems related to that, some members of liberal community oppose a consumption tax on sugary drinks on the basis that it hits lower-income families disproportionally http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0430/Bernie-s-case-against-soda-taxes http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0430/Bernie-s... Apparently obesity and diabetes hit lower-income families disproportionally as well http://www.livescience.com/37923-type-2-diabetes-low-income-inflammation.html http://www.livescience.com/37923-type-2-diabetes-low-income-... (who would have thunk), but we can always create a government program to conduct more research on causes.
- hfsktr 10y ago
  Why is the new tax needed? What are we trying to fund that other taxes don't already cover? Don't we (the government) subsidize HFCS? Wouldn't not doing that raise the prices and not require a tax then? I will oppose a 'sugar' tax because I don't think the government should be deciding what foods I consume, especially when I think taxes should be for raising money. I am aware it's not the full picture and I haven't explained it well but I hope I got a little bit of my view across.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Maybe we should stop subsidizing unhealthy sugar (because it is in -everything- cheep as a result).
    - hfsktr 10y ago
      I agree with this. Then there would be no need for a new tax right?
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    From the tax simplification point of view you're right. But removing the subsidy would still raise the prices on soft drinks, and affect lower income households disproportionally, so it's a regressive measure as well.
ori_b 10y ago
> Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? With the goal of eliminating carbon use (and through this, eliminating the carbon tax), yes. The key understanding is that destroying the environment is a significantly worse problem than a regressive tax. And destroying the environment also has a highly regressive impact; The impact on livability is not uniform, and people that can afford to relocate will have a much better time of it.

marknutter 10y ago

Or cigarettes? Or lottery tickets? Or the AMA penalty?

skybrian 10y ago

It depends. If the proceeds from the carbon tax get paid out equally to all citizens (similar to basic income) then it's not regressive.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> What about the consumption taxes we have on the books? The broader they are, the more likely liberals are to oppose them, and oppose expanding them. Replacing the progressive income tax system with something regressive isn't something that's going to get support on the left. > Gas tax? Hugely regressive. But very narrow. > Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? Many liberals support the concept of carbon taxes as a behavior control mechanism, but not as the main way of funding government, and many raise concerns about the regressive impact. But, with them, the goal is to limit the thing being taxed and fund efforts to improve our ability to avoid it, not be the primary funding method for government. > Value-added tax? Virtually all the support I've seen on this in the US is on the right (often competing against flat tax proposals.) > What about the tax of inflation that serves to redistribute wealth from savers to debtors? (middle class -> government) While the classical middle class (e.g., Marx's petit bourgeoisie) are net holders of assets, the "middle class" as the term is used in modern discussions in the US (which is largely the middle income segment of wage laborers) aren't really net savers.

nightski 10y ago
Having studied the fair tax in a fair bit of depth I can say that it probably would not penalize net spenders. In fact, they would probably be better off. Not only would you have more money to spend, but goods and services would likely cost less. There are numerous reasons for this given in easily accessible sources on the fair tax proposal.

prostoalex 10y ago

If you followed recent headlines, tax on sugary drinks has been a subject in Democratic primaries. Even though high-fructose corn syrup has been linked to obesity, diabetes and myriad of other problems related to that, some members of liberal community oppose a consumption tax on sugary drinks on the basis that it hits lower-income families disproportionally http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0430/Bernie-s-case-against-soda-taxes http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0430/Bernie-s... Apparently obesity and diabetes hit lower-income families disproportionally as well http://www.livescience.com/37923-type-2-diabetes-low-income-inflammation.html http://www.livescience.com/37923-type-2-diabetes-low-income-... (who would have thunk), but we can always create a government program to conduct more research on causes.

hfsktr 10y ago
Why is the new tax needed? What are we trying to fund that other taxes don't already cover? Don't we (the government) subsidize HFCS? Wouldn't not doing that raise the prices and not require a tax then? I will oppose a 'sugar' tax because I don't think the government should be deciding what foods I consume, especially when I think taxes should be for raising money. I am aware it's not the full picture and I haven't explained it well but I hope I got a little bit of my view across.
- mjevans 10y ago
  Maybe we should stop subsidizing unhealthy sugar (because it is in -everything- cheep as a result).
  - hfsktr 10y ago
    I agree with this. Then there would be no need for a new tax right?
- prostoalex 10y ago
  From the tax simplification point of view you're right. But removing the subsidy would still raise the prices on soft drinks, and affect lower income households disproportionally, so it's a regressive measure as well.

ori_b 10y ago

> Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? With the goal of eliminating carbon use (and through this, eliminating the carbon tax), yes. The key understanding is that destroying the environment is a significantly worse problem than a regressive tax. And destroying the environment also has a highly regressive impact; The impact on livability is not uniform, and people that can afford to relocate will have a much better time of it.