3 ms·
I don't think that is a given. If you put the consumption tax only on luxury goods it could be progressive. I doubt the poor are buying Rolex watches and if t
by pmorici 8y ago
I don't think that is a given. If you put the consumption tax only on luxury goods it could be progressive. I doubt the poor are buying Rolex watches and if they are taxes aren't the problem.
- goliatone 8y agoI lived in different countries where they had both taxes. I think what also makes a difference is how that tax money is spent. Also, what gets taxed as a luxury item can be interesting. Things I did not expect to be taxed as luxurious items like books or tampons
- solatic 8y agoThe poor may not be buying Rolex watches, but you can be sure that there are a lot of kids out there lusting after $400 basketball shoes. And you might be surprised at what counts as a luxury sometimes - liquor, steak, and other goods that even poor people can sometimes afford. If you start taxing luxury goods, all you do is put creature comforts further out of the reach of the majority. That is regressive.