5 ms·

The solution to the problem he puts forth is actually a simple one: Go entirely to a consumption tax. Then the doctor with all the family to support gets taxed

The solution to the problem he puts forth is actually a simple one: Go entirely to a consumption tax. Then the doctor with all the family to support gets taxed very little despite his income and the rich guy going out to buy a Yacht gets taxed a huge amount. It's as fair as fair could be. The problem with a consumption tax is getting the Government to agree to a system that doesn't guarantee them a certain income and getting the people to accept huge price spikes (which are emotionally jarring even if your income tax has been eliminated).

zdw 16y ago
Then yacht guy buys and registers said yacht in the barbados, avoiding the tax entirely... Similarly, very few people pay attention to the "use tax" where that's in effect, and buy small, high price items like computers online where tax < shipping.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  Yacht guy can just as easily set up his legal residence in Barbados while actually living in the U.S. and get the same benefits (and many do).
  - neworbit 16y ago
    As I recall he has to spend at least half his time outside the US in that instance (or is taxed as if he were natively resident). I am not a tax lawyer, YMMV
ceejayoz 16y ago
> It's as fair as fair could be. The poorer you are, the larger the proportion of your income that gets used for consumption. Folks making minimum wage currently pay little or no taxes, so they'd see a significant tax increase with consumption-based taxation - an increase they can't afford.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Folks making minimum wage currently pay little or no taxes, so they'd see a significant tax increase with consumption-based taxation - an increase they can't afford." Maybe they would see what it's like to be taxed..and not vote to get everyone else gouged while their income isn't affected.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    > Maybe they would see what it's like to be taxed..and not vote to get everyone else gouged while their income isn't affected. Should people from well-off families be made to see what it's like to live off a minimum wage income so they can not vote to make life harder for the poor? If no, why one direction and not the other?
    - rick888 16y ago
      "Should people from well-off families be made to see what it's like to live off a minimum wage income so they can not vote to make life harder for the poor?" seeing as how the the poor vastly out-number the rich, no. I also don't see how the rich are making it difficult for the poor. They pay more than their fair share of taxes (which in turn pays for many social programs that they don't even use). They also aren't lobbying to take anything away from the poor, except less of their own money.
      - ceejayoz 16y ago
        > They pay more than their fair share of taxes... Warren Buffet disagrees. > They also aren't lobbying to take anything away from the poor, except less of their own money. So no one's lobbying for benefits cuts to the poor? Are you posting from an alternate universe?
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Giving the poor less free stuff != taking stuff away from them.
jbooth 16y ago
Protip: Once you use "Government" with a capital-G and a whole bunch of implied baggage, it's clear you're arguing backwards from a conclusion. Also, consumption taxes would disproportionately kill the poor since they tend to spend 100% of their income if not more.
- meric 16y ago
  No it doesn't. It's called a progressive consumption tax. The first $10,000 you consume is tax free, the next $10,000 is taxed at 10%, and the next $10,000 at 15%, and so on.

zdw 16y ago

Then yacht guy buys and registers said yacht in the barbados, avoiding the tax entirely... Similarly, very few people pay attention to the "use tax" where that's in effect, and buy small, high price items like computers online where tax < shipping.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
Yacht guy can just as easily set up his legal residence in Barbados while actually living in the U.S. and get the same benefits (and many do).
- neworbit 16y ago
  As I recall he has to spend at least half his time outside the US in that instance (or is taxed as if he were natively resident). I am not a tax lawyer, YMMV

ceejayoz 16y ago

> It's as fair as fair could be. The poorer you are, the larger the proportion of your income that gets used for consumption. Folks making minimum wage currently pay little or no taxes, so they'd see a significant tax increase with consumption-based taxation - an increase they can't afford.

rick888 16y ago
"Folks making minimum wage currently pay little or no taxes, so they'd see a significant tax increase with consumption-based taxation - an increase they can't afford." Maybe they would see what it's like to be taxed..and not vote to get everyone else gouged while their income isn't affected.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  > Maybe they would see what it's like to be taxed..and not vote to get everyone else gouged while their income isn't affected. Should people from well-off families be made to see what it's like to live off a minimum wage income so they can not vote to make life harder for the poor? If no, why one direction and not the other?
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Should people from well-off families be made to see what it's like to live off a minimum wage income so they can not vote to make life harder for the poor?" seeing as how the the poor vastly out-number the rich, no. I also don't see how the rich are making it difficult for the poor. They pay more than their fair share of taxes (which in turn pays for many social programs that they don't even use). They also aren't lobbying to take anything away from the poor, except less of their own money.
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      > They pay more than their fair share of taxes... Warren Buffet disagrees. > They also aren't lobbying to take anything away from the poor, except less of their own money. So no one's lobbying for benefits cuts to the poor? Are you posting from an alternate universe?
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Giving the poor less free stuff != taking stuff away from them.

jbooth 16y ago

Protip: Once you use "Government" with a capital-G and a whole bunch of implied baggage, it's clear you're arguing backwards from a conclusion. Also, consumption taxes would disproportionately kill the poor since they tend to spend 100% of their income if not more.

meric 16y ago
No it doesn't. It's called a progressive consumption tax. The first $10,000 you consume is tax free, the next $10,000 is taxed at 10%, and the next $10,000 at 15%, and so on.