4 ms·

I like these, but I think consumption tax is way too complicated to collect fairly. The simplest tax is literally no tax at all, just prudent spending on bond i

• notahacker 6y ago
  "Wasted" is doing a lot of work in that last sentence. Unfunded spending on primary education and healthcare is going to generate more current period monetary inflation than near term output, never mind transfer payments to the unemployed, but it's a helluva stretch to argue that this makes those areas of spending a waste of money
  • jl2718 6y ago
    There is almost certainly a basic level of prudent healthcare spending which is current-period deflationary simply because healthy people are more productive (q.e.d. 2020), although the moral triage may not be palatable. Basic education is also deflationary because any expectation of increased productivity encourages current investment. The only caveat is if public spending on education reduces private saving for education, which would add inflationary pressure in the current period. I would also posit that the specific case of primary or trade education spending on the lower economic tier is immediately deflationary for many other reasons. Maybe unemployment insurance or even basic income is also deflationary, or maybe it’s not, but if it isn’t, then maybe it’s not such a great idea. I don’t think this rubric rules out any category of spending, but it certainly does limit spending to the point of negative returns. I would hope also that this methodology may de-politicize government spending by achieving a baseline result that is hard to argue against: zero taxes, high productivity, and no inflation. Any cuts would be foolish, and any additional tax or spending is forced charity. Re: “helluva stretch to argue...” I see this pattern a lot in politics. Merely stating that something is hard to argue against, is not at all a convincing argument for that thing. It is simply an intimidation tactic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the contrapositive. All contrapositives are hard to argue for, even if the positive is hard to argue for. For instance, prove to me why it is a bad idea to invade France. I have absolutely no reason at all to invade France, and now I’ve given you the chance to fail at your argument and thereby start a ridiculous war. The “hard to argue” pattern is even more convincing because it’s objectively true despite having no rational power to convince on its own. It’s hard to argue that we will never have to invade France. It’s much harder to argue that we will ever have to invade France, but somehow the former statement is interpreted as support for the latter.
• asimpletune 6y ago
  Everyone in the country gets x dollars per month/year/whatever to use on whatever they like. Now a consumption tax is easy and indiscriminate. Everything is taxed at Y% at the cash register. I think I read somewhere like a 23% tax would be sufficient to offset all income/corporate taxes.
  • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    23% is is probably going to ignite a significant black market.
    • laughingbovine 6y ago
      I think a tax system this simple would be similarly simple to audit. Or maybe you would calculate your consumption tax at the end of the year, and then it wouldn't matter who you buy from.
      • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        I was thinking "black market", not "hard to administer". For that much money, there are plenty of people who are going to be willing to do off-the-books transactions. And no, it won't be simple to audit. Can you prove that all the food you ate last year came from the grocery store? That you didn't buy any from your neighbor's cousin, who works at a wholesale warehouse?
  • jl2718 6y ago
    What is consumption? Food? Sure. House? Car? Art? Insurance? Medical? It’s not easy. Neither is income.