4 ms·

I'm not concerned about wealth. I'm concerned with consumption. If you have a billion in stock but live a humble life, what's the point in taxing it? You'll li

I'm not concerned about wealth. I'm concerned with consumption. If you have a billion in stock but live a humble life, what's the point in taxing it? You'll live the same way, and sell some stock. But selling stock to pay taxes is not necessarily good, unless whatever the government does with the money is better than whatever the company was going to do. Sure, it could be good, but it's not a slam dunk. The idea of wealth is just very different in the modern world. If wealthy people were hoarding (keeping a bunch of stuff without using it), then taxing would put that stuff back to use. But wealthy people hold onto money-producing assets, which means someone is still using the stuff. Not always, but often. So it means that taxing it just takes it from one use (say, by a corporation) and puts it to another use (maybe a government use). I'd much prefer that we tax consumption. It could be a 1000% tax for a Ferrari. Encourages better use of stuff and can be very progressive without triggering as much anger.

bobbytit 5y ago
Rich and greedy cunts love consumption taxes. They hurt the poor which warms the cockles of their hearts.
- dang 5y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mac01021 5y ago
  Even extremely progressive consumption taxes?
  - bobbytit 5y ago
    Extremely progressive means forcing the poor to bend to your will through punitive taxes. Tobacco, meat, heating and cooling, car and plane travel etc
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      I don't think "progressive" means what you think it means. When applied to taxes, "progressive" means it hurts the rich more than the poor. So, the exact opposite of what you said.
      - beamatronic 5y ago
        Maybe I'm wrong but taxes shouldn't really "hurt" anyone. Ideally everyone pays a burden they can shoulder, and they derive benefits from these payments in some way.
      - bobbytit 5y ago
        It is you who is confused. Consumption taxes are inherently regressive, which is the opposite of progressive.
VictorPath 5y ago
> But wealthy people hold onto money-producing assets, which means someone is still using the stuff. Not always, but often. So it means that taxing it just takes it from one use (say, by a corporation) and puts it to another use (maybe a government use). Industrial capacity utilization has been falling since the 1970s. So the "money-making assets" have been in use less (also the only thing that "makes" new actual wealth is labor). There is a glut of capital sloshing around profitable sectors, as the vast majority of people agree. Underconsumption (over overproduction, different words for the same thing) is generally seen as the economic problem, which higher consumption taxes would worsen. https://monthlyreview.org/2008/12/01/financial-implosion-and-stagnation/ https://monthlyreview.org/2008/12/01/financial-implosion-and...
tablespoon 5y ago
> If you have a billion in stock but live a humble life, what's the point in taxing it? You'll live the same way, and sell some stock. But selling stock to pay taxes is not necessarily good, unless whatever the government does with the money is better than whatever the company was going to do. Sure, it could be good, but it's not a slam dunk. Who makes that decision? In a democracy, the people do, via the government they elect. > The idea of wealth is just very different in the modern world. If wealthy people were hoarding (keeping a bunch of stuff without using it), then taxing would put that stuff back to use. But wealthy people hold onto money-producing assets, which means someone is still using the stuff.... > I'd much prefer that we tax consumption. It could be a 1000% tax for a Ferrari. Encourages better use of stuff and can be very progressive without triggering as much anger. One important thing that's missing from your analysis is power. One important function of inheritance taxes is make wealth-power less hereditary. Also, wealthy people consume less, proportional to their wealth, than poorer people do. It's pretty much impossible for a billionaire to "consume" their fortune, unless they decide to do something useless and absurdly grand, like building a thousand ziggurats or something. Consumption taxes only work to concentrate the tax burden on non-wealthy people.
- anthonygd 5y ago
  > Who makes that decision? In a democracy, the people do, via the government they elect. So, you're proposing people don't form opinions or try to influence opinion? You're just arguing for maintaining the status quo here. > Also, wealthy people consume less, proportional to their wealth, than poorer people do. It's pretty much impossible for a billionaire to "consume" their fortune, unless they decide to do something useless and absurdly grand, like building a thousand ziggurats or something. Consumption taxes only work to concentrate the tax burden on non-wealthy people. In real terms the wealthy consume far more than the poor. That's how Ferrari's exist; that's why consumption taxes make sense to a lot of people. The money the wealthy don't consume (therefore the part that wouldn't be touched by consumption tax) is invested in producing assets and is already being used by society. Consumption taxes produce more money from the rich, and provide incentive for the rich to invest more and consume less. > One important thing that's missing from your analysis is power. Real power only comes from the use of wealth, you can trick some people by the promise of eventually paying but that wears thin very quickly. Influence via media campaign is easily taxable (probably already is?); gifts are already taxed once they get meaningful. Paying public officials for preferential treatment should be treated like the blatant corruption it frequently is. If you want to improve society, that's great. Consumption taxes are a way to help society. Bashing consumption taxes because they don't hurt the rich sounds more like petty bitterness.
thoughtstheseus 5y ago
Yes we should tax consumption over income. That said the distribution of consumption relative to distribution of assets matters imo. We should fix the distribution problem at the top with more equitable stock and income allocations by corporations to labor.

bobbytit 5y ago

Rich and greedy cunts love consumption taxes. They hurt the poor which warms the cockles of their hearts.

dang 5y ago
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
mac01021 5y ago
Even extremely progressive consumption taxes?
- bobbytit 5y ago
  Extremely progressive means forcing the poor to bend to your will through punitive taxes. Tobacco, meat, heating and cooling, car and plane travel etc
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I don't think "progressive" means what you think it means. When applied to taxes, "progressive" means it hurts the rich more than the poor. So, the exact opposite of what you said.
    - beamatronic 5y ago
      Maybe I'm wrong but taxes shouldn't really "hurt" anyone. Ideally everyone pays a burden they can shoulder, and they derive benefits from these payments in some way.
    - bobbytit 5y ago
      It is you who is confused. Consumption taxes are inherently regressive, which is the opposite of progressive.

VictorPath 5y ago

> But wealthy people hold onto money-producing assets, which means someone is still using the stuff. Not always, but often. So it means that taxing it just takes it from one use (say, by a corporation) and puts it to another use (maybe a government use). Industrial capacity utilization has been falling since the 1970s. So the "money-making assets" have been in use less (also the only thing that "makes" new actual wealth is labor). There is a glut of capital sloshing around profitable sectors, as the vast majority of people agree. Underconsumption (over overproduction, different words for the same thing) is generally seen as the economic problem, which higher consumption taxes would worsen. https://monthlyreview.org/2008/12/01/financial-implosion-and-stagnation/ https://monthlyreview.org/2008/12/01/financial-implosion-and...

tablespoon 5y ago

> If you have a billion in stock but live a humble life, what's the point in taxing it? You'll live the same way, and sell some stock. But selling stock to pay taxes is not necessarily good, unless whatever the government does with the money is better than whatever the company was going to do. Sure, it could be good, but it's not a slam dunk. Who makes that decision? In a democracy, the people do, via the government they elect. > The idea of wealth is just very different in the modern world. If wealthy people were hoarding (keeping a bunch of stuff without using it), then taxing would put that stuff back to use. But wealthy people hold onto money-producing assets, which means someone is still using the stuff.... > I'd much prefer that we tax consumption. It could be a 1000% tax for a Ferrari. Encourages better use of stuff and can be very progressive without triggering as much anger. One important thing that's missing from your analysis is power. One important function of inheritance taxes is make wealth-power less hereditary. Also, wealthy people consume less, proportional to their wealth, than poorer people do. It's pretty much impossible for a billionaire to "consume" their fortune, unless they decide to do something useless and absurdly grand, like building a thousand ziggurats or something. Consumption taxes only work to concentrate the tax burden on non-wealthy people.

anthonygd 5y ago
> Who makes that decision? In a democracy, the people do, via the government they elect. So, you're proposing people don't form opinions or try to influence opinion? You're just arguing for maintaining the status quo here. > Also, wealthy people consume less, proportional to their wealth, than poorer people do. It's pretty much impossible for a billionaire to "consume" their fortune, unless they decide to do something useless and absurdly grand, like building a thousand ziggurats or something. Consumption taxes only work to concentrate the tax burden on non-wealthy people. In real terms the wealthy consume far more than the poor. That's how Ferrari's exist; that's why consumption taxes make sense to a lot of people. The money the wealthy don't consume (therefore the part that wouldn't be touched by consumption tax) is invested in producing assets and is already being used by society. Consumption taxes produce more money from the rich, and provide incentive for the rich to invest more and consume less. > One important thing that's missing from your analysis is power. Real power only comes from the use of wealth, you can trick some people by the promise of eventually paying but that wears thin very quickly. Influence via media campaign is easily taxable (probably already is?); gifts are already taxed once they get meaningful. Paying public officials for preferential treatment should be treated like the blatant corruption it frequently is. If you want to improve society, that's great. Consumption taxes are a way to help society. Bashing consumption taxes because they don't hurt the rich sounds more like petty bitterness.

thoughtstheseus 5y ago

Yes we should tax consumption over income. That said the distribution of consumption relative to distribution of assets matters imo. We should fix the distribution problem at the top with more equitable stock and income allocations by corporations to labor.