> 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 op

> 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.