4 ms·
That sounds pretty regressive. A massive tax burdon on a low income family so that high earners don't have to file income taxes.
by adwww 5y ago
That sounds pretty regressive. A massive tax burdon on a low income family so that high earners don't have to file income taxes.
- noduerme 5y agoWell, really it's progressive if it only taxes stuff you don't need to buy. Here's what I think: Fuel and food, no tax. School supplies, shoes, clothing, any item under $100, no tax. Over $100, ramp it up. Diamond rings, 100% tax. Alcohol and cigarettes, 20-30%. Used cars, no tax. New cars, 10% up to 100%. Credits if they're electric or extremely fuel-efficient. Playstations, high end sneakers, Smart TVs, iPhones, rims, jewelry, expensive furnishings, rugs, anything better than your basic washer/drier: 100% tax. Books: Free and subsidized by the government, as many as you want, any book ever written. Healthcare: Free. College: Free. Basically under my plan, as long as you get stuff you need for your family, you pay no tax. If you get stuff you want for your pleasure, you pay tax on it. How's that regressive? The only real downside I see is the potential for a massive black market in luxury goods, tobacco and alcohol. But legalizing and taxing pot and prostitution should take some of the sting out of that.
- adwww 5y agoSo low earners are allowed to eat basic food, but pay astronomical taxes for any luxuries in their life. Which you and I could easily afford.
- gambiting 5y agoHow is that any different right now? Low earners drive some shit cars, while you and me can (probably) afford a brand new Audi. How is that fair? /s >>Which you and I could easily afford. That's the key part here. You tax those who can afford it the most.
- aj7 5y agoAn Audi? Heh heh.
- noduerme 5y agoWell, that's a very glass-half-empty way of looking at it. I'm saying that high earners have to help subsidize lower earners the more luxuries they accrue in their life. It's not the earning after all that makes the difference between rich and poor; that's why the wealthiest people in America pay no income tax. They're not earning anything, officially. But boy do they spend. So maybe, I don't know, if you're really concerned about people getting that one luxury in life then there could be an exemption, like if you make under $50k a year you get refunded the VAT on $2k of luxury purchases. Ok? But it has to be small enough to prevent the ultra-wealthy from using it as a loophole.
- cstoner 5y agoI think you drastically over-estimate what percentage of income the rich spend on luxury goods. People don't stay rich by buying things. I consider myself pretty high income. If I was just taxed on consumption, I would bet I'd pay probably half as much tax as I do now.
- aj7 5y agoYep. Luxury goods are at least half aspirational. Until the shortages, always super buys on BMW’s with 15k in the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area.