3 ms·

The argument against is essentially that sales taxes are regressive because wealthier people spend less of their wealth and thus pure sales tax is not a fair wa

• jug6ernaut 14y ago
  That argument is completely subjective though. Unless you mean spend less to... essentials? I mean where does that even come from? "wealthier people spend less of their wealth"? Is this a statistical fact?(im seriously asking lol). I am by NO means wealthy lol, but if i had more money i know i would definitely be spending it lol.
  • qdog 14y ago
    People with lower incomes have a lower savings rate because they have to buy essentials, yes. Wealthy people would then end up paying a much smaller percentage of their income compared to everyone else. People who come into wealth quickly seem to spend money quickly (athletes and lotto winners come to mind, hell even Willie Nelson went bankrupt at one point). People who earn wealth more slowly tend to end up investing their money and saving a larger percentage. If you make 300k/year, you could save 25% without blinking an eye, not so much if you earn 30k/year, especially if you have a dependent.
• danielweber 14y ago
  Those progressive European democracies all have VATs. Of the top 20 economies in the world, the US is the only one without a VAT. This doesn't mean it's a good idea, or a bad idea, but very progressive places have used them without the world ending. It's probably a good way to keep spending in check, because it makes it a lot harder to jack up someone else's taxes to pay for your stuff. (And while they do tax their rich more than America taxes its rich, the shape of the slope is nowhere what you would imagine. It's very rare for any marginal rate to get over 50%.)