3 ms·
> meaning it hits rich people more, and it hits them when they spend not when they earn. The parent of your comment made a pretty good case precisely against t
by bigbadfeline 10mo ago
> meaning it hits rich people more, and it hits them when they spend not when they earn.
The parent of your comment made a pretty good case precisely against this. And it didn't talk about all spending, only about luxury one as exemplified by the following, rather misleading, quote from the OP:
>> Any tax reform that fails to reduce luxury consumption by the rich will completely fail to reduce economic inequality.
This is wrong and pointing it out is good.
- zozbot234 10mo agoIt's not a good argument at all. "Earning" is a socially productive activity, far more so than directing resources towards the making of a huge luxury yacht for private consumption (or similar kinds of luxury spending). There really isn't any good argument for taxing earnings or saved/invested assets per se, as opposed to consumption.