3 ms·

A consumption tax doesn't need to be regressive. There are already exemptions in state sales taxes for some "necessities" (i.e. food, internet, electricity). If

A consumption tax doesn't need to be regressive. There are already exemptions in state sales taxes for some "necessities" (i.e. food, internet, electricity). If the basket of exemptions is large enough, then the poor would pay basically no sales tax.

gnaritas 13y ago
That doesn't make it not regressive, it simply makes it easier on the bottom few. A consumption tax by its very nature is regressive, you pay taxes only on what you spend and rich people by definition spend far less than they earn while non rich people spend far more of their earnings. A consumption tax is a huge massive tax cut for the people who need it least, the rich, no thanks.
- samolang 13y ago
  If poor people are paying no sales tax and rich people are paying some sales tax, then the tax can be classified as regressive. The more money you make, the more you spend on non-necessities, the higher your tax rate will be.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > The more money you make, the more you spend on non-necessities, the higher your tax rate will be. Wrong measure; the correct question is on what percentage of your income will you pay taxes and by definition being rich means you're spending far less than you make so your taxes go down, massively. That they go up a tiny little bit when you spend some money on non-necessities is meaningless compared to tax free money you're now allowed to save which being rich means most of your money.
    - samolang 13y ago
      My definition of rich is being able to afford more than is needed. Poor people pay no tax, rich people pay some.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        That's a cop out and addressed nothing I said.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  " rich people by definition spend far less than they earn" This is not necessarily true, and it's certainly not "by definition".
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    It's absolutely true, you aren't rich if you spend more than you make, unless of course you're getting pedantic about "earn" but I include wealth and holdings in earnings as well. I didn't mean "earn" in the wage sense, just in the amount of money you make/inherit/whatever regardless of how.
    - sejje 13y ago
      You can be rich if you spend as much as you make. The idea that you have no money in the bank doesn't mean you're not wealthy. Maybe you spend it all on antique Ferraris.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        That's not spending, that's investing, you still have the wealth; you can resell those antique Ferraris. Money is not wealth, it's a medium of exchange, assets are wealth and converting money into assets isn't spending, it's wise money management.

gnaritas 13y ago

That doesn't make it not regressive, it simply makes it easier on the bottom few. A consumption tax by its very nature is regressive, you pay taxes only on what you spend and rich people by definition spend far less than they earn while non rich people spend far more of their earnings. A consumption tax is a huge massive tax cut for the people who need it least, the rich, no thanks.

samolang 13y ago
If poor people are paying no sales tax and rich people are paying some sales tax, then the tax can be classified as regressive. The more money you make, the more you spend on non-necessities, the higher your tax rate will be.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > The more money you make, the more you spend on non-necessities, the higher your tax rate will be. Wrong measure; the correct question is on what percentage of your income will you pay taxes and by definition being rich means you're spending far less than you make so your taxes go down, massively. That they go up a tiny little bit when you spend some money on non-necessities is meaningless compared to tax free money you're now allowed to save which being rich means most of your money.
  - samolang 13y ago
    My definition of rich is being able to afford more than is needed. Poor people pay no tax, rich people pay some.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      That's a cop out and addressed nothing I said.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
waterlesscloud 13y ago
" rich people by definition spend far less than they earn" This is not necessarily true, and it's certainly not "by definition".
- gnaritas 13y ago
  It's absolutely true, you aren't rich if you spend more than you make, unless of course you're getting pedantic about "earn" but I include wealth and holdings in earnings as well. I didn't mean "earn" in the wage sense, just in the amount of money you make/inherit/whatever regardless of how.
  - sejje 13y ago
    You can be rich if you spend as much as you make. The idea that you have no money in the bank doesn't mean you're not wealthy. Maybe you spend it all on antique Ferraris.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      That's not spending, that's investing, you still have the wealth; you can resell those antique Ferraris. Money is not wealth, it's a medium of exchange, assets are wealth and converting money into assets isn't spending, it's wise money management.