I think what people miss about consumption taxes - beyond its' regressive nature - is that everything in the end is a form of consumption. The distinction betwe

I think what people miss about consumption taxes - beyond its' regressive nature - is that everything in the end is a form of consumption. The distinction between capital, labor, and consumption is false - it only has meaning once you account for expected outcome. Capital = purchases expected to generate a profit. Labor = purchases expected to generate work. It need not generate a profit necessarily - e.g. paying someone to mow your lawn. Consumption = purchases expected to generate pleasure, or avoid pain. I'm sure the basis of these distinctions rest on some idea of social utility - that trying to turn a profit has more social utility than eating a Twinkie. Maybe we should examine that assumption also. And consider how these notions entangle themselves in practice. A company car intended for non-personal use is considered an asset to the company, and treated as capital. But a similar car used for commuting is considered a consumption item.