3 ms·
From the comments on the site: >>>A poor person, will spend all his income on consumption of food, clothes, water and all the basic things that he can pay. >>>
by ajcarpy2005 12y ago
From the comments on the site:
>>>A poor person, will spend all his income on consumption of food, clothes, water and all the basic things that he can pay.
>>>A rich person, will only spend a small fraction of it's income, so in the end, proportionally, poor people end paying more taxes then rich people, and that's actually something that's hurting poor people here.
^^^This seems to actually be a sensible argument for there being a problem with a simple flat consumption tax.
A solution might be to have a progressive tax on consumption which becomes more meaningful when levels of spending on consumption reaches a level beyond that of the lower 33% of the populace or something like this. The problem would be figuring out how to apply this tax since it couldn't be done through the sales tax as it currently exists.
- humanrebar 12y agoNo, the solution is to separate the concerns, keep flat taxes (because they are more transparent and therefore more fair) and introduce direct subsidies to the working class (again, transparent and fair... I favor a guaranteed income or an earned income tax credit) so average citizens can buy necessities and even get ahead. It's a fair point that a flat tax, in a vacuum, is harder on the poor, but we're not in a vacuum.
- ajcarpy2005 12y agoYeah I agree with you completely that a guaranteed income would probably be the best way to take society to the next level in terms of economic stability and as a way to care for the best resource we have which is human capital. There are plenty of dynamics which would still be at play that would be capable of incentivizing the appropriate people to work in response to needed labor. (eg. landlord responsibilities to apartment tenants)