Would you accept a tax hike if it meant higher taxes on the rich?

My take is that people should be taxed on their consumption. Everyone could be allowed to spend on a basic living standard tax free.

 

Well, in the time that passed since I last posted that here, the Democrat's partisan spending bill has failed to pass. So, Biden's spending pplan has come to naught. Now the little people don't have to pay for it.

 

How about a consumption tax of, say, 20% with a basic floor of consumption to $30,000. Send people a credit of $500/month to cover the tax.

 

Wealth is assets. Tax them away and they get smaller each time, every year.

 

There is a way to recapture the value. Are you opposed to doing that?

 

"Little people" typically get more in government services than they pay in taxes. This time would have been no exception.

 

Perhaps we should define the little people? Who are you thinking about, the working class (formerly called the lower class)? Because for me I'm thinking of the middle class.

 

Is there any guarantee that the "rich" would pay them;???

 

Of course not: I am in favor of liberty and justice, and have been advocating location subsidy repayment for decades.

 

Unless they are used productively enough to pay the tax. So the tax has the effect of moving assets into the most productive hands. That is kinda the idea.

 

That is anti-economic nonsense because the ultimate purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption. Also, because of the economic phenomenon of burden shifting, a tax on consumption also burdens production. Google "tax incidence" and start reading.

Why should anyone be taxed for consuming more than the minimum? How does such consumption deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have? How does it impose a cost on the community? How does government spending benefit someone who consumes more than the minimum? You need to stop typing and start thinking.

 

No, that is ridiculous anti-economic nonsense with no basis in fact, logic, economics or morality. The two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of correct taxation policy are "ability to pay" and "beneficiary pay," both of which are identified as such in every economics textbook that discusses taxation. A consumption tax directly contradicts both.

 

But first they have to pay landowners full market value for permission to access them. So no one benefits from the spending except landowners. Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading.

 

I comprehensively and conclusively demolished your "arguments" against just and economically efficient taxation, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

 

I don't think you did that, but please understand that I don't care enough to take the discussion further.

 

Good. Things are getting out of hand. One house I own has tripled in value in the last five years.

 

My entire life I have only lost money from investments.
You'll forgive me if I can't see how that is possible.

 

I'm an economist.

Who are you kidding? Anyway, my proposal (leaving the exact numbers aside—it was an illustration) would leave low-income people paying little or no tax while allowing capital accumulation.

We have to do something about this...



... before it destroys the middle class and support for the capitalist system.

 

I see--better to tax investment rather than consumption.

Something will get taxed. Better to encourage investment than consumption.

You come off as oblivious to the impact of consumption on the environment.

If you were just half as smart as you think you are...

 

Your answer is more consumption, less investment. Not all that bright, IMO.

 

Me, too—the shrinking middle.

 

So, the middle class has to pay property tax, sales tax, and income tax. Not to mention investment taxes on their future retirement savings. Every tax seems to apply to the middle class. So, how is it that they gain more than they get taxed?

 

You mean the land has quadrupled or quintupled. Microscopic interest rates will do that, like Japan in the 80s. Not going to end well.

 

I care because it's the most important issue not only now but in all of human history, dwarfing anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

 

Other people are better at it than you. That is also kinda the point. Think about it. Some people rent land to farm. They do it because they can make money at it. They invest in the rent, seed, equipment, fuel, fertilizer, etc., and at the end of the year they have a profit because they're the most productive prospective users of that land.