-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Consumption tax
- Thread starter irmerk
- Start date
Well, apparently it is the whole point. It gets rid of needless agencies such as the IRS and also gets rid of money laundering or offshore bank accounts or whatever, because people have to buy stuff, so put the tax there.
Everyone I mention this to, which have yet to hear of the idea, seems to think it will kill consumption. I really do not see how it would... People would have more money at any given time because of the removal of income tax (100,000 per year would be 100,000, not ~70,000), so why would anything change in spending for the worse?
Everyone I mention this to, which have yet to hear of the idea, seems to think it will kill consumption. I really do not see how it would... People would have more money at any given time because of the removal of income tax (100,000 per year would be 100,000, not ~70,000), so why would anything change in spending for the worse?
What I'm really afraid of in a consumption tax system is the rise in food prices for low income families. Even low income families spend up to 800 dollars a month in food.
However, the truth is, its really not going to do that much to spending on durable goods like cars and furniture, since many people think of costs in proportions rather than absolute dollar amounts.
Paying 1,000 dollar in taxes for a 25,000 purchase really does not raise any eyebrows for people that buy on the spot. This is how car salesmen make their commissions: by making people buy an addition that is way higher in price than on other places.
Making people pay 5$ more on a video game is not going to raise any eyebrows either.
If people are really willing to buy it they will.
I think we should hybridized the system first: balanced income taxes and consumption taxes. Then we will see what is better and move along to it.
However, the truth is, its really not going to do that much to spending on durable goods like cars and furniture, since many people think of costs in proportions rather than absolute dollar amounts.
Paying 1,000 dollar in taxes for a 25,000 purchase really does not raise any eyebrows for people that buy on the spot. This is how car salesmen make their commissions: by making people buy an addition that is way higher in price than on other places.
Making people pay 5$ more on a video game is not going to raise any eyebrows either.
If people are really willing to buy it they will.
I think we should hybridized the system first: balanced income taxes and consumption taxes. Then we will see what is better and move along to it.
Otokogoroshi
New Member
I'm not sure if this is a more wide spread idea or concept but...
I'm all for taxing non necessities. Liquor, candy, soda... those kinds of things. We already do it for cigarettes. No on needs these things (unless they're addicted then they really don't need them!) so I think its fine. The amazing thing is how offended people are by the idea of spending more on soda... sheesh.
While posting this I'm working my way through my second fuzzy navel
I'm all for taxing non necessities. Liquor, candy, soda... those kinds of things. We already do it for cigarettes. No on needs these things (unless they're addicted then they really don't need them!) so I think its fine. The amazing thing is how offended people are by the idea of spending more on soda... sheesh.
While posting this I'm working my way through my second fuzzy navel
I actually really like the idea of a flat tax, the more you buy the more you pay in tax seems very fair to me. It would be good if it could be taken off essentials like fruit, vegetables, electricity, etc. There was some debate about whether to take the tax off fruit & veg here recently, unfortunately it didn't come to anything.