Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Consumption is a regressive tax - like a flat (dollar-amount-per-person) tax.



We need to track all purchases and implement marginal sales taxes.

Given the reduced frequency of cash transactions, it might be feasible.


A regressive tax like that would raise taxes on the working class, lower it for the wealthy.


How are marginal sales taxes regressive? Only the wealthy can spend more, so only the wealthy would get taxed more.


That's neolib hoo-ha. Most of society is pay gated, where increasing costs are required in order to maintain your current standard of living or day to day operations.

We're living that right now with inflation and supply chain scarcity. The wealthy have what they need and can afford to wait or shop around. The immediacy of need for a one car household to replace their only vehicle puts them at the whims of a highly fluctuating car market. A wealthy household can afford regular maintenance, more reliable cars, or just to Uber around every day.

At scale, we can't buy the computer components we need at a price that isn't a huge markup of what we paid three years ago, which either gets passed on to customers or means we have to limit our service offerings. Instead, we're suspending some operations and waiting it out while we rework some designs. We're about as big and wealthy as orgs get and can survive it.


> Most of society is pay gated, where increasing costs are required in order to maintain your current standard of living or day to day operations.

The cash benefits tax rates can also be increased.

As a rough outline:

UBI to ensure minimum quality of life

Marginal sales tax to tax luxury purchases more than necessity purchases

Estate tax to prevent too wide of wealth gap.

The goal would be to incentivize income and disincentivize profligate spending. If one does not want to be at the whims of a highly fluctuating car market, then they have to plan accordingly. But in the worst case, the UBI will be the safety net, and whether or not that means they can afford a car is up to society.

> At scale, we can't buy the computer components we need at a price that isn't a huge markup of what we paid three years ago, which either gets passed on to customers or means we have to limit our service offerings. Instead, we're suspending some operations and waiting it out while we rework some designs. We're about as big and wealthy as orgs get and can survive it.

I am not sure how this relates, but I think this is getting more into anti trust rather than personal taxes. Either way, I think society should reward businesses (or individuals) that invest in robustness/redundancies/resiliencies.


Suppose a poor person makes $20k a year, all of this immediately spent on necessities and taxed, say at 5%. So their net tax rate is 5%.

Now imagine a rich person making $200k, spending $100k taxed at 10% because of marginal increases, and saving the rest. The rich person also pays a net tax rate of 5%.


So you increase the tax rate for higher spending amounts, and/or lower the tax rate for lower spending amounts.


Because poor people need to spend a larger portion of their money just to live.



The poorer you are the higher a percentage of your money you typically spend.


The margin is not based on the percentage of your income/wealth that you spend, it is based on the amount you spend. Like income.

For example, $0 to $50k per year spend is taxed at 0%, then $50k to $100k is 10%, etc.

Although a continuous exponential function is preferable than discrete cliffs.


Are you saying that is how VAT works? Because I have no idea how any could keep track of all that.


No, marginal sales tax is not in effect anywhere. Assuming electronic payments, I could see it being relatively easy to track everyone’s spending since bank accounts/credit cards/etc would be tied to tax ID #s. Of course, there are all sorts of issues with possible downsides and jurisdictional issues.


A marginal sales tax would not necessarily do so. Pick a consumption dollar amount below which one is not wealthy and above which one is wealthy, according to you. Say, spending $1,000,000 per year.

Consumption up to that amount is taxed at 0%. Marginal consumption above that amount is taxed at 20%.


I think I don't like this idea for the wrong reason.

Making sales tax less regressive would be a good thing.

The implementation difficulties don't bother me per se; I think what's making me not like this idea is that it wouldn't do much for wealth disparity. If you're Wealthy with a capital W, you don't really spend that much, compared to your income.

But even if I'm also interested in tax policies to decrease the accumulation of massive amounts of wealth and the accompanying power in the hands of a single individual, I shouldn't dislike a tax policy that would do a different good thing -- if it could be implemented -- just because it doesn't do the other thing I want.


> I think what's making me not like this idea is that it wouldn't do much for wealth disparity. If you're Wealthy with a capital W, you don't really spend that much, compared to your income.

These problems can be solved via extremely high estate taxes or property taxes.


Yes, but a marginal sales tax is impossible to enforce. Countries that do have sales taxes usually have a "normal" rate and several tiers of reduced rates for food and essential goods. E.g. in Italy the VAT rate is 22%, but some listed goods and services are instead taxed 10%, 4% or 0%.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: