Hacker News Reader

Comment by dogruck | Hacker News Reader

We should tax consumption, not income.

Consumption tax is very regressive. We should tax wealth, not income. Eliminate income tax and extend property tax system to all assets, not just real estate.

Well now, that's an interesting idea! Is that your idea?

I guess it is. Haven't read Piketty, but from hearsay I thought he argues for wealth tax too.

Piketty's writing doesn't apply to the US. His work applies to Europe, where legacy far outweighs entrepreneurship.

And yet it's the US where wealth inequality is higher.

It's easy to fall for that liberal meme, but you (and they) are wrong. Pickety explains it in his book.

In Europe, most wealth is inherited, and power in concentrated in family dynasties.

I don't get your point and your focus on inherited wealth vs. entrepreneurial wealth. Even if most wealth in America is not inherited, a wealth tax wouldn't inhibit entrepreneurship.

If you have, say a $200K minimum threshold to start owing minimal annual tax, and a progressive scale after that, do you really think it would stop the next Bill Gates?

I encourage you to read Pickety's book. He argues that inherited wealth is bad because it rewards people for being born.

Why would anyone, including Pickety, want to prevent Bill Gates?

I feel like we're talking past each other at this point, so I'll drop off this conversation.

I don't agree with that at all. Consumption taxes can be quite regressive. I guess you picture the rich guy getting a huge tax bill when he buy's his yacht, but what if he just keeps saving, investing, and then, I don't know, buys a senator?

We should be trying to discourage the accumulation of power as well.

What's the average Senator cost? He'll have to pay taxes on it. /s

Take this example of poor people: A person earning 10k/year and a person earning 40k/year both need basically the same things: Water, shelter, food.

A person earning 40k per year isn't MUCH better off than the other. They are both broke, and only have money for the necessities. But if we only tax consumption. The person earning 10k will end up spending a larger percentage of their income in taxes than their counter part.

Now lets throw into the mix, me. I make a healthy 6 figure salary. Lets say I also only pay for what I use, and as a penny-pincher, I only get cheap housing, buy bread and cheese for my food, and tap water. I'm now paying the same taxes as the person earning an order of magnitude less than me.

Why would you choose a job that paid far in excess of your needs and lifestyle choices.

Do you know many people with high incomes but super frugal lifestyles? If so, are they a rare counterexample, and not the norm?

Most every person I knows spends in line with income.

For many reasons:

1. Rainy day fund, because you know one day the high pay may stop.

2. Retirement, because you know one day your ability to work may stop.

3. Estate planning, so that your family will be set up for a life that was better than the one you were given.

4. Investment capital, so you can turn your 100s of thousands into 10s of millions or more.

5. Startup capital for a future venture.

The difference between the middle class and the high-earners are that the high earners save their excess income.

Ok, sure, you save your excess income. Then, later, one of two events happen:

1. You spend the savings, and pay consumption tax

2. You die, and pay the estate tax.

The difference is that in an economic down turn, I am protected by my vast wealth, where a poor person has no savings because they spend every dollar they have on necessities.

A consumption tax is always regressive.

If you think about it, the poorest 10 percent of society consume 100% (or more) of their income, and would pay tax on all of it. The wealthiest 1 percent might only consume 20% of their income, and would therefore be taxed at a much lower rate vs. their income.

And? This is only "unfair" if you assume that people should be taxed as a percentage of their income, but by moving to consumption taxes we discard that assumption.

Also assumes that we would heavily tax the consumption of basic goods, like groceries.

More likely, we would heavily tax goods that poor people cannot afford. Things like dining out, travel, fashion, electronics, cars, and housing in excess of basic sq footage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com