Here is a response to this post on the issue of a nation sales tax:
http://www.economicswithaface.com/weblog/archives/2004/11/a_national_sale.html
I like Peter's argument because I personally think consumption and not work should be taxed. I appreciate that he didn't use the "progressive income is unfair" argument. I feel saying it is unfair that wealthy people pay more taxes is ridiculous. Life is not fair and that is why some people have more opportunities to wealth than other people. I also agree/acknowledge that sales tax will (unless creatively implemented) put a higher tax burden on the less wealthy.
Although I personally prefer a consumption tax, I am not entirely convinced that it is better economically. Take the sports car example. Buying a fancy car is not just burning money (well OK for me it is). The car requires gas, servicing, insurance, etc. Buying a car like many purchases forces the consumer to support many other economic institutions.
Another perspective. As a president of a company, would I rather have a product that is appealing to consumers or would I rather have a business plan that is appealing to investors? Obviously both are needed but my "no business experience" tells me that I would rather go after the consumer's money and a successful product would attract the investor's money. So my point is that maybe consumers are more important than investors to businesses and therefore taxes should not hinder consumption.
What I really think in a nutshell is that income/investments should not be taxed. Instead inheritance should be taxed very heavily (90% after the first mill maybe). Also luxury items should be taxed. So a person should be given the chance to create as much wealth as possible but on their death most of it should go back to society in the form of taxes and charity. I will most likely expand on these ideas in the future.
Recent Comments