Comment by epolanski

Comment by epolanski 4 days ago

This is the only counter argument, and in fact the consensus is that they are the fairest (they tax consumption rather than production, we tend to tax producing wealth more than spending it) if you offer rebates or lower them on essentials (bread, milk, eggs, healthcare).

They also have the effect that everybody has to pay them, including tax evaders, tax loophole abusers, criminals with undeclared incomes, etc, everybody has to pay it.

But yes, without offering sales tax rebates or with taxing essentials then your argument is true and they become less fair.

Albeit, the elephant in the room is always the definition of fairness itself.

necovek 4 days ago

Even with sales tax being on consumption, rich people and their accountants always look how to reduce the burden: say, that trip to Hawaii was a business trip, and that expensive suit a business cost, and sometimes you can claim some of that is "wholesale" purchase to avoid it.

In jurisdictions using VAT (like most of Europe), there are whole schemes like that to effectively reduce your VAT burden through use of company purchasing.

Reply View 1 reply

crote 4 days ago

It is insane how much upper-middle-class people commit tax fraud, without even thinking twice about it.
I've heard at least half a dozen stories of kids' computers being bought by daddy's consultancy business, avoiding both income tax and sales tax.
Same with "business lunches", where you're just hanging out with a buddy who happens to be vaguely involved in a similar industry.
The general feeling seems to be that paying taxes is for losers and you're stealing from yourself if you're not doing minor tax fraud.
This kind of tax avoidance simply isn't available to lower-class salaried workers. They are forced to pay the full bill.

Reply View | 0 replies

nrabulinski 4 days ago

In my eyes they are not fair, because while they tax consumption, they very disproportionately affect buying power the less wealth you have. For a millionaire, paying let’s say 30% more for new shoes is not going to meaningfully change how much money they’re left with. If I’m poor and I need new shoes (because you can’t just afford a new shoes when you want them so it by necessity implies you’re in desperate need of them), that extra 30% means one less grocery trip. Or heck, even 30% on groceries potentially means one less grocery trip.

Which is to say, being poor is expensive, and sales tax only makes it more expensive, while literally not affecting the bottom line of those in higher income brackets.

Reply View 7 replies

Manuel_D 4 days ago

But wealthier people tend to consume more. The top 10% of earners account for~50% of consumer spending. It's more like the low income person pays $5 of sales tax on a $50 pair of shoes, and a high income person pays $50 of sales tax on a $500 pair of shoes.

Reply View | 6 replies
- popalchemist 4 days ago
  
  Haven't you read Capital? Marx's core premise which nobody actually working in economics denies is that the nature of wealth is to consolidate in the hands of the few. So while wealthier people may consume more, that does not factor into "fairness" because they are hoarding their wealth, amassing power over others, and using it disproportionately to maximize their pleasure, power, influence, etc at the cost of the suffering of others.
  But I take it from your glib comment you'll disagree or deny that.
  
  Reply View | 5 replies
  
  graemep 3 days ago
  
  > Marx's core premise which nobody actually working in economics denies is that the nature of wealth is to consolidate in the hands of the few
  the same point is discussed Piketty in Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  tstrimple 4 days ago
  
  > Haven't you read Capital?
  LOL. Do you actually think that person has read Capital or much of anything economics related? These types of internet arguments don't happen among equally equipped participants. People can just say random shit on the internet it turns out. They do it all the time.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies