Comment by thisislife2 4 days ago
I don't get it - what about "taxing consumption" makes it "fair"? Poor people aren't poor because they spend more money than others. They are poor because they don't have enough money to live a "decent" life (assume a middle-class lifestyle) or to even save it. Right?
Until you get to things like Vimes Theory of Boots. Not all consumption is equal. Not all consumption can be reduced. A burger wrapper might not care about economic status, the bag of beans and rice might.
How is reducibility relevant?
Do you think the burger wrapper just automatically winks out of existence for poor people?
Again, what has that got to do with the "fairness" aspect of taxing consumption?
There are no “fairness” molecules so it clearly cannot be relevant for the physical generation of negative externalities.
How exactly that load is divvied up by society, where it would apply, is not something I know the answer to.
Consumption has real negative externalities on the environment and other people…
i.e. A burger wrapper doesnt care about economic status.