for nye

[Kuciwalker]

For the most part, the affluent are more responsible with their money. Now obviously, there’s the cadre of liberal jackasses that inhabit Hollywood, but they generally spend themselves into poverty. Taxation for the benefit of the poor, only serves to reinforce the poor’s dependence on the state. We must let the poor fail, since then they will be more likely to want to pull themselves out of their poverty.

While this post is dumb, I'd note that an advantage of a progressive consumption tax is that it would hit Hollywood types and other people who flaunt their money a lot harder than people who earn a lot but spend responsibly.

[KrazyHorse]

No.

[Kuciwalker]

Fixed.

[Drake Tungsten]

If we want to get normative, it's only fair as your spendthrift generation has chosen to leave us with a great deal of public debt with virtually nothing to show for it.

You're goddamn right.

[notyoueither]

I'd be quite happy with earned income taxes and 0 capital gains taxes.

This is not what you seem to have said earlier at several points.

Yap, yap, yap. Feed me, I'm a hungry puppy with long sharp fangs, and don't you forget it!

Yeah, sure, bud.

[Kuciwalker]

Without a capital gains tax, a consumption tax and an earned income tax are isomorphic*, except when you switch from one to the other there is a large one-time redistributive effect.

*if they're progressive the effect is slightly different - a progressive consumption tax favors a steady lifetime level of consumption, while a progressive income tax favors a steady lifetime level of income

[ricketyclik]

I admit a lot of the above is over my head but...

Doesn't the absence of a capital gains tax in the presence of an income tax favour those deriving the substantial part of their income from investments over those who work for a living - i.e., the wealthy over the poor?

[The Mad Monk]

Don't you mean - i.e., the retired over the hoping to retire?

[Kuciwalker]

I admit a lot of the above is over my head but...

Doesn't the absence of a capital gains tax in the presence of an income tax favour those deriving the substantial part of their income from investments over those who work for a living - i.e., the wealthy over the poor?

No. Tax was already paid on the money they're spending. (Alternately, under a consumption tax they will pay tax on the money as soon as they spend it.) The only thing a capital gains tax does is create a distortion in favor of spending money as soon as you get it, rather than saving it and spending later.

[Mint]

Uh, no. Wealth you never spend is just like an option you never exercise - worthless.

Sigh. No it's not. But instead of trying to explain option value to you, I'll mention that liquidity and access to credit are other real, theoretically measurable benefits of unspent wealth.

[Hauldren Collider]

BTW, most of the developed world already has significant consumption taxes. By advocating for one in the States I'm reducing the opportunities for tax avoidance.

Twit.

It helps the united states when people come here to avoid high european taxes. Also "rest of the world has it" by itself is the same argument as for public healthcare.

[KrazyHorse]

HC, figure out what the subthread is about before responding. Thanks.

[KrazyHorse]

Hey mint, what's the difference between charging a tax on an option price and charging a tax on its payoff?

Moron

[Drake Tungsten]

You work at GS, dude. You can afford a better phone.

[KrazyHorse]

I use it as an excuse to DanS