LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 2,346
0 members and 2,346 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 02-17-2005, 06:32 PM   #11
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
Brit Hume, deceptive hack

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think what I've been saying is necesarily in tension with any of your goals. You seem to be stuck on the idea that consumption tax=flat tax. That's not necessarily the case. That may be the cheapest to administer (or it may not), but one could use the current income tax system but shift the tax burden to those who consume, and particularly those who consume a lot, and have it just as progressive as the current scheme (although, sure, it would benefit those who save more than those who borrow for consumption).
I can see a lot more danger of unintended consequences if we get into a consumption tax that allows for targeting. A higher rate for the purchase of luxury yachts? Caviar tax of 40%? The social engineering aspects - at least, the possible abuses of them - are staggering. Plus, the tracking system is harder. I can spend my money at a lot of private outlets that don't have the pressure to report as does an employer who must report the payment of compensation in order to get the tax break associated with the payment of an expense.
bilmore is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 AM.