Re:Detecting Money Laundering
by yummyfajitas on Monday June 27, 2016 @12:09AM
(#11984169)
I'm making two arguments. One is based on the economic concept of distortion - people making choices they wouldn't make absent the taxes. That's a strictly positive claim and it's not based on cost to collect.
The other is the normative one. My premise is that people should pay in proportion to the benefit they receive from society. Do you disagree with this claim?
I agree with your positive claim. Some tax systems are more distortionary than others. I think it's likely that consumption taxes are less distortionary than income taxes.
I don't think I agree with your normative claim. I think ceteris paribus that it's a virtue of a tax system if people pay in proportion to the value they get out of society. It sounds like you think that virtue is controlling. I think there are other virtues as well.
Re:Detecting Money Laundering
by grinnbearit on Monday June 27, 2016 @04:41AM
(#11984881)
People get value out of a society by consuming goods and services, income is how we as a society measure the value a person provides.
Income Tax taxes value provided, Consumption Tax taxes value consumed.
-- Consumption taxes can also be scaled/slabbed with the amount consumed, they don't have to be regressive.
There are notions of fairness that aren't premised on the idea that tax rates aren't a point score system for rating people, and it can be rational to accept some degree of distortion so long as it's not so powerful that it prevents the economy from serving its purpose (and so long as that distortion is buying us something).