It's a regressive tax, as it affects everyone at the same rate. Modern tax systems are progressive, ie people get different tax rates depending on their income.

"As it affects everyone at the same rate." That's a flat tax. A regressive tax is one that affects the poor more.

However, you are right that it is probably regressive, since the rich normally place more of their wealth percentage-wise in non-cash assets than poor people do.

A flat tax is regressive. It affects the poor more since each marginal dollar affects their lifestyle to a greater degree.

It is the difference between not being able to afford childcare and not being able to afford a second vacation home.

> A flat tax is regressive [because what matters is utility of money].

It's fine to think that, but normally when people are talking about tax progressiveness, they are thinking about the fractional tax on dollars, not "utils". Otherwise, you'd also call our existing, progressive taxation scheme "regressive," since it still probably taxes poor people's utils at a higher rate than rich people. And there would probably not anywhere in the world be a tax scheme that can properly be called progressive.

One good rule of thumb, IMO, is that when you want to change the meaning of a classifier such that all extant instances of the classified type fall into a single bucket, that's probably not a useful change. YMMV.

A flat tax is regressive in nature since the wealthy demand a greater share of the services provided by civil society.

Do they really 'demand a greater share' in proportion with how much more they contribute?

Police protect assets, fire services protect assets, schools are better in wealthy districts, The IRS targets poor and middle class because it's easier. Courts give better outcomes to the wealthy. Businesses are generally started by those with money. Pretty sure that the wealthy use significantly more resources because they have more to protect.

But where's "with how much more they contribute?" part of the answer? Such as the jobs created?

I would think that most public services, such as public schools or public transportation are consumed by lower and middle class people.

The upper class has their own private version of pretty much everything.

Even if true, you need to make that inference explicit, because that's a confusing, non-standard usage of "flat tax" and "regressive" tax.

Second, can you show your basis for thinking that? I would think it's the opposite: the wealthy aren't using the public schools, free health care, etc.

You know, that's probably debatable. The high wealthy also spend a lot on private services above and beyond what's publically available. Private security, planes, accountant and legal teams, private doctors, etc.

This seems counter intuitive to me but I’m not saying you’re wrong. Could you share more?

Utility of wealth is non linear.

That's why I included ubi in essentials. The thing this solves is tax avoidance evasion.

Inflation's greatest impact is on those holding cash reserves or dollar-denominated assets: bank deposits, loans, mortgages, bonds (federal, state/local, corporate), insurance policies, annuities, cash-denominated contracts, and the like.

The cash-poor with few or no financial holdings or savings, are largely unaffected, as are those holding non-cash assets (real property, capital, commodities, stocks).

This comes from a really old philosophy called ironically "Modern Monetary Theory", MMT. It has been roundly debunked by both Keynesians (where most of HN sits) and Austrians (myself). A government cannot spend its way to universal prosperity. It's been tried and failed, typically with hyper-inflation.

Also I feel that it is immoral to steal from the future generations (my children) via inflation. Cash investments should be allowed to gain value via productivity gains, instead of constantly cashing in our productivity gains for Govt largess. We'd probably have that "4-hour work week" by now if it weren't for inflationary policies stealing gains.

I know benefits are popular, and the gov't recklessness (defense budgets for example) today makes uninformed people feel like it's a gravy train out there...but really it's a house of cards, arguably steered by IYIs (IMHO).

How do you solve tax avoidance/evasion? Inflation rather than tax solves that. Of course there would need to be an agreed cap on inflation that is tied to productivity.

Rich have their money in stock and investments. And if surplus of money would be taxed, being in debt would be the obvious easy way to “earn” taxes instead of paying them.

Now I'm wondering how many ideas you have heard, such that this one is the best of all of them.

Inflation as a tax is inherently regressive, as the rich are usually the first to hold the newer money, and the poor the last to hold it, long after all the information about the new size of the money supply has already leaked out to the market.

And it is a tax on holding the circulating currency. The rich often trade their currency for ownership in ventures that produce passive income, or, at worst, low-risk government bonds. In order for those investments to sell, they will have to offer a rate of return exceeding the expected rate of inflation. If inflation is used in place of all taxes, then just reading the government's budget is sufficient to predict the rate of inflation.

The poor see annual wage increases near the expected rate of inflation, if they have sufficient labor-market power, or below it if they don't.

Monetary inflation is a tax on holding dollars. The rich don't hold much of their wealth in dollars, percentage-wise. They hold ownership of productive assets and inherently valuable properties. A tax on money doesn't touch those who get all the money they need from ownership of their wealth.

I doubt this works. Stock and property prices would rise as more cash becomes available, so only people who keep their funds uninvested would lose value. It would also be easy enough to invest in a foreign currency.

It seems like rapid inflation would really only hurt the poor and middle class.

I don't think this is a good idea. High inflation makes people lose trust in the value of money and start drifting towards barter, which makes the economy slow and inefficient.

This is fine if you don’t mind the poor getting taxed as much as the rich. Inflation taxes everyone the same, meaning the person living on the bread line looses the same percentage as the ultra Rich. That’s a political opinion, but explains why it’s not been implemented.

A theoretical solution to that would be an inflation scaling bursary given to low income workers.

I don't understand why this post is downvoted. I may (and I do) disagree with the contents, but it looks like a fair expression of a person's opinion.

Yeah, they tried exactly that in Zimbabwe some time ago, and now they're giving it another try in Venezuela. Didn't seem to work all that well though, go figure.

(inb4: "Do you want Hitler and Nazis? Because that's literally how we got Hitler and Nazis!" /s)