Re:Why Inequality Matters
by crdoconnor on Thursday October 16, 2014 @10:26AM
(#8465018)
>But rather than move to a progressive tax on capital, as Piketty would like, I think we’d be best off with a progressive tax on consumption. Think about the three wealthy people I described earlier: One investing in companies, one in philanthropy, and one in a lavish lifestyle. There’s nothing wrong with the last guy, but I think he should pay more taxes than the others.
Investing and consumption should be treated equally.
Investing is not inherently 'better' than consumption. Both create jobs. Both are done for selfish reasons.
The only difference is that shifting the tax burden to consumption instead of investing is inherently regressive - since the poor spend more than they save and the rich save more than they spend.
Saving is its own reward. It doesn't need added tax incentives. Having added tax incentives is just another way of covertly favoring the rich.
Who do you favor with the tax system? The guy who successfully invested in the startup and reaped massive rewards AND the guy who invested in a pets.com? Or the guy who blew all the money on cocaine AND the one who spent it on a private education for their kids (tax treatment: consumption)?
Investing and consumption should be treated equally.
Investing is not inherently 'better' than consumption. Both create jobs. Both are done for selfish reasons.
The only difference is that shifting the tax burden to consumption instead of investing is inherently regressive - since the poor spend more than they save and the rich save more than they spend.
Saving is its own reward. It doesn't need added tax incentives. Having added tax incentives is just another way of covertly favoring the rich.
Who do you favor with the tax system? The guy who successfully invested in the startup and reaped massive rewards AND the guy who invested in a pets.com? Or the guy who blew all the money on cocaine AND the one who spent it on a private education for their kids (tax treatment: consumption)?