Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (222075)	3/5/2005 5:41:17 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575487

A consumption tax is progressive in that rich people buy more, so they will pay more taxes.

To: SilentZ who wrote (222075)	3/5/2005 9:55:59 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575487

>>>>>Suffice it to say that I never thought he'd be for something as blatantly regressive as a consumption tax. There are consumption taxes all over the place that are less regressive than other taxes. It is easy enough to structure a NST that almost exempts the working poor -- something you can't do with the current tax system. My point is it is almost automatic for liberals to shut down their thought processes at the thought of something labelled a "consumption tax". But there is nothing fundamentally regressive about a consumption tax where there is a provision for exemptions, which there would need to be. If you exempt food, drugs, housing, selected other necessary items, you can end up with something that is paletable to liberals. And the surge in economic productivity that would result would be a rising tide lifting all boats. I've been arguing in favor of the NST for 15 years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a truly cogent argument against it.