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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (4753)	1/4/2017 9:46:34 PM
From: bentway	2 Recommendations Recommended By KyrosL Steve Lokness Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356253

Since all OCED countries have a VAT, except us, why don't WE do a VAT? It's become clear that we consume WAY too much crap, and the entire consume, grow, consume, grow model has reached the end of it's utility and has become a liability, not to mention a terrible example for the world. If a VAT causes less consumption, we should have adopted one several decades ago. But, better late than never! ( Not that this will happen in Trumpistan )

To: KyrosL who wrote (4753)	1/9/2017 11:38:27 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 356253

Of course VATs are not the only taxes that reduce the propensity to consume. Sales taxes do, even taxes not related to sales taxes like income taxes and property taxes reduces the tendency to consume by leaving the consumer with less. The effect of non-consumption taxes on consumption would be weaker in direct terms because they would leave less both to consume and to save/invest, while a consumption tax doesn't directly impact investment you could invest money and not have to pay the tax on it. OTOH if you invest you might produce something for sale or invest in a company that produces something for sale (or that invests in other companies etc.) and that would be hit by the sales tax or VAT. Also if you invest you often do so to increase future consumption, and investment generally allows for more consumption in the future. So the reality is more complex here. Still I think its reasonable to say that taxes on consumption hit consumption to a greater degree then taxes that would include income that could be used for consumption but are not specifically on consumption. I'm just not sure how large the difference is, and I'm pretty sore its not a total difference (income taxes hit consumption as well, its a difference of degree not a night and day 100% difference).