[sytelus]

No, increased government income is not required to decrease inequality. We just need basic fairness in US. Here are the policies I would suggest:

- Capital gains should be taxes at least at same rate as income generated by labor.

- Remove incentives from economically unproductive investments such as real estate. For example, discourage home ownership unless its primary residence.

- Limit political contributions from super rich.

- Discourage high return investment vehicles that typically manipulate markets to achieve their goals by reducing risks through government safety nets.

- Limit what can be charged by insurance providers for a given quality of service. Health insurance oligarchy and their political influence is core barrier in enabling healthcare for all.

- Limit what can be charged by educational institute to students. More financial aids is not the solution, its the problem.

The goal of the governments isn't ensuring wealth equality, but ensuring level playing field. If that is ensured then, IMO, wealth inequality will naturally be limited. Government must ensure equal access to two core areas which is health and education. It must make tax system fair and avoid scenario where secretory pays higher tax rate than their super rich bosses. It needs to prevent inflation of limited resources such as real estate by strongly discouraging economically unproductive investments.

[meric]

To encourage the pursuit of financial independence from government at a reasonable retirement age:

- Progressive tax on consumption. No tax on labor.

- Zero capital gains if total assets is below $2M.

To discourage foreign home ownership:

- An non-primary residence or foreign investment in real estate can only be leasehold, maximum 25 years. At the end of which the control of property reverts back to the original owner and/or their beneficiaries.

To minimise effect of money on elected representatives that can't be removed mid-term:

- All bills voted by the public. Every citizen can elect a proxy for their votes. There are representatives, but the term of a representative is continuous rather than discrete 4 year terms, and anyone can be one.

To ensure affordable health care:

- Set up a government monopoly on purchasing pharmaceutical supplies, along with price ceilings for every type of drug that must not be breached to be eligible for purchase by government. Citizens may purchase drugs that are not on the list of drugs the government say they will purchase, but it must be imported from abroad.

The primary goal of government is always be security from other governments, so that it's citizens can live without subjugation. All other concerns should be secondary. Health and education is useless if next month the country will be invaded and its citizens exploited economically. All other concerns are secondary goals.

[drewgross]

Even a flat tax on consumption (like the sales tax) is regressive in effect, because the poor spend a greater fraction of their income on consumption. Now, if you suggested a high tax on luxury goods and services, and no tax on necessities like unprepared food, basic clothes, etc. I might be able to get behind that.

[meric]

It means the marginal tax rate for each dollar a person spends in a year increases with the number of dollars they spend.

An example of a progressive consumption tax bracket:

Dollars spent, marginal tax rate.

$0-$5000: 0%

$5001-$10000: 10%

$10001-$30000: 15%

$30001-$80000: 27%

$80000-$120000: 35%

$150000+: 40%.

So if a person spends $15000 a year, they have to pay an additional $1250 in tax.

They can spend on food, clothes, luxury boats, and are taxed according to the number of dollars they spend.

I don't see how that is regressive in anyway.

This way, as long as the spending of two people are the same, a person who makes and spends $20k a year, and a person who makes $80k and spends $20k a year, and works 5x harder, are both taxed at the same rate. This removes the disincentive to work hard while being frugal.

You can also pair this with a "Universal Basic Income" later on - e.g. first $10000 of spending in a year is -100% tax, meaning completely subsidised by the government.

Welfare could be means-tested on spending rather than income, so folks don't have to worry about losing welfare when they get a job.