|
|
|
|
|
|
by dandelo1953
2334 days ago
|
|
|
I don't know a lick about the book mentioned or literal references you have been silently recommended to study. Obviously the implied message that you've yet to pick up on is that you should try and research your own ideas before profoundly postulating positive platitudes that are .... full of P? anyway, i suspect your "idea" is bad from the start... you say tax consumption... AND THEN tax the (just?) born... do you even darwin bro? You are giving the disenfranchised the shaft from the outset.. who do you think would like this? who do you surround yourself with to get to this line of thinking? Rhetorically, I'm done. |
|
|
Perhaps if I expanded that as ‘pay taxes for the consumption of your own child’? And pay a fee before having kids. This could be in the form of a community trust or an investment fund at county, state or country level.
We pay different kinds of taxes but children are negative taxes. As in, cost of rearing children is mostly subsidized by the govt with taxes.
My suggestion was that every consumption good needs to be taxed. When income, property, inheritance etc are not taxed and only sale of goods is taxed, everyone pays a tax according to their lifestyle.
Example: a sleeping cot is taxed much lower than a yacht or a house. Parents save and pay for their children’s education. The retirees live off retirement plans.
In my last sentence I mention that food, shelter, medical and education are only taxed after minimal deductions. Which means, everyone essentially gets a kind of UBI for essential needs before their consumption in these survival categories is taxed.
Obviously if one is ‘disenfranchised’ there is charity. Currently we consume too much using credit lines and debt. The key is to restrict consumption and eliminate waste/scarcity...have more local governance than regional governance.