[conanbatt]

If you wanted to make a progressive tax, certainly income is way better than the proxy of what poor people or rich people consume differently.

In any case in practice this is obviously not done, as cigarettes, alcohol, food, basic online purchases etc have sale taxes.

[refurb]

Rich people consume more than the poor. Even if you have illegal income it gets captured by consumption taxes.

And yes it is done. Food, clothes, toiletries aren’t tax in most states in the US or Canada.

Of course alcohol and tobacco aren’t exempted. You’re trying to discourage use not encourage it.

[PeterisP]

While technically rich people consume more than the poor in absolute numbers, they consume a smaller percentage of their income than the poor, so a consumption tax is inherently regressive, taxing rich people less.

[refurb]

Source?

If you exempt the necessities of living (food, etc) I’d suggest the rich would be tax on a far bigger percentage of income than the poor.

And even if they didn’t spend it, any capital gains or interest income would still be taxed too.

And you’re ignoring the fact that a consumption tax would capture spending from black market income as well. Expanding the pool of income taxes.

[ac29]

> And even if they didn’t spend it, any capital gains or interest income would still be taxed too.

The post you are responding to is talking about getting rid of income taxes. Those are income taxes.

[conanbatt]

If you wanted to tax richer over poor, this is not an efficient way to do it at all.

It is also a pretty distortive tax, and it creates smuggling, robbery, and disproportionally punishes those that consume those products and are also on the poorer spectrum.