[null0pointer]

Could you explain a bit more how negative sales tax is unrealistic? We already subsidize things we want to encourage.

> A system that only taxes spending fundamentally has problems in that the richer people can afford to save and invest.

That is an existing problem inherent to any tax system. It's just saying "Rich people can afford to not spend all of their money". I don't see how that's fundamental to taxing only spending.

[curryst]

> Could you explain a bit more how negative sales tax is unrealistic? We already subsidize things we want to encourage.

Lets say apples have a -5% tax rate, and cost $1. Every time I buy an apple from the store, I pay $0.95 (the government pays the rest, which is a problem in and of itself). I can sell that apple for $1, and the government basically just paid me $0.05 for selling an apple.

The problem with the government paying that $0.05 is that sales tax is assessed at time of purchase, but the government isn't there to pay their part. The grocery store basically has an IOU from the government. 5% may be higher than the grocery store's margins, which means the customer payment is actually less than the good is worth, so the grocery store's ledger actually goes down for that sale until the government pays back their part.

And then you have to deal with fraud. Nobody wants to overreport their sales tax, it costs them money. If you can make money off sales tax, people will filing fraudulent tax reports, and I really don't want the IRS having to track how many apples the grocery store actually sold. I'm sure money launderers would also find a way to use it to buffer their costs.

Subsidies probably still have fraud, but it's a smaller number of entities to work with. We can also budget for it because we determine the amount. I can give a budget to the subsidy, but I can't tell people to only buy 10,000 apples next year.

[ganafagol]

An instance of that fraud is that re-selling would generate money. I buy that apple for 95ct. Sell it to the next supermarket for 98ct. They sell it to a customer for 100ct of which the customer pays 95ct. Goes to the next supermarket etc etc. Today you'd just accumulate more and more tax so nobody does that. With negative VAT this loop is now generating money.

[singron]

One problem is that it encourages using items with negative sales tax for other purposes with value lower than the true cost (i.e. it can induce inefficient demand).

There are similar issues in agriculture subsidies and price regulation. E.g. High fructose corn syrup is probably as popular as it is because corn has been subsidized and cane sugar has a regulated (high) price. It's kind of like an inefficient arbitrage between physical goods to avoid taxes.

[pydry]

>That is an existing problem inherent to any tax system. It's just saying "Rich people can afford to not spend all of their money". I don't see how that's fundamental to taxing only spending.

If you taxed only assets it wouldn't be a problem. Mo money mo taxes.

Whether you want to tax predominantly assets or spending usually reflects which side of the capital divide you see yourself identifying with - predominantly a recipient of unearned income (e.g. landlord/FIRE) or a payer (e.g. renter).

[FabHK]

> more how negative sales tax is unrealistic

In this proposal, sales tax is the only tax. You can't run a government without money.