[vel0city]

> I expect their bank to to report they made a transfer abroad and deduct spending tax automatically

So we're not taxing spending, we're taxing bank transfers as well. Maybe they just put it in a savings account overseas. Maybe they're paying off a loan for money sitting elsewhere. Who says it was a sale? Prove they bought something.

>> Having poorer people pay more effective tax rates than wealthier people doesn't strike me as fair.

> That's not at all what I'm advocating for.

But that is what you're advocating for, by pushing it to just an extremely complicated sales tax and complicated system of fractically more complicated credits for exports and subsidies for the poor to hopefully reduce their tax burdern and what not. Inherently the wealthy will spend a smaller percentage of their income. The wealthiest practically can't spend it as fast as they get it even flying private jets around the world, but tons of middle-class people seem to barely have anything in savings. You just keep ignoring it and offering half measures to address it.

[scotty79]

> So we're not taxing spending, we're taxing bank transfers as well

No. We are taxing spending. Transfering money abroad counts as speding. Transfering within the country doesn't.

> Maybe they just put it in a savings account overseas.

Doesn't matter. Once it leaves the system it's treated as spending.

> Maybe they're paying off a loan for money sitting elsewhere.

Paying off a loan is spending. Both abroad (as everything else abroad) and within the country too.

> Prove they bought something.

No need. Spending is something defined not something natural that needs proving. What I'm proposing is defining spending as reduction in amount of owned currency due to either transfer abroad or due to any agreements between companies or companies and customers.

> But that is what you're advocating for, by pushing it to just an extremely complicated sales tax and complicated system of fractically more complicated credits for exports

If you think that's complicated don't ever read on current taxes, fees and procedures.

My idea is comparably simple. General rule is that spending gets taxed. Tax credits are awarded to promote certain activities (like exporting or living). Nothing else. No need for income tax, corporate tax, VAT, sales tax, social security fees, health premiums, import tariffs, excise taxes and so on.

> Inherently the wealthy will spend a smaller percentage of their income.

At this point I don't think you can imagine it being any other way. I think you are fixating that we all have same stomachs and since poor people earn less feeding ones stomach will always be a larger percentage of money that available for them to spend (so higher percentage of tax).

But the rich don't spend money on what they eat alone. They spend it on cars, yahts, luxury, and what's way more impactful real estate, companies, assets, investments in general, even lobbying ... things that they must do because those are the things that bring them money ... those are the things purchasing which made rich rich in the first place and make them keep getting richer ... all of those would be taxed. I don't think you can say the same for any other proposed or real system for taxing the rich that relies on accounting for income or wealth.

Musk buying Twitter would be taxed on this purchase.

If giving the poor tax credits so that they have negative tax doesn't solve the conundrum for you I don't think anything ever will.

[vel0city]

> Paying off a loan is spending.

Talk about "double taxation" and wealthy being able to avoid taxes. I need a loan to buy a car. Taxes at the purchase, taxes as I pay back the loan. I take out a mortgage. Taxes on the sale, taxes on the mortgage payment. Meanwhile someone able to drop several hundred thousand in cash pay taxes once.

[scotty79]

Paying back a loan is spending but taking a loan is income and taken as individual might award you tax credit.

But yes, if you use a service, you pay for tax. Even a service of renting some capital.

Again, as a poor person you can get tax credits on your income or just because you are alive that offsets that if the government thinks poor people buying things with loans is societally beneficial or not. Today government does this by raising or lowering the rates which affect so many other things in the economy.

Fine grained control is better.

And what's wrong with double taxation? If you earn money today, you pay income tax, and use it to buy fuel then you also pay VAT and excuse tax. That's triple tax on the same money. Spend your money in societally undesired ways and you are getting it taxed multiple times even today. But just with a myriad opaque systems that don't play nice with each other and are full of loopholes.