[nonethewiser]

I think an interesting angle to this discussion is the fact that before the "temporary" income taxes (in 1913), tariffs were the primary source of tax revenue in the United States. There are lots of modern economists in favor of consumption taxes over income taxes. And in a climate where people are up in arms about billionaires skirting income taxes, you'd think it might be a popular idea to tax all the money they spend.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Consumption taxes are wildly regressive. US tax policy since 1913 (and arguably even before) is (perhaps suprisingly) very progressive (*). Not a good fit.

(*) progressive in the sense of following the principle that the impact of taxes should be roughly the same for all, not in the general political sense.

[alexjplant]

There's at least one plan [1] that specifically addresses this problem called FairTax:

> The proposal also specifies a monthly payment made to all households based on household size. Called a "prebate," the monthly payment offsets the regressive nature of a sales tax up to the poverty level.

Of course nobody agrees [2] on how effective this would actually be:

> Sales taxes are normally considered regressive though the FairTax provides a rebate that supporters argue would create a progressive effective rate on consumption. However, the Fairtax would also eliminate the EITC and CTC, dramatically reducing this benefit.[58] Additionally the FairTax would be applied to goods that are currently not subject to sales tax. These include all food, all prescription drugs and other health care products and services (such as doctor’s visits and laboratory tests), purchases of new homes, and utility bills. These goods make up a substantial share of low income families expenses

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicted_effects_of_the_FairT...

[PaulDavisThe1st]

FairTax only addresses regressivity up to the poverty level. Its proponents specifically cite the way it would affect investment and savings, which are the domain of the wealth(y|ier). People earning median household income would face a much greater tax impact than people earning 10x that level, which is precisely what the progressivity of income tax with marginal rates is intended to avoid.

[michtzik]

Why can't you just make a progressive consumption tax?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Because almost nobody who is very wealthy spends all of their income on consumption.

[D-Coder]

"No more billionaires. None. After you reach $999 million, every red cent goes to schools and healthcare. You get a trophy that says, “I won capitalism,” and we name a dog park after you." — Mikel Jollett

[nonethewiser]

Can you contextualize this quote in response to my comment?

[D-Coder]

It's an alternate technique for raising taxes.

It incidentally also reduces the social impact of a small number of extremely wealthy people, thus helping democracy.

It's probably not legal without a Constitutional amendment, but one can dream.