[Wilsoniumite]

I know my tone was harsh, but that's mainly because I'm tired of people thinking I'm taking a side. Using VAT to fund this means that it isn't a tax on capital or on labor, that's why it's more neutral than all other methods. A wealth, profit, dividend tax, that's a tax on wealth or capital or rich people or business, whatever you prefer. An income tax is a tax on workers. VAT avoids that question.

It is slightly redistributive, yes, but really only slightly. Its hard to design it to not be redistributive, but if you really want to do that then you raise VAT and lower income taxes instead of funding a UBI. I wrote about that later in the piece.

[orwin]

VAT absolutely doesn't help. Companies don't pay vat by design. Wealthy people almost never pay VAT, unless it's a gift, because they own companies. My and a lot of my cousins never paid VAT on their school supplies, as they were bought by our uncles companies.

My sister cooked on a yacht for a company that lost money every year by selling their services at loss, before selling its assets to another company (who then hired her). The company did not pay VAT when they buy the yacht, the only moment the owners pay VAT is when they buy the yacht company 'services' (which are basically free).

[hattmall]

This is essentially "The Fair Tax" proposed many years ago, it's a VAT, but with a pre-bate check that covers the VAT up to a certain percent of income. So if there's a $100K no VAT minimum. The pre-bate is $25k. Anyone spending less than $100k annually pays zero taxes. Pair that with VAT exemptions for second hand goods and business under a certain size and you solve most wealth inequality and welfare issues very quickly.