Nostr Web Client

It's real.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/25/text

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqevk6qqae8hq46de9yraeyq9gcsfsj3zzwy6385we4rxppzwre0dqqsqsar6yll5ztykfdqsntec5ctwuswnq346nj0kr7agsmvk9h9vtycywfut9

hh 11mo ago

Sales tax is an evil form of taxation. The poorer you are, the more you pay because you can't avoid consuming if you're poor. Rich people have a choice to spend, and on what.

The consequence is that very soon, if not from start, there will be huge pressure to have different rates for different item categories, exemptions, etc. further complicating compliance.

And this is one of those taxes that people do not pay directly, and companies have to collect on behalf of the State. Which is absolutely evil in the type of mindset that it creates (similar to the effects of AML/KYC on banking).

Tariffs have a similar effect on consumers, but at least they don't overburden companies and individuals with extra administrative costs and keep the responsibility and liability to collect on the State.

Don't get me wrong, ending the income tax is a net positive, regardless because it's the number 1 Evil tax (tied with the corporate tax and capital gains tax -- they're a triplet taxing the same thing: productive work), so I welcome it.

But doing it this way makes it a lot less than it could be.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

hh 11mo ago

Oh, the detail about "primarily administered by the States" I do like a lot and is a net positive too. The smaller the federal level, the better.

Mark Camper 11mo ago

Accelerating competition between the states. Great.

hh 11mo ago

I don't think so. It sounds like the tax will be set by the Feds, and they'll simply pass on the responsibility to police companies and to collect the tax to the States, likely in exchange for a %, maybe even most of it. So it will be neutral in terms of jurisdictional competition.

Mark Camper 11mo ago

Oh... Makes sense. Too good to be true.

hh 11mo ago

It's just my speculation though, based on the fact that this would be a federal tax. It could also be something like the Feds setting a bracket with a minimum and a maximum. In that case yes, there would be some room for competition, albeit mitigated.

⚡A C V⚡ 11mo ago

While a 'progressive' tax system sounds like an enlightened thing it is ultimately a way to give someone power to manage outcomes.

The power enable tax policy to choose winners and even punish political opponents with disruptive audits, as we've seen this very election cycle is the great evil of this system.

While it sounds like the poor people get ripped off here, the rich people actually have less power in a national sales tax. With a complex administrative tax regime, wealthy people can afford to find and arrange their assets to avoid the taxes. Poor people cannot, even if the tax code is structured to be kinder to them, they don't have the means to work that system, when they don't have the resources or expertise to do so.

A national sales tax would be difficult to game, if done correctly, and placed on all goods, not just retail goods, but also homes and other investments and high frequency trading, etc.

If it was truly universal, it would give rich people no real options. Pay the tax or don't buy assets/don't cash out gains. There's no way to trick a system that's that simple and universal.

There will be some people who are not immediately better off. We should consider all time ahead of us, and not specific individuals alive today. Of course, I don't have to get elected, so....

hh 11mo ago

I didn't call for a progressive tax. I merely pointed out that taxes on consumption impact poor people more directly, since they consume proportionally more (they can save and invest less).

All forms of taxation are theft and illegitimate aggressions.