>>>>>>>>There's a difference between capital/investment income and labor income and how it's taxed
>>>>>>>Of course there is and that's why we need Welfare Reform.
>>>>>>>Look back and see who financed the lobbyists who got that put into law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You won't find many wage earners or small business owners who think that capital gains and certain investment income should be taxed lower than labor income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many do you think believe as I do that income shouldn't be taxed at all? Does that make their opinion more or less valid to you? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>Stupid question: without taxes how are we supposed to provide police and fire services, a military, schools, and so on? (I am tempted to try to slip the EPA past you but won't be a wise guy).
>>>>
>>>>Stupid answer : No income taxes != no taxes
>>>
>>>OK, I'll bite since I know you know a lot about finance. What kind of tax(es) do you suggest?
>>
>>Consumption based.
>
>First, how would you provide basic services (police, fire, military) on a consumption basis? I can see how you do that with roads and though I vehemently disagree with the idea, schools.

Police and Fire are funded at the local and state level. There are 7 states without an income tax which manage to fund them in other ways.

>Second, the big problem with consumption-based taxes in general is that they're terribly regressive. Poor people end up spending a much higher percentage of their income on taxes than the wealthy. Yes, you can mitigate somewhat by exemption essentials such as food and clothing, but it still puts a much higher tax burden on those with less.

It is regressive in relation to income but progressive in relation to consumption.

2013 US GDP = $15.94T
2013 US Federal Spending = $3.4T (~21% GDP)

Without any spending reform, a 21% consumption tax covers all present federal spending. That falls well in line with standard EU VAT rates.

The benefits should be self-evident. If you need me to list them I can but I don't have time right now. ;)

>Tamar