> In a country the USA, I'm not sure that consumption really is > proportional to income. When you are poor, almost all of your > income is > spent on necessities. Everything is on such a day-by-day hand-to- > mouth > level that many things end up costing more (i.e. going to the > emergency > room instead of the family doctor). This is because you do not have > the > funds for insurance, to plan ahead, to buy or rent a house (paying > weekly rates at hotels really adds up), or to buy quality & long- > lasting > items. > > As you move up the scale, possibly the first shift is increased > expenses > on diet. It's only at the higher income levels that people actually > start saving. > > It's for this reason that I've always seen sales tax as regressive.
Agreed, we should be taxing consumption of resources which I view as separate and distinct from taxing currency. More specifically taxing water consumption, energy consumption, CO2 emissions and taxing toxicity. In addition, find some way to give production credits for the 3Rs (reduce, reuses, recycle), and sustainable source materials that are eco-sanely harvested (trees, fish, annual crops, ...). Basically do our best to internalized the costs that are currently being externalized and paid for in species extinction, desertification, poisoned soils, contaminated water, ocean dead zones, habitat lose and our descendants. + Jeremy > Christopher J Wells wrote: >> If consumption is proportional to income (which seems reasonable) >> then the >> greater consumer pays the greater tax. >> >> Poor people are probably consumers of fewer goods so it seems >> reasonable >> that they would pay fewer taxes.
