🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4qc3cj$bdj@nntp.atlanta.com> collins@zeke.paros.com (Jeffery A. Collins) writes:
>Maureen Eagle (maureen@mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
>: 1.  Exemption for food/housing means that a very POOR family using
>: few consumer goods (buying clothes at thrift shops for $3, buying
>: food and housing with their money, and using wits and imagination
>: for entertainment instead of Nintendos and movies) would pay much
>: less than 15% of their income.  Ditto for the frugal saving for
>: their primary residence (which would also be exempt from taxation).
>
>    It seems to me that there is a flaw in this argument.  A consumption
>tax is regressive for the following reason.  If your income was near
>the poverty line you will probably need to spend most of it to simply
>service, hence your tax rate will be near 15%.  If your income is very

Perhaps you ought to re-read Ms. Eacle's first statement.
If food and housing are _exempted_ from that tax, it more
than compensates.  Very poor folks spend the majority of their
income on exactly those things - their housing and food.
Figure they are probably spending on the order of 60% of
their income on rent and food.  If they spend the entire
remaining 40% on taxable goods, their total tax paid is
quite a bit less than 15% of their income - in this case it
would actually be 6%.  Contrast this to a wealthier person
who spends more money on consumer goods and other taxable
items, as a portion of their spending.

--D
-- 
dmeyers@panix.com

"Any technology distinguishable from magic
 is insufficiently advanced."