• kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      No, replacing income tax with tariffs isn’t basically the same thing. It’s worse. It is replacing a progressive tax (one that is easiest on lower wage earners and gets higher with income levels) to a regressive tax (one that more greatly effects lower wage earners than higher) because lower wage earners have to spend most or all of their income for survival, while high income earners regularly use their surplus money for things unaffected by tariffs, like investments, property, travel, etc.

      • smeenz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        *affects. What you wrote - that it effects low income earners - means the opposite, that it enables them.

      • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Is it regressive though? Multimillionaires don’t pay income taxes at all, they have no income. Elon musk isn’t sitting down in April to fill out a 1040 or a 1099. They pay capital gains and other rich people taxes. With a consumption tax like a tarriff they’d at least be paying something even if it’s a lower percentage of their wealth than yours or mine.

        • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Multimillionaire do not, no. The ultra rich either have no income, have negligible income, or are compensated in ways that aren’t subject to income tax. That’s why there should be a wealth tax and sensible capital gains tax.

          • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            16 hours ago

            I agree. But wealth taxes aside, assuming the middle and lower classes end up paying about the same as they do now, the wealthy will pay more under a consumption tax (as in, more than the nothing they pay now).

              • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                16 hours ago

                Not most of their money, no. Way more than I spend on goods. Exponentially more. I have no faith that the current admin will pull this off in a way that benefits the 99% but it’s not outside the realm of possibility that some form of consumption tax would. It doesn’t have to be regressive.

                • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  There is literally no way to put a flat tax on goods without it disproportionately effecting poorer people unless it is exclusively on luxury goods they are not buying

                  • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    And yet, if it replaced income tax, it could affect the wealthy who are currently paying nothing. It’s not a perfect solution. If implemented right, it could be an improvement over the current one.