Nice idea. Maybe do it for bicycles which are often more unique/personalized. Also, how are they going to identify identical model/trim/color cars when the license plates have been removed or switched?
>>The bottleneck for success often is not knowledge of the tools, but lack of understanding of the customer needs.
THIS!! A Thousand Times This!
I have had many successful projects putting the coders in direct contact with the end users.
In contrast, every time a manager is inserted between the real user requirements and the code, the project descends a lower ring of endless-feature-creep hell, doubles in length, and doubles it's likelihood of failure.
Yes, managers are needed to provide some insulation from very noisy and chaotic feature requests from users, but insisting on at least some frequent time with some actual coders in contact with actual users pays massive dividends.
Yup, that was one of Steve Job's principles: he recognized that someone was going to do something better and take your market share — so it is best if you cannibalize your own market share before they do.
I will never not talk about how bonkers it was that Jobs got up on that stage in 2005 and launched a complete replacement for the iPod mini, at the time the best-selling portable music player and it wasn't even close.
How many other execs would have the courage to do that vs letting the current thing (microdrive player) settle and holding the new thing (flash memory player) in reserve to launch only in response to a competitor gaining traction?
Next, they need to make the buttons more physically distinguishable, instead of panels of identical buttons
The dashboards of older pre-1990s cars had a wide variety of buttons, switches, and knobs, all with different locations and feels. Of course today's designers would see this as an unclean mess driven more by manufacturing considerations than "design" considerations, but it was a much lower driver workload to operate those "messy" controls. The different position, size, shape, and feel of each control allowed easy operation by just feel, without taking eyes off the road.
In contrast, the all-the-same rows of buttons on modern cars are still hard to operate after familiarization; which one is the front vs rear defrost?
Moving many buttons to the steering wheel overcomes many of these limitations, but again, rows of identical buttons do not help. Consider a Formula One steering wheel with 20+ controls. They are 100% custom and can be made any way they want. They make the OPPOSITE of identical controls — they are all different and brightly colored.
The point of driver cockpit design is NOT some clean asthetic.
The point is to use every available mnemonic device so a driver under heavy workload can recognize the controls instantly and reliably.
>>recall that central LA currently lacks the large stock of high-rise apartments that you see in cities like New York and Chicago.
The author entirely overlooks that NYC and Chicago are not in earthquake-prone areas and LA is right next to a major geologic fault system. Yes, skyscrapers can be safely built to withstand earthquakes, but it tends to be at least expensive, which is counter to solving affordability issues.
>>I favor a steeply progressive consumption tax.
This is generally pointing in the right direction, but a progressive transaction tax on every transaction, including finance and investments would be far better. Easier to track, harder to evade, far less intrusive into peoples' lives required by income tax. and the rate and difference between rates would be so low that structuring deals to 'optimize' taxation brackets would be pointless.
Just the volume of Equities + TRACE fixed income/structured + munis + real estate is over $200Trillion. A mere 3% tax on those would put the $6T US budget in large surplus. Add $1.7 Quadrillion of ovrerall payments and a 0.3% tax on transactions (yes, $3 per $1000) would also put the US budget in surplus. Make it progressive by setting tax rate tables based on transaction size, e.g., transaction <$10=0.01, <$100=0.1%, <$10k=0.2%, <$100k=0.3%, <$1MM=0.4%, =>$1MM=0.5% (plus big penalties for 'structuring' transactions to lower brackets).
Sky scrappers are expensive. A single story building is the cheapest thing you can build anywhere - only when land is expensive is it worth going up instead of out. There is value in density so we build skyscrapers anyway, but for nobody is it the most economical way to get square feet.
Plus, you are looking at it purely from a construction cost of the building point of view. If you build more densely, you don't need as many roads and other services, which also cost money, and once you have enough density, agglomeration means that it's economical to have local businesses nearby, fewer people need cars etc.
Roads are cheap. I know we spend billions on them, but they are still cheap compared to adding another floor.
I'm not arguing with your other points. Density is often worth the monetary costs, but don't try to pretend it isn't more expensive. (Indeed I would value the time density can save high, but there is no objective way to value a large part of my time)
A "high-rise" is anything over 6 stories; they aren't skyscrapers. The argument generally is for upzoning, not for setting height records, and that argument isn't impacted by seismology.
If we put a $10k tax on beards, that's $600 billion right there!
What's that, people might change their behaviour in response to it, in possibly unintended and negative ways? Nah we can just hand wave that away, who needs liquidity or investment.
So your claim is eliminating the massive overhead and personal/corporate intrusion of income tax will have no effect, benefits, or positive behavior change in response?
And on top of that a $5000 difference in a $1,000,000 transaction is do onerous that it will kill liquidity?
Yikes! Maybe run some numbers before posting?
Seriously, at any wealth level I'd trade income tax for a pennies-on-$1000 transaction tax any day.
Yes. Transaction taxes are a huge incentive for assets to stay put, which is quite inefficient. Income/consumption taxes are a burden on new production, but let you trade existing assets freely so as to direct them towards their highest and best use. That's usually a better arrangement, though of course less tax is preferable to more other things being equal.
>>Transaction taxes are a huge incentive for assets to stay put
I'm sure that is true at high rates. But we can look at several scenarios and see how sensitive people actually are to a transaction tax.
But have you ever bought or sold a house? In most states there is a Real Estate transfer tax, which is essentially the same thing as I'm proposing for all transactions. These range from zero in TX and WY up to 5%. In Massachusetts it is $4.28/$1000 of valuation or 0.428% [0], while in adjacent New Hampshire it is over 3X the rate at $1.50/$100 or 1.5% [1]. I've lived in one state or the other for several decades, bought and sold houses in both, and been adjacent to friends/family buying/selling there. Yet I have NEVER heard even a single word in any discussion about hesitating to make a transaction on either side because of the transfer tax, or any difference in rates. I've never even read of anyone expressing any such hesitation, or heard of anyone even expressing theoretical hesitation.
Stockbroker fees in the 1990s were in the $40-$100/trade or /100 shares. So with a mean price of a DJI share of ~$56, a $70 fee would be a rate of 1.25% for a round lot. But to buy 20 shares, the $70/trade would be $6.25. These fees did not slow down investing and any significant investor, but they certainly prevented day-trading of small lots, which became more prevalent after fees went to zero.
Similarly, the common practice in auctions for antiques, estate sales, or industrial goods is to charge a "buyers' premium", which is basically the income for the auctioneer, behaving exactly as a transfer tax. You win the auction at $100, and the buyers' premium is 18%, so you pay $118. These premiums were typically closer to 10-12% a few decades ago and are now in the 18-20% range. At the newer higher rates, I have heard people express hesitation when considering bidding on an item they don't much care about.
In municipalities which have both state and local sales taxes like LA total 9.5% and NYC at 8.875%, people complain a lot, but it doesn't stop them buying, but may shift buying at the borders. Similarly, in Massachusetts there is a 6.25% sales tax but zero in neighboring New Hampshire, there are a surplus of stores right on the NH side of the border people nearby will drive to NH to purchase large items but surprisingly little; a wholesale club <15min south of an identical store across the border still does very strong volume of large TVs etc, with people not willing to bother driving another 15min to save 6.25%
So, yes, people are sensitive to significant fees approaching double digits. High-frequency traders would also be sensitive to low rates, but that is because they are in a high-transaction/low margin business of shaving pennies off every transaction, so that would be an issue for them, but if HFT disappeared it would be a net positive for the markets as they are basically front-running transactions and shaving profit from real investors.
But for most transactions, as long as the rates are sub-1%, a transaction tax will make zero practical difference, which is why the base needs to be across all transactions.
Unless Maduro was somehow actually deposed BEFORE the US mil came into the country, or at least into Maduro's residence, Trump just changed the standing international order of centuries to allow kidnapping of heads of state
So, Putin could now legitimately go grab Zelenskyy for "crimes", or Xi could go grab Trump for "crimes".
This so-called administration is insanely bad at thinking ahead.
>>"Here's what I want: an off switch. A single setting that says "this child cannot go online, communicate with strangers, spend money, or download anything without my explicit permission." Instead I get a maze, complex enough that when something goes wrong, I'm at fault for a tooltip I didn't hover over, a blog post I didn't read, a submenu I didn't find. Maybe that's by design. Maybe it's neglect. I don't know. "
When it happens only a few times, it might be neglect. This is absolutely by design.
And think again if you think any large corporation (beyond a few isolated individuals who will not be employed there for long) has any actual concern for your safety, or to get anything right beyond an appearance of safety and plausible deniability for the inevitable harm caused by their dark patterns.
The only winning move is not to play. Don't play and write about how awful it is. Send them the only message that they will hear. Stop giving them your money.
> Send them the only message that they will hear. Stop giving them your money.
Second order effects of this solution are not great either - being outside of the smartphone world means you're... outside. Network effects quickly push you out of social groups without neither you nor the group doing anything mean, it's just group dynamics.
The real issue is the device and services come in a package which cannot be separated or compartmentalized. It's basically impossible to say 'this device cannot access youtube/pornhub/...' because there's a million ways to get around restrictions.
Building 29 separate settings with confusing and overlapping effects is less work than making a single setting of: [Local Only]?
Seems to be a much larger amount of work to design, implement, and support a more-or-less dozen-step customer journey that does NOT work than just implementing a few switches. And that goes even if the switch must be designed-in from the beginning by designing operation for local-only operation.
Surely, implementing a simple block-all-strangers to send-to-bitbucket all communications attempts by accounts not already on the whitelist is easier than all these overlapping settings described?
Unless it is explained how building a much more complex system is easier and lower-cost than a simpler system with fewer controls, the default conclusion is it is intentional.
>>It is not a dark pattern, it is just "what is the minimum we can do to sell this without doing the curation work?"
Even if for the sake of discussion we treat it as laziness, a dark pattern created by accident is still a dark pattern. The customer is no less screwed into doing something they do not want and the company does want.
> Building 29 separate settings with confusing and overlapping effects is less work than making a single setting of: [Local Only]?
The 29 separate confusing overlapping effects is by design. A single "local only" switch would (so long as that switch is enabled) lock out all manner of potential future revenue and recurring rents, which these companies very much want to see hit the balance sheet.
So the 29 separate confusing overlapping settings is designed to frustrate you to the point that you allow what they want from the start, the ability of the device to generate future revenue (via both of one time sales and recurring rents on rental sales).
>>The 29 separate confusing overlapping effects is by design
>>designed to frustrate you to the point that you allow what they want from the start, the ability of the device to generate future revenue
And this explains why they are willing to do all the extra work to do it.
It is not even close to accidental or lazy — there is nothing accidental about the intention or going to the extra cost to build those dark patterns to screw the customers.
At the end of the day if the MTX group says no, it doesn't happen. Sales is always the most powerful group in an organization, sometimes even overriding compliance if they can get away with it.
>> Building 29 separate settings with confusing and overlapping effects is less work than making a single setting of: [Local Only]?
Yes, absolutely. 29 separate overlapping settings likely match up precisely to arguments in various APIs that are used. On the other hand, what does local only even mean? No wifi? No hardwired connection? LAN only? Connection to the internet for system updates but not marketplace? Something else? All with a specified outcome that requires different implementation depending on hardware version and needs to be tweaked everytime dependencies change.
Having a separate setting for unconditionally disabling all wireless communication would be helpful. The other stuff you mention can be separate settings if it is useful to have them. (A setting to unconditionally all disable wired connections is less important since you can just avoid connecting it.)
Let's start with this: Design the architecture so the core system works fine locally. Features requiring Internet connection are in separate modules, so they can be easily turned on/off, and designed so they are still primarily local.
E.g., store all current status locally and if requested another module sends it to the cloud, instead of cloud-first.
E.g.2, install updates by making a pull of all resources and then doing the update instead of requiring continuous communication.
Allow user control with options to completely shut off, whitelist, blacklist, etc.
Simple design decisions up front to make a software package meeting the user's local needs first, THEN allowing controlled access to the internet, under the USERS' control, instead of designing every feature to contact your servers first and compromising both usability and control at every step.
I’m not sure why some are struggling to understand this. A single "godmode" checkbox would only be possible if every element, the marketplace, the hardware, and the payment rails, were inside one ecosystem. The Switch is Nintendo, Minecraft is Microsoft, the credit card is Visa, and so on. There are simply too many moving parts, making a single killswitch nearly impossible to orchestrate.
Nonsense. The amount of wealth hoarded by the top 0.1%, 1%, and 10% has vastly expanded in the past decades, while the percent of all income and wealth held by workers has been gutted.
That alone shows the top earners are not being taxed enough.
If they were losing wealth and portion of income, you might have an argument. But they are not and you do not.
The top 1% earn 22.4% of ALL income (AGI). [0]
The top 1% held 30.8% of all US wealth in 2024. That amount has grown from 22.8% in 1989.[1]
>> the top 0.1% of households in terms of wealth held 8.5% of the nation's wealth in Q3 1989. By Q2 2025, that had risen to 13.9% For the rest of the top 1%, the percentages rose from 14.3% to 17.1% over the same period. So the wealthiest top 1% now holds more than 30% of all wealth. Those gains came at the expense of the less-wealthy household categories, all of which lost ground on a percentage basis. The bottom 50%, for example, saw their share fall from an already low 3.5% down to 2.5%. [0]
NONE of this is because workers have somehow become worse
ALL of it is because those at the top have become more greedy, and have been enabled by craven politicians of a particular party who support that.
> Nonsense. The amount of wealth hoarded by the top 0.1%, 1%, and 10% has vastly expanded in the past decades, while the percent of all income and wealth held by workers has been gutted.
> That alone shows the top earners are not being taxed enough.
Is your reasoning that the amount of household wealth and income at each percentile should hold roughly constant over the years, as if this is some law of physics?
The point is: the absolute values are bad the direction and magnitude of change indicates it is getting worse.
The distribution of wealth is already vastly suboptimal, heavily skewed to the most greedy 0.1%-5%.
When the most wealthy society in the history of the planet still has large portions of its population living one missed paycheck or one illness/accident away from being destitute, or being already destitute, while a few at the top have orders of magnitude more wealth than they can spend in a lifetime, something is deeply wrong.
The change numbers show this already the case nearly four decades ago, it has gotten worse.
So yes, the glib argument that "the 1% already pay 90% of federal taxes..." is just as spurious as it is vacuous.
Not only does it ignore the reality of wealth and income distribution that the taxation is far below the misallocation, it also ignores the fact that Federal Income Taxes are only a small portion of our total tax burden, and the poor and middle classes pay vastly more of the other taxes such as sales tax, gasoline and road taxes, fees, etc. IOW, you are cherry-picking, and badly.
>>How do you or anyone else know what's optimal and what's misallocated?
Start with basic empathy and a simple sense of fairness.
No one here is saying everything should be even close to equal, and I certainly am not. But as many philosophers have pointed out through the ages, you can see how ethical a society is by how it treats its lowest members.
Seriously. Anyone who fails to see something is deeply wrong, when the most wealthy society in the history of the planet has half of it's people barely scraping by, while a tiny elite hoard orders of magnitude more wealth than they can spend in a lifetime, is morally blind.
So start there. When the system is producing this well-documented result, the wealthy are most definitely not paying enough taxes to support the society that enabled them to earn their wealth.
>>Income tax is roughly ...
Yes, and you are appearing to be deliberately obtuse by focusing only on specific federal taxes and ignoring the TOTAL tax burden which is what counts when measuring which people are supporting society and which are extracting more than a fair share. And ignoring the proportion of income and wealth that sector takes vs what they pay in taxes.
When hedge fund managers bringing in $billions and Warren Buffet pay lower rates than their secretaries, something is deeply wrong.
Again, a simple sense or empathy, ethics, and fairness can be your guide. These are evidently foreign concepts to you, and I recommend you look into them.
> when the most wealthy society in the history of the planet has half of it's people barely scraping by
Real median household income has been steadily rising over the past few decades; it's up nearly 20% over the past 20 years[0]. American median disposable income is the highest in the world[1] that isn't a tax haven or a petrostate. Mississippi, often panned for its poverty, has a higher median household income than Germany, often considered the strongest European economy.
Now, you might point out that the CPI gets fudged in a way that doesn't fully capture the costs of living that these figures are adjusted for; I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the numbers are what they are, and the numbers do not support your claim that half of America is "barely scraping by".
> while a tiny elite hoard orders of magnitude more wealth than they can spend in a lifetime
I'm not sure what your operating definition of "hoard" is. There are no Scrooge McDuck vault full of gold coins. The ultra-rich's net worth is based on ownership of companies that often times were founded by them (granted, some people inherit, though not as many in the US as in more egalitarian nations[2]), and is a fictitious figure based on the number of shares they own multiplied by the last-traded price per share. There is no world in which they could actually liquidate those shares to get the number of dollars that are thrown about.
And those companies are almost always publicly traded and owned by heaps of other people, retirement funds for middle-class workers, and whatnot; and generate value to the purchasers of the goods and services they provide. I'm not sure where in this picture comes hoarding.
> Warren Buffet pay lower rates than their secretaries
Warren Buffett paid $23.7M in federal income tax alone over five years[3]. A hypothetical secretary living in Omaha, NE making $300k would have paid $69k in federal income tax in 2025, with another $30k or so in payroll and state taxes. In five years, Buffett paid to the federal treasury alone 237 years worth of income, FICA, and state taxes that this well-paid secretary would have!
Besides, when publications talk about "lower rates" of the ultra-rich, they're always comparing taxes paid on their income against the rise in the valuation of the stock that they own. It's comparing apples and oranges to come up with sensational figures.
> the wealthy are most definitely not paying enough taxes to support the society that enabled them to earn their wealth
The society that is a necessary but not sufficient condition of earning that wealth.
> focusing only on specific federal taxes and ignoring the TOTAL tax burden
Are you claiming that there exist some other taxes through which the working masses are shouldering above their "fair share", whatever that may be, of the burdens of maintaining a functioning society? What taxes are those, exactly? Do you think if you added up all the sales, property, income, FICA, estate, etc. ad nauseam taxes that the average American pays, we'll actually discover that the unsung hero of taxation is someone making $50k a year?
Some estimate that the average American will pay roughly half a million dollars of taxes of all kinds through their lifetime, out of a lifetime earnings of about a million and a half[4]. So Warren Buffett in five years of federal income tax alone (not counting any other taxes he paid) paid as much as almost fifty average people would have over their entire lives in any taxable domain. Jeff Bezos over the same five years, nearly two thousand average lifetimes' worth. To me, it's hard to make the argument that the likes of Buffett and Bezos aren't paying enough.
> a simple sense or empathy, ethics, and fairness can be your guide
Countless millions of people have been immiserated by those preaching empathy and fairness, just in recent history. I prefer to deal in what works in the real world to enrich the lives of the average among us; and as it turns out, systems that let rich people be result in better median outcomes than systems that confiscate and punish.
What is your fair share? Moreover, what is your fair share of what somebody else worked for? How much of the earnings of a waitress, plumber, doctor, Fortune 500 exec, and Elon Musk is due to you, personally, as your empathic, ethical, and fair share?
Sure "Real median household income has risen" and other nice stats exist. And much of the society looks like they're OK. But the reality is this is extremely brittle.
There is near-zero buffer for about half of the country's people. Only 55% of adults have enough savings to cover 3 months of expenses, and 30% could not cover it by any means. 37% of people cannot even handle a $400 surprise expense out of savings, 18% can't even handle a $100 expense! Only 48% could handle a surprise $2000 expense, which is a ar breakdown or a ride to the hospital. [0]
Seven percent of adults did not have enough money to eat at times in the prior month. [0]
28% of adults went without some kind of healthcare because of the expense, and 17% are carrying medical debt. [0]
You can quibble about the exact threshold of what counts as "scraping by", if you have to worry about your next meal, worry about whether you should go to the doctor, worry about being wiped out if your car breaks down or you have a minor accident, you are scraping by. And whether that applies to exactly half, sixty percent, or "only" one third, it is too much. The wealthiest society in the history of the planet should be able to care for all of it's residents.
>>operating definition of "hoard"
Of course there are not Scrooge McDuck vaults, and they are entirely unecessary for the activity of keeping for yourself amounts of wealth that are orders of magnitude more than one could possibly spend in a lifetime.
It doesn't matter how you got it, once you are past $20-$50million, it is not about personal wealth or lifestyle (the interest alone at $25mm is over $4,000 per day); it is hoarding wealth for power, and at the cost of the rest of society
>>Warren Buffett paid $23.7M in Federal Income Tax ... 237 years worth of [secretary's taxes]
Yes, and his reported $125million income reported was 416X the secretary's pay, and the $24Billion wealth gain over the five years was 16,200X the secretary's 5-year earnings. We can take Warren at his word when he says he's paing lower rates.
>> society that is a necessary but not sufficient condition of earning that wealth.
Exactly. I'm glad we agree. A sound soceity is a NECESSARY condition to earning the wealth. We don't see many even millionaires coming out of low-tax states in East Africa, but they way you type scream about taxes one would expect them to be minting trillionaires.
>> deal in what works in the real world
Yes, we agree. I am not proposing any kind of -ism, only making a system that is fair for all and produced the most broadly prosperous society in history, specifically the US system based around a very broad middle class.
>>systems that let rich people be
I am not suggesting not letting rich people be rich, and certianly not confiscating or punishing; I'm suggesting a system that will actually have MORE people be rich
>>what is your fair share of what somebody else worked for?
OK, what is the billionaire's fair share of the labor stolen from workers paid exploitation wages?
When 20%+ of WalMart's full-time employees qualify for Food Stamps because we allow them to pay poverty wages, those billionaires do not have a business model, they have an exploitation model. They owe their employees a living wage, and they owe the rest of us the taxes they failed to pay to cover those food stamp benefits. They are stealing from all of us.
>>What is your fair share? How much of the earnings of a waitress, plumber, doctor, Fortune 500 exec, and Elon Musk is due to you, personally, as your empathic, ethical, and fair share?
Mine? I'm already above the threshold. OUR fair share is a fair system requiring EVERYONE to contribute, and contribute enough that the least among us have food, housing, healthcare, and education without undue worry. The entire society, especially the rich benefits when everyone is operating at their best potential, not primarily worried about being one slip from the ditch.
And while we still have income taxes (I actually think they should be eliminated in favor of transaction taxes, see other posts), the hedge funders should be required to pay tax on their millions of "carried interest", and capital gains taxes should be realized in ANY event where stock is utilized at it's current value, e.g., as collateral for a loan, not only when it is sold.
A lot of other detail, but it is not good to see the country which was the greatest in history with a large middle class slide backwards into a new corporate feudalism by allowing the rich to excessively hoard the wealth of the nation that made them rich. The irony is that the more wealth becomes concentrated, the harder it is to be and stay wealthy -look at any nation with a few rich in their gated communities - it declines for the rich even more than the poor.
Interesting I discovered two new-to-me temperature symbols (℃ and ℉), but couldn't find the Alt-0176 ° generic degree sign that shows up on the MS Character Map app. I also found the There Exists symbol ∃ !! I'd been seeking for years; it was so useful since finding out about it in college logic courses... This will be even more useful when the Alt-code fields are all filled in! Thanks!
The solution is to stop taxing human labor/income and to start taxing every financial transaction, from buying a piece of candy, a computer component, a service, a house, a data center, or a share of stock, etc.
Just the volume of Equities + TRACE fixed income/structured + munis + real estate is over $200Trillion. A mere 3% tax on those would put the $6T US budget in large surplus. Add $1.7 Quadrillion of ovrerall payments and a 0.3% tax on transactions (yes, $3 per $1000) would also put the US budget in surplus.
All of it would also involve far less tracking and bureaucratic overhead, and indeed far less govt intrusion into people's lives (i.e., not digging into every source and amount of income).
Also gains on sales of things like stocks and commodities should be taxed proportionally to how briefly they are owned, with an asymptote approaching 100% for HFT.
YES!! I've long thought the tax rates on cap gains should be extremely progressive with holding time, ranging from 99%+ for sub-second holding (HFT) to sub 5% for decade+ holding periods. This would also effectively eliminate the utility of basis reset on inheritance, since the rate for multi-decade holding goes so low.
Also a great idea I saw recently is to treat any encumbrance of a capital asset as a realization event. For example, early investors in a company holding stock may have $millions in unrealized gains. Those gains are 'realized' and taxed on sale of the stock. However, if they take a loan using the stock as collateral, it is not taxed because there is a matching obligation to repay the loan and the stock ownership doesn't change (except in a default). Such loans should be taxed as a realization event, since they are pledging the stock at its current value, not its comparatively microscopic original purchase value.
How not; wouldn't it be straightforward to have tax rate tables based on transaction size? E.g., transaction <$10=0, <$100=0.1%, <$10k=0.2%, <$100k=0.3%, <$1MM=0.4%, =>$1MM=0.5%, with restructuring payments to avoid taxes to carry heavy penalties.
Not many poor people will be making million-dollar+ transactions, and it seems like taxing ALL transactions will help make the rich pay their fair share, as their money tends to have low velocity relative to consumer goods, but they still do a lot of transactions.
EDIT: Also it should have zero taxes on necessities such as food & non-luxury clothing, similarly to how current state/local sales taxes work.
Also, if there is sufficient tax rate and income to do UBI to above poverty level, wouldn't the need for a progressive tax structure become obsolete?
When you say transactions, what are you thinking of? I was thinking of your usual VAT/GST - in that case any sort of progressive tax would be hell for small businesses (or large ones) to implement.
If you’re talking about banks taxing financial transactions, that’s something I haven’t really thought through- it would have some interesting side effects and work arounds.
I like the simplicity of a flat consumption tax combined with a UBI - I’m not sure how politically viable it is, though.
I'm not sure how politically viable it is either — the wealthy owners of congresspeople will scream like they are being murdered.
I wasn't thinking of any kind of VAT, where you need to subtract out your cost, etc.; that is a mess! Just a straight shaving off the transaction. The idea is to spread it over so many transactions the rates are so low it isn't worth bothering to work around.
For example, if you try to structure a $1million house purchase into ten %$99,999 payments to get from 0.5% down to 0.4% rate, you will save a grand total of $1000, hardly worth it considering there should also be laws with strong penalties for such structuring.
reply