We Need VAT and UBI

piker

VAT is the most regressive tax since inflation. Rich people spend basically zero of their wealth. Poor people spend almost all of it. Even though there are exceptions and item-level exemptions, it's still the poor people who feel these prices the most, and it is reflected in spending behaviors in European countries in my experience.

Veliladon

We don't need a VAT. Taxes on consumption are insanely regressive. Put a tax on the value of land instead of the property improvements. Then you'll start to see some wealth flow away from the UHNWIs.

paganel

VAT is one of the most regressive taxes imaginable, the author doesn't know what the hell he's writing. Or maybe it's AI-generate slop, too lazy to check.

cyanydeez

Can we just tax billionaires who take out infinite loans against a market they get to rig because they take out infinite loans against a market they get to rig because they take out infninite loans against a market they get to rig because they takeout infinite loans agianst a market they get to rig because thye takouet inifnite loans?

gaiagraphia

The article argues that consumption taxes are necessary for this model, but there's no mention of why VAT is the best tool for the job. I'm not sure why VAT is sacrosanct. I've read that it costs small companies around 2% of turnover to be VAT compliant. In the modern age, this is absolutely insane. We have the ability to work out how much businesses spend to do a job. We can boil that into a transaction or sales tax, which - with digital payments - can practically be automated at source. (if people pay in cash, that assumes a local service being supported, so who cares if its taxless? it balances out the unethical practices associated with hugebusinesses). There's also no mention of externality taxation. If we're going to have socialised services, surely consumption taxes need to be raised in parallel to how much goods/services impact society?

cassianoleal

> This is not a political post > I’m aware of the irony of this statement. Everything is political. This is a horrible cop-out. Sure, everything is political to an extent. The subject of the article though, taxes , is political in nature . There is no way to discuss taxes outside of politics. Taxes are one of the most political subjects there can ever be, and trying to untangle them just means your argument will have exactly zero relation to reality.

bob1029

> If you so much as whisper “that’s socialist” or “you’re defending the bourgeoisie” I will beat you to death with a sickle tied to a demand curve. > This is not a political post Why is this rage bait on the front page of HN?

Mistletoe

I think UBI is necessary but it’s about where you get it. Just making up and printing money for it is like when I was a kid and thought that you could just write checks and create money. We need to move money from the ultra wealthy and corporations to UBI. It’s actually astounding Americans repeatedly vote for the exact opposite to happen. Maybe the midterms can be a turning point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

icheyne

Flagged for being about politics

skeledrew

Nice to see others thinking along the same lines as I am[0]. I can use this to expand my thoughts on the issue as well, maybe finally get around to that blog I've been thinking of for years. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48428776

unreal37

I think the main problem is that this will not survive very long once implemented. Politician A will promise "no VAT on bread" to get elected. The next guy will promise "no VAT on essentials". The next guy will promise "no UBI for the rich". And so on. And you end up with the next politician dismantling the whole system as unfair.

phtrivier

> Won’t we get massive inflation? I was expecting they would adress the elephant in the room : the price of the room to fit the elephant (as, in "rents"). There are form of subsidies in France called "APL" (nothing to do with the programming language - the form you have to fill in order to request the subsidy is waaay more cryptict.) The tacit agreement in the flat renting business, is that your rent will be "whatever you earn as subsidy from the government, plus however we can afford to ask." So it's still a free market where homeowners get to set the price - because they own a scarce asset that is in high demand, probably because they wisely chose their parents and year or birth. It's just that the subsidy artificially increase the floor price. I've always wondered how a government implementing UBI would prevent such an effect on the goods that are the most scarce, unliquid, and high demand / low supply.

nullfield

Since it looks like you’re the author, well… “you’re (that’s) socialist.” Given you’ve (ironically or not) opened with a threat to murder anyone who makes this claim, via “I’m tired of being calm about this. If you so much as whisper ‘that’s socialist’ […] I will beat you to death with a sickle tied to a demand curve.”: You may try to beat people to death with your precious sickle. In the civilized world, you’ll die from a stream of (ideally lead-free, but when people are try to kill you being environmentally friendly is optional) high speed projectiles. You propose redistribution intentionally and explicitly, then claim, “redistribution isn’t the point”. Yes. It is, and we all know it. You lie that it won’t cause massive inflation to just print money and then tax it, before going on to admit, “Whoever calculates the national CPI will have a tiny bit of extra work to do. It also is inflation in terms of eroding savings and assets.” …so yes, it will be inflation, but you just need someone to do the lying for you via a bit of “extra work”. You claim this will solve the stagnation of Western economies, the “far right”, nationalism, housing, and “consumption as a component of economic activity”. Will it also solve world peace and hunger, or do you want to stop while you’re behind? Just admit what you want directly AND stop lying in the process.

hattmall

Everyone keeps saying VAT is regressive, that seems to miss the point that the author explicitly pairs it with UBI. It's also dubious that a VAT is intrinsically regressive, a VAT is essentially a tax on business revenue. Most items for which the price is set by demand will face downward pricing pressure a force that ultimately results in the VAT contracting profitability and not being regressive. The issue with the argument that consumption based taxes like a VAT or tariffs are regressive is that it assumes an altruistic pricing mode. A state which is very far from reality. If our multinational corporate conglomerate market dominators could raise prices to absorb all taxes then their current pricing is too low. A case I don't think many would make in the current age of consistent record breaking profits. The thing to remember is the corporate goal is that prices are set to be the maximum the market will bear.

normanthreep

a bit much with all the self promotion, my dude. maybe post something else for a change

carlosjobim

Imagine having as your highest aspiration in life: Getting free money from the government. What a nightmarish mind and prison for the soul. What a waste of our precious time on Earth.

OutOfHere

VAT could be sensible only when it applies to clearly luxury items, e.g. air travel. It doesn't make sense to apply it to everyday necessities.

snapplebobapple

Why do so many people make the same analytical error? It's really simple what is going on: information and power asymmetries are used to accumulate more wealth and therefore power. This happens through a whole bunch of mechanisms usually referred to as market power abuse in economics all centered around getting control of a pain point that makes it less likely people will leave for a competitor and then pushing prices down (think chain restaurants saturating a region and only offering minimum wage, think the app economy getting you on the app and watching your every move to price your labor as low as possible, think larger companies spending money on lobyists to push new regulations to decrease competition and kill start ups) The government is implicit in a lot of this when it should be doing stuff like breaking up big companies to curtail it. UBI and VAT would just exacerbate the actual problem because it would grow the government and the government would eventually just get captured again (or stay captured) and be put to work ensuring the wealth keeps flowing to a select few.