And not all are equally beneficial. My sons play online games where if you leave a match you are banned for a period of time. They constantly induce them to upgrade.

Look at Fanduel. They show fans looking at garbage time as opportunities to continue betting.

I don't want to make this a values argument. Someone be!ow made a comment implying selfish intent. I am a Catholic and we are required to help the poor. I am arguing we have fiscal issues and need to discuss options and rationale s for them.

Consumers in the U.S. love to consume. High state sales tax in some states don’t seem to keep people from purchasing goods like their fellow Americans in no income tax states. Consumption especially won’t be an in issue given that relative income would increase with the elimination of the federal income tax.

one is consuming?

I had a sneaking suspicion he was looking at my paychecks, because when I found him eating my leftovers one day, he said "well you make twice as much as me..."

"I don't eat twice as much as you," I replied.

I don't particularly especially like the way "regressive" gets bandied about, but how do these people figure that consumption will scale in such a way to make this sustainable? It seems to me it's more "let's take a more from more people, rather than a lot more from a few."

I admit that it works in the EU, but my suspicion is that it isn't just VAT.

is also a value judgment so the move to shift taxes away from one method of collection toward another involves value judgments. I suppose the most value neutral system would be a flat tax with no exemptions or carve outs. Everyone pays the exact same % of their income regardless of the source of income or the amount. Janitor making minimum wage pays x%. Banker making 300,000 pays 10%. Jaime DImon makes 30,000,000 pay 10%

Even under that system I think there would be some on the right and left who would see value judgments. The right might argue that is isnt "fair" to require them to pay such a higher amount. The left might argue the system isnt fair because the wealthy would not pay on paper gains but can use those assets to go borrow money which can again generate paper gains they dont pay taxes on.

As was tripped below.

In the roommate situation, we both have similar living accommodations so we pay the same rent. If I get the bigger bedroom, I pay more. Those are fairly "easy" definitions of fair.

I would agree with you that it's murkier when it comes to consumption - I didn't intend for my argument to advocate for use-based taxes, more to highlight the problem with people who think that consumption only will solve all our ills (when some people cannot afford to consume).

The other part (of which I don't really have data on hand) is the effective tax rate. My understanding of the rebuttal to people who point to when individuals were taxed at a marginal rate of 90% was that they were very, very aggressive in finding loopholes so they paid a much lower effective rate. Closing out a lot of these exceptions would allow us to have both a clearer forecast and clearer picture of "who pays what".

comment on the topic.