No look when you make 30K you spend almost all fo your income. When you make 50K you spend most of your income. When you make 300K you save or invest most of your income. Since a VAT is a tax on *spending* it is a disproportionate tax.

i understand that perfectly, i just dont consider it a problem

Unless you also believe that someone who is 100th as wealthy as another person should pay 100th as much for a hamburger, the progressive tax doesn't actually solve this.

And using a flat consumption tax would also allow for a streamlining of departments, so the overall tax burden is *less*

Just tax the rich more, problem solved.

You can't really tax the rich more beyond a certain rate, functionally, because of capital flight.

And because they tend to move their assets around based on taxes.

You can force them to stay in the country at that point.

Or worse, utilize the tax dependency of the state on their specific industry to lobby for more power.

@Weez but why are you entitled to their money?

Heavily tax them if they leave.

Easy.

@system11 Because I'm the state.

I don't give a shit about their "entitlement" or "earnings"

I take what I want.

Sorry.

That doesn't really work over any extended periods of time. It's creating a disincentive to be profitable.

No, you can still be profitable

if i earned enough to be considered 'rich' i'd definitely relocate if i felt the state was being too greedy

You just can't have 2 yachts.

No, you don't understand. It's not worth it.

@system11 And we'll HEAVILY tax you on the way out 🙂

but back to VAT, i think conceptually i don't have a problem with it other than it's too high. it's twice as high as in the US for example

It's basically an incentive for high value market actors to work *less.*

Then, someone will take your place and will continue generating wealth.

😉

Because of sharply diminishing returns.

i wouldnt mind if they hiked income tax on the super rich (who wont notice) and cut VAT a bit

or i dunno, they could get Amazon etc to actually pay some bills

While it's perfectly arguable some CEO's and business owners are easily replaceable. Some aren't, and even for those which are, their replacements are going to be operating within that same system of disincentives.

What disincentives?

i've met CEOs

they don't have a concept of money, they don't really care that their staff have none or seem to realise why it's a problem - they're utterly driven by status. the fat bonuses - it's all status like showing off a car

Hell, restrictions and taxes put on high earnings are actually one of the reasons the stock market is so fucking cancer.

<:doubt:511986509679820843>

Basically, due to diminishing returns of regular income, many high earning corporate actors tend to take a portion of their earnings in stocks and other such things, and then focus on *boosting* the growth of these things, rather than tending to the actual health of the company.

i'm "lucky" enough to have worked in a small company which is now huge, it used to be that the CEO was a guy who said hello to you in the corridor, hes gone now, the new types are all in an ivory tower

@Miniature Menace Growth is healthy for the company..

Those things are assets for the company as well.

Which can be liquidated and used.

Even if they do that. So what?