Replies

My take is that taxes should be assessed on income and property. After all, significantly property is what is being protected by government. Say 5% on income and 10% on property, as a start. Mr Bill Gates, 5 billion. Mr Joe average, 2 thousand. Yeh, like that will happen. But of course, when Mr Gates calls the cops on a serious complaint, we'll see $1 million of response, FBI, CIA, state and local cops, but for Mr Joe average - nothing but a $10 report form filled out.

My absolute theory is that with a consumption tax the economy will grow boundless.

I would not subscribe to such a theory. There are lots of uncertainties to growth. Time, resources, talent, courage, confidence, etc. The economy is made up from many unpredictable things - look at Ireland, and its uncanny "artist" contributions to growth. Of course that could be inspired by previous "no-tax" policies on artistic creations. Perhaps? By some odd chance - in some alternate universe? Yea, some moron would need more evidence. It is obvious that if one does not tax productivity, it flourishes. And when one does, it vanishes.

I believe low taxes on productivity, and moderate taxes on passive wealth would be the ticket.

Someone recently posted an enumeration of all the benefits of Bush's tax cuts. Jobs, ecnomy, home ownership etc. It is my opinion that such a posting favored the FairTax since it showed what just a little easing of income taxes can do. Imagine no income taxes, just consumption taxes.

About your assets, why did you accumulate so much outside of tax deferred accounts? You say you spent a lifetime saving this money. If you had used IRA's or something similar you would have had a much more rapid compounding of returns than you did outside of these. I've found the best combination is about 50-50 taxable and tax deferred. Most of the problems I encounter is with people who have too much in tax deferred accounts.