I’m assuming that much of it will not be consumed base on taxable items. It may be spent on fine art, existing mansions, etc. The mere fact that wealth increases over time is testimony to the fact that larger and larger percents of higher and higher incomes are not consumed .
Your bracket calculations are based on a snapshot of time
Correct.
Where in your spreadsheet do your distribution calculations take into account whole life income vs expenditure and how taxes distribute through one's whole productive life. There is the only true measure of distribution of tax burden that means anything. You have yet to provide anything of the sort or even hint that you have done such an analysis. Yet Mastromarco and Jorgensen have looked at the effect of the NRST vs the Income/Payroll tax system in just those terms.
I have repeatedly asked you for material dealing with distributional effect. I do not believe you have produced any. That’s the reason I made my own calculation.
I suggest you have a very long way to go in developement of your methodology and data
This may be true, but to date it bears more on the issues of interest to me than any and all studies you have linked in this or previous threads.
How do you demark the "poor" in your distribution as opposed to those of merely low personal income but large capital resource from prior investment/savings or inheritence to draw from in their expenditures?
I don’t recall ever using the term “poor.” I have compared average effects by income level. If you are wondering whether I recognize that any given group contains a range of separate situations the answer is, of course, “yes”. Analyses of this kind all draw conclusions from aggregated data with that understanding.
It may be spent on fine art, existing mansions, etc.
Improvements on existing homes(i.e. making the mansions) are taxable consumption. etc. Any money spent on investement whatever it nature goes where it will be spent for more mundane consumption in any case.
Somehow I fail to worry over apparent concerns of where rich folks put there money. Seems to be a personal problem for you though.
I have repeatedly asked you for material dealing with distributional effect
None exist in the form you wish, Mastromarco and Jorgensen's studies address the issues via model and links to that material has been provide which you say you have not studied.
I can lead a horse to water, not much more than that.
This may be true, but to date it bears more on the issues of interest to me
That's good but when you get something that actually bears on the issues of others in regard to the NRST and it impact through "consuption expenditure" as opposed to ill defined measures of "income" let me know.
I have compared average effects by income level.
How do you manage that without detailed information about expenditure levels as they relate to pre-earned as well as currently earned income.
If you are wondering whether I recognize that any given group contains a range of separate situations the answer is, of course, “yes”. Analyses of this kind all draw conclusions from aggregated data with that understanding.
Remember the tables you pointed out to me as applicable to distribution of the tax burdent, showing expenditure of more than $17,000 on a avg income of $1,500 by persons owning homes worth $40K. I would like to know how those in what could be termed real "poverty" fair in comparison to those how could be considered to be better off than poverty level.
How those forced to a life of poverty as opposed those capable of living at high expenditure levels is your concern as regard distribution of the tax burden isn't it?
Knowing that you only work with snapshot data, I would like to know how you separate groups into classifications that are meaningful, without using lifetime income/expenditure measures? That seems key to leaning about the NRST tax burden in comparison with other tax systems.