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.
While you are working on the nominal issue of decreasing the rate, I am working on the important issue of decreasing the amount and keeping the distribution of tax burden as it is, currently. When I suggest increasing the FCA and the tax rate you oppose raising the rate as if you think a higher tax will be paid. You’re wrong. If FCA and rate\are both raised in proper proportions it merely changes distribution of the tax not the amount of it.
The state tax authorities, who charter and licenses retail businesses and keep track of em for tax purposes, don't seem to have much trouble with such. 80 percent of retail sales go through 10% of the businesses.
The shenanigans will be at all businesses not just retail businesses. For example, businesses can give cars to key employees as business expenses rather than give higher salaries so employees can buy their own cars (and hundreds of things like that). Also, are you not aware of the level of cheating on sales tax?
You really should watch your "it seems", "I say", "I think", and keep the discussion to something less than total speculation.
You do the same thing but put forth your opinion as objective truth. I’m being more honest and humble.
Somehow I fail to worry over apparent concerns of where rich folks put there money. Seems to be a personal problem for you though.
You conclude this from what? The fact that I prefer not to shift the tax burden from the upper incomes to the middle class?
Deuce: I have repeatedly asked you for material dealing with distributional effect
Ancient_Geezer: 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 am interested in the distribution of tax burden. Most people are going to want to know this if this concept ever gets off the ground. Knowing that the tax burden is shifted downward, however much you welcome it, is not a feature likely to gain broad based popular appeal.
Upper income class pays more tax in proportion to income than any other class.
As a group, they also pay a smaller portion of their wealth and less than the benefits they receive.