Today's featured reader comment comes from "iamcameo," who said the following in the post: "A Consumption Tax For Conservatives"
So people like Romney still won't pay any taxes. Maybe I don't understand this but why would we only tax physical labor? People who are fortunate enough to inherit gobs of money will never pay any taxes as long as all of their income is derived from dividends or interest and yet they get to enjoy all of the benifits of living in this country where it's the taxes of others that provide infastructute, laws, courts, fire and police protection and a myriad of other things not found in most countries. I don't get it.
Of all taxes, a progressive consumption tax is the one most likely to catch a Mitt Romney. The tax dispenses with all debates over how income is gained, and says instead: the point of all economic activity is to consume. Income from capital gains is consumed, income from dividends is consumed, income from labor is consumed. At that point, it will be taxed at rising rates. The final $300,000 withdrawn from savings to buy a Lamorghini could be taxed at very high rates without damage to work, saving, and investment - the great fear that economists have about higher rates on incomes.
True, the very mega-rich leave most of their income unconsumed. A progressive consumption tax would not prevent the accumulation and retention of great fortunes. But when that wealth is bequeathed, the heirs do consume. A progressive consumption tax enables tax postponement, possibly for as long as a generation, but sooner or later the taxes do bite.
Thanks for the Feedback is a recurring feature. Comment on the blog for the chance to have your question answered by David Frum.