I wouldn't phrase it that way but I could see the argument for exempting only the most basic necessities from taxation such as very basic end-consumer foodstuffs (generic non-organic unbranded flour, eggs, milk, in-season domestic fruits and vegetables, etc, generic commodity processed food goods, if a company slaps a brand on it, it should not be exempt). For housing, maybe the first N dollars of housing costs where N is the median cost of the cheapest 10% of housing stock in a local market.
Whatever the decision that is made, the main thing that needs to be conserved is that everyone that votes should feel the pain of taxation for any consumption above and beyond mere existence. If we don't all feel the burden of paying for governance, how are we all supposed to take the same interest in making sure that that governance is spending taxpayer money wisely. This is especially important in a democracy where the majority can rule. What you can't have is a situation where the majority with the votes doesn't feel the burden of the governance they are voting for. That's a recipe for disaster.
> For example, would renting an item be taxed the same as buying it?
renting is consumption
> Or what if instead I receive access to my Ferrari as a perk of working for my hedge fund?
gifting is consumption. Stuff like this is already stuff that people have to include in their income taxes.
> For every rule there are probably multiple loopholes.
that's no different than for the status quo. loopholes are a fact of life in a system. the more complex the rules, the most loopholes there are
> All of this is just pointless thought experimentation anyway;
I disagree. It's important to identify the shortcomings of the current system and that is that it leads to voters that are drunk on transferism. If you don't identify such shortcomings, you can't fix them.
I wouldn't phrase it that way but I could see the argument for exempting only the most basic necessities from taxation such as very basic end-consumer foodstuffs (generic non-organic unbranded flour, eggs, milk, in-season domestic fruits and vegetables, etc, generic commodity processed food goods, if a company slaps a brand on it, it should not be exempt). For housing, maybe the first N dollars of housing costs where N is the median cost of the cheapest 10% of housing stock in a local market.
Whatever the decision that is made, the main thing that needs to be conserved is that everyone that votes should feel the pain of taxation for any consumption above and beyond mere existence. If we don't all feel the burden of paying for governance, how are we all supposed to take the same interest in making sure that that governance is spending taxpayer money wisely. This is especially important in a democracy where the majority can rule. What you can't have is a situation where the majority with the votes doesn't feel the burden of the governance they are voting for. That's a recipe for disaster.
> For example, would renting an item be taxed the same as buying it?
renting is consumption
> Or what if instead I receive access to my Ferrari as a perk of working for my hedge fund?
gifting is consumption. Stuff like this is already stuff that people have to include in their income taxes.
> For every rule there are probably multiple loopholes.
that's no different than for the status quo. loopholes are a fact of life in a system. the more complex the rules, the most loopholes there are
> All of this is just pointless thought experimentation anyway;
I disagree. It's important to identify the shortcomings of the current system and that is that it leads to voters that are drunk on transferism. If you don't identify such shortcomings, you can't fix them.