TED Conversations

Hugo Papenfus


This conversation is closed.

Tax Systems: Currently we have a mixture of paying tax as you earn and spend.... shouldn't we rather move to pay tax as you spend only?

We have different tax systems over the world, but they mostly tax people on what they earn??? Shouldn't we move to tax systems that tax people only on what they spend? In other words get rid of all other taxes and raise spending taxes like VAT sufficiently. This will have some positive and negative effects. Let's discuss them and see how it weighs up to current tax systems.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 19 2011: In helping the poor......What is better for the long term? Giving it to them all the time? or educating them to help themselves? Most people like it when they receive something for nothing so they don't educate themselves in working for it. I know you will say that they don't have the opportunities......But they will have it in a VAT only system, as it will dramatically create jobs. It will also forcefully educate......

    At the moment we give them the milk for free, so why would they want to buy the cow???
    • Aug 20 2011: We are definitely not giving them the milk for free.

      Unless, of course, you actually mean milk. Yes we do have enough milk that we can provide that for free for people who can not afford it. We have gotten to a point where we can provide food and (usually in quite unsafe areas) shelter to just about everyone in the united states. We have enough technology and innovation that the things our prior generations spent their entire life working for (food and shelter.)

      This is great, look at the progress we have made as a species.. 200 years ago if there was no rain for a month in your area you would starve and people would die and get very ill, but then again 1 farmer might have been able to raise 3-5 cattle and half an acre of land at a time which would provide enough food for his family and maybe a little extra. Now 1 farmer can raise 30 cattle and farm 100 acres of land providing enough food for potentially thousands of people.

      Maybe in 100 more years we'll have 5 or 10 technicians supervising machines that raise 5,000 cattle and farm 10,000 acres of land, which while killing "jobs" really will just free up all those other would-be farmers to build something new, work less, provide more, who knows what we could achieve as less people get more efficient at providing the basics. Why should those in certain areas or born to the "wrong" parents not reap the benefits of that efficiency? Should they spend 10 hours a day growing their own food when 10 seconds of a big agriculture businesses resources could provide the same amount of food?

      I guess i got off on a rant there but my point is this, we don't breed and milk our own cows because we don't need to, we have technology driven farming to do that job for us so we can invent things like ipods and tvs and phones and cars and planes and everything else in society.

      I strongly disagree with your main premise that it would create jobs and "forcefully educate" i was wondering if you could illiterate how you think that is?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.