In fact, I would rather income tax for individuals also be done away with. Just tax every transaction in the market. That is much fairer and presents less avenues to avoid tax.
In fact, I would rather income tax for individuals also be done away with. Just tax every transaction in the market. That is much fairer and presents less avenues to avoid tax.
Yes, the verbiage used by the IRS is awful; they use the term "income tax" to describe both the "personal revenue tax" and the "corporate profit tax".
Unfortunately they're stuck with it because the 16th amendment uses (but does not define) the term "income".
So if they call the thing that they're taxing anything other than "income", they have to deal with a bunch of clowns arguing that they aren't allowed to tax that.
What would you suggest as a simple social stabiliser on top? A negative personal income tax up to a certain rate?
Why would that happen?
For example, in the UK, sales tax is discounted or not applied on many types of food, children's clothes, etc. - yes, you end up with strange arguments at the edges (a famous one being the lawsuit to decide whether Jaffa Cakes are legally cakes or biscuits) but I think it _could_ work.
We had a lawsuit to determine if KitKat is a chocolate or a biscuit for similar reasons:
https://www.businessinsider.in/KitKat-is-a-biscuit-and-Parac...
> In the case of Nestle India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai of 1999, it was ruled that KitKat is a biscuit and not a chocolate that is taxed high.