Hopefully bitcoin is another straw on the camel's back moving the US towards consumption based taxation.
Why would we want such an unfair regressive tax that hurts the poor and middle class?
This is not necessarily true, and it's certainly not "by definition".
The idea that you have no money in the bank doesn't mean you're not wealthy. Maybe you spend it all on antique Ferraris.
Wrong measure; the correct question is on what percentage of your income will you pay taxes and by definition being rich means you're spending far less than you make so your taxes go down, massively. That they go up a tiny little bit when you spend some money on non-necessities is meaningless compared to tax free money you're now allowed to save which being rich means most of your money.
2) What is the point of being rich and not use that wealth? Percentage-wise, a consumption-based tax could take more from the "poor and middle class". In absolute terms, not so much.
3) Incentives to saving - economically debatable for a government, but I'd guess that debt hurts "poor and middle class" more than any tax.
4) Good for the environment. Imagine if China actually had to start paying for things like carbon credits.
Because of the marginal utility of money and the burden of taxation. A 10% tax hurts someone living on the margin far more than someone living with excess and thus the burden is not shared fairly. Taxation of income is more fair than taxation of consumption because the burden is shared more equally. Not the "amount", the "burden".
> Percentage-wise, a consumption-based tax could take more from the "poor and middle class".
Which is what matters.
> In absolute terms, not so much.
Irrelevant, see above.
> Incentives to saving - economically debatable for a government
Not their job.
> Good for the environment. Imagine if China actually had to start paying for things like carbon credits.
Not on topic, this doesn't require consumption taxes.