| ▲ | dmitrig01 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To what end? "Best" implies towards a certain goal. Is the goal economic growth? Or is it a fair society? Those are very different. For example, if the goal is a fair society, then we should have a wealth tax, to disincentivize wealth equality. (And an income tax isn't so bad either in). Having only a consumption tax makes sense if the goal is (only) to reduce consumption. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rayiner 4 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The goal is economic growth, which matters more than anything else. Fun fact: in 1900, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, at about 60% of US GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/argentina-was-one-o.... Today, Argentina has under 20% of the GDP per capita of the US. The difference is that the U.S. has grown at about 1.7% annually for the past century and change, while Argentina only grew at about 1% annually. Maybe you're willing to give up 70 basis points in pursuit of a "fairer" society, but that means your grandkids will live in a much poorer society than they'd otherwise live in. This is the trajectory Europe is in currently. Having missed the boat on the Internet, space travel, and now AI, I suspect my grandkids will see a world where people are immigrating from Europe to China the way we see people immigrating from Argentina to the U.S. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||