> Where are you getting this from? Sales tax has nothing to do with one's assets

Earlier you said

> And poorer people are automatically exempted from tax since the power law formula parameters be set to slowly ramp up

I too am very confused on how you envision this sales tax working where it's variable in some way that poor people don't get the tax but rich people do so I understand why OP is asking about asset tracking. If you're talking about it as a tax that increases the more you spend you've still got problems of hiding how much I'm spending through various legal entities. It also has a macro economic problem, at least how the consumer economy is structured, that could slow down the gears of business until society realigns (if it does) because people will be incentivized to consume less. You've got alternative models where you go after specific products and tax more for conspicuous consumption like yachts but that feels like it has all the inefficiencies of central planning a market.

>that poor people don't get the tax but rich people do

Because poor people can't spend money (since they don't have it), hence they pay much less (or even no tax). The curve of a power law formula can be modified to whatever is socially acceptable. Otherwise, rich people who are hoarding assets will get taxed via land value taxes utilizing the same framework.

>you've still got problems of hiding how much I'm spending through various legal entities.

Same with income tax. Completely stamping out tax evasion is not a realistic goal with any system. Also, various legal entities are all tied to beneficial owners with taxpayer ID numbers. Databases would make quick work of sorting this kind of stuff out.

>It also has a macro economic problem, at least how the consumer economy is structured, that could slow down the gears of business until society realigns (if it does) because people will be incentivized to consume less.

Yes, that is why it is a pipe dream. But it would actually accomplish environmental goals as opposed to just pay lip service and pretend.

>You've got alternative models where you go after specific products and tax more for conspicuous consumption like yachts but that feels like it has all the inefficiencies of central planning a market.

Completely unnecessary to complicate things which also opens up avenues for corruption. A yacht is super expensive, it's obviously going to be hit with a ton of tax. Just come up with a tax curve (like we already do with the various income tax deductions/brackets) that provides the tax revenue and still allows people to spend enough money to provide for their basic needs.

> Because poor people can't spend money (since they don't have it), hence they pay much less (or even no tax)

Poor people can buy a car. Middle class families can buy 2 cars. Neither can buy 100 exotic cars. Is the purchase of each additional car going to increase the tax paid? Are exotic cars taxed more? You keep stating to use a power law formula but you're critically omitting what the inputs are to determine your tax rate. And now you've also admitted that assets determine your sales tax whereas you seemed to be arguing earlier that that wasn't the case when asked if the sales tax rate is dependent on your ability to hide assets.

> Otherwise, rich people who are hoarding assets will get taxed via land value taxes utilizing the same framework

Rich people hoard assets in all sorts of ways including collecting physical items which you can store where land is cheap if you wanted. That's why the income tax is effective - it's taxation at the moment the money changes hands / you've realized a gain.

> Is the purchase of each additional car going to increase the tax paid?

Yes, tax liability = total spending during the year plugged into the power law tax formula.

>Are exotic cars taxed more?

Depends how much the taxpayer spends in a year. There is no tax rate for each specific item. The tax rate is for a total level of spending, which eliminates all loopholes.

> You keep stating to use a power law formula but you're critically omitting what the inputs are to determine your tax rate.

The input is total spend in a year. Just like right now, the input is income in a year.

> And now you've also admitted that assets determine your sales tax

No, I did not. The formula to calculate sales tax liability only requires inputting total spending. Land value taxes are a separate thing. We currently have land value taxes, except they are flat rate and too low because property taxes inefficiently tax improvements on the land more than the land itself.

> That's why the income tax is effective - it's taxation at the moment the money changes hands / you've realized a gain.

Sales tax can also be at the moment the money changes hands. It currently is. Even with the complication of a power law tax formula, I can’t see why the government can’t email you a monthly invoice.

I don't like this idea of collecting this tax yearly. I'd skip the power formula and have this tax to be just fixed percentage on every purchase to be able to collect it immediately and automatically by using the banking system itself.

My capital gains tax is immediately collected as my bank sees any capital gains. I physically can't dodge it.

Similarily I could have tax on every purchase I pay for with any kind of bank transfer immediately collected.

A flat sales tax rate is regressive. I don’t see a reason to give rich people that benefit. Roughly speaking, the effects of consumption are not linear. A private jet, yacht, and large and heavy vehicles are going to consume much more public goods (including the environment) than cheaper goods.

You can skew the tax by giving more tax credit to the poor.

Also those are not only taxes on consumption but every purchase. Yacht might be too cheap in comparison of resources used but rich don't just buy yahts, they buy entire companies.

The power law formula already skews the tax rate. There’s no need to further skew it with tax credits or other complications. If you want to adjust tax rates, simply modify the curve of the power law formula so that a given level of spending is taxed a lower or higher rate.

Only of you have something to feed into the power formula and you don't unless you collect data more personal than what people are used to having collected.

Some people even object to paying with cards today because they don't want their transactions to be tied together to their identity.

So alternatives to power formula that achieve similar effect in different ways might be worth considering.

> Sales tax can also be at the moment the money changes hands

Are services included in this sales tax? e.g. if I hire a cleaning company to clean my apartment? I'm assuming they would be right? Now what distinguishes that scenario from an employee being hired?

Yes, I don’t think I have come across a US state where sales tax doesn’t also get applied to most services.

> Now what distinguishes that scenario from an employee being hired?

Not sure why this is relevant to this discussion, but the cleaning service’s employees do not become your employees because you don’t get to manage the cleaning service’s employees and it’s usually a limited time work engagement. There’s quite a bit more that goes into creating an employer / employee relationship.

In my opinion it shouldn't be different. You should pay the same tax whether you purchase service from a company or labor from an individual.

Personally I wouldn't do the spending tracking for individuals to decide tax rates just because it's complex and perhaps to intrusive.

I'd go with same tax rates for everybody, but tax credits for useful activities. Since being a poor consumer is useful activity because those pay most attention to what they buy I'd be just giving people tax credit for existing and possibly for working if I wanted to incentivise that. Since purchase tax for individual consumers should be collected and paid by the sellers to save the individuals the burden of it and to ensure compliance then the best form of tax credit for consumers is just cashed given them directly from the government. Some for existing some possibly to supplement their salaries if they work. There's some risk that they won't spend it all to pay for their purchase tax but this can be forgiven as it'll mostly happen for the very poorest.

How is it complex or intrusive? We’re almost already completely there via various electronic payment methods linked to each individuals’ tax ID#.

You would no longer have to give out your tax ID# to employers or customers. The electronic payment company (which should be a government utility, but that’s a different conversation) simply reports your purchases, just like we do with various 1099/W-2 forms right now.

> How is it complex or intrusive?

You'd have to have huge database of what every individual bought ever. How many beers, how many condoms per month they purchase. Or at least how many times they were making purchases in sex shop, liquor store, marihuana dispensary.

Currently your payments as a customer aren't bound to your TAX is if you don't specifically opt into it and you have no reason to do that if you don't have a company.

That's increase in a intrusiveness many would strongly oppose.

You can of course compromise and base your tax progression only on the sum of large purchases that are being registered already like houses and cars and investments.

But there's still issue of charging the correct tax if you don't connect consumer with their tax id on every purchase.

I think that companies that sell directly to consumers should collect purchase tax of consumer and pay it. And the rate should be the same for all consumers. To award consumers tax credits government just could give them cash directly that will come back to the government in the form of purchase tax that consumers pay (to sellers or through payment processors that transfer it to the government).

You can still punish the rich by reducing their tax credits progressively with how much assets such as cars, real estate and investments they own.