I'd argue that ressource consumption/pollution are on the contrary pretty strongly correlated with wealth.
But I don't see the primary justification for taxes as "keeping consumption in check" (whatever that would mean for you): In my view, we pay taxes to keep our society functional.
Progressive taxation is required to prevent escalating wealth inequality (and I'd argue that US administrations have done a really poor here over the last decades).
Regressive taxes ruin society by nurturing pseudo-parasitic rent-seekers controlling most of the wealth (=> exaggerated for clarity), and the situation is already bad enough without allowing those to basically skip taxes.
I agree that the purpose of taxation is not to keep consumption in check.
I don’t think that wealth inequality is a problem, and therefore don’t agree that taxation should be used to address it.
If you want to shift tax burden from very wealthy Americans onto average citizens, what do you hope to achieve with that?
What is the purpose of taxation then, in your view?
> I don’t think that wealth inequality is a problem
I have a very hard time understanding this perspective.
Wealth can already buy (directly or indirectly) all forms of property, political power and even legal outcomes. I see no real way to remedy any of that, so it seems clear to me that (wealth) inequality must be somewhat kept in check to prevent our society from degenerating into some form of neo-feudalism.
What is your view on that? Do you want a society more strongly stratified by wealth? (why?)
Would you want to provide less equal opportunity in life for Americans is general, or would that be an undesirable side-effect?
Sorry for asking apparently loaded questions-- I'm genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint, and attacking the points that seem most critical from my view.
I don’t see it as “shifting” burden onto the middle class - it’s more about shifting the burden away from the upper class, who carry a disproportionate amount of the burden.
Both wealthy Americans and the middle class consume approximately the same government resources, and it’s not fair that the upper class should have to shoulder the majority of the tax burden.
> What is the purpose of taxation then, in your view?
To fund the government.
> Wealth can already buy (directly or indirectly) all forms of property, political power and even legal outcomes.
I don’t agree with this claim. Bloomberg outspent his opponents to an absurd degree, which resulted in him losing by an embarrassing amount.
> Would you want to provide less equal opportunity in life for Americans is general, or would that be an undesirable side-effect?
I don’t agree that wealth inequality results in less opportunity for anyone.
> it’s not fair that the upper class should have to shoulder the majority of the tax burden.
I don't know what the definition of "upper class" is to you, but from my view anyone that earns most of his income not by working himself but by others working for him in some form (capital gains, rent, employees, ...) draws wayyyyy outsized use from the state compared to an average citizen. Not only does the state provide enforcement, but also infrastructure, education for workers, a framework to solve disputes, ...
So those people should also pay morefor that privilege. Note especially how companies taking over the roles of a state is not really a thing anymore (company towns, providing education, solving disputes, internal paramilitary, etc): Everyone realizes they are getting a brilliant deal, and no one actually wants to take over those functions (despite lots of people whining about government inefficiency all day long).
All this is much more valueable and useful the bigger your whole money making enterprise is, obviously.
> I don’t agree with this claim. Bloomberg outspent his opponents to an absurd degree, which resulted in him losing by an embarrassing amount.
What is your claim? Media/campaign spending most obviously has a large effect on voting outcomes, because otherwise people wouldn't spend billions on it.
I'm not saying that by spending money you can literally win every election ever, my point is just that sufficient media spending alters voting outcomes most drastically. You don't even need to play the political circus yourself to get access (just consider Musk spending a good chunk and basically getting the DOGE thingy in return).
> I don’t agree that wealth inequality results in less opportunity for anyone.
In a very obvious way, wealth already buys you time, the most valuable opportunity cost for anyone-- time that an average person would need to spend breadwinning for themselves/family.
Education, business contacts, employees and machinery of all kinds are up for sale as well.
If wealth is stratified, the number and kinds of opportunities available to people will necessarily become much more different as well.