This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.
As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.
Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.
With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.
On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?
The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)
