i think there should be an "inverted" tax on some things, like fuel. how this would work would be to subtract the price of something from a set ammount. here is an example...

gasoline costs 2 dollars a gallon. it is taxed on an inverted tax of 4 dollars at 10 percent. so the tax on the 2 dollar per gallon gas would be 20 cents (4-2=2, 2.00x10%=20).

but if gasoline dropped to 1 dollar a gallon the tax would be 30 cents pr gallon. (4-1=3, 3x .10=.30)

the 4 dollar ammount is arbitrary, used so i have a number to plug into formulas...

in the event gasoline jumped to 3.90 a gallon, the tax would be 1 cent.

i think it is a bunch of crap to charge more tax just because something goes up in price due to economic conditions!

wouldn't you like to pay the big tax when stuff is cheap, not when you're broke!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- bobenhotep, Sep 26 2009

No, I wouldn't like to pay the big tax when stuff is cheap.

Many problems with this. The tax is not paid on the value of the product or service, you're paying tax on the difference between that value and some arbitrary number you make up. Where does the $4 number come from? How are those figures determined?

In your $1/gal example, you're paying tax on $3, not $1. If gas is $1/gal, I'd rather pay 10% of $1 than $3.

You're paying more tax for less quantity of the item. I understand what you're trying to do with this, but it makes no sense.

// it is a bunch of crap to charge more tax just because something goes up //

But your system charges more tax just because something goes down. I don't see how that's an improvement.
-- tatterdemalion, Sep 26 2009


What happens when gas (petrol) goes over $(£)4 a gallon?
Will the government start subsidising our fuel?
-- MikeOliver, Sep 26 2009


dude, id rather pay bigger taxes when stuff is cheap, than when its expensive. if you draw a graph you will see that an inverted tax tends to lessen price changes. when something like gas is expensive, you dont want to pay any tax on it at all!!!!!!!!! if gas went down to like a dollar i wouldnt complain about paying 30 or even 50 cents a gallon for tax, especially if the potholes were getting fixed!!!!
-- bobenhotep, Sep 26 2009


the 4 is an arbitraty number to illustrate an idea, so id have a number to plug into the "illustrating formulas". i do not have any idea as to what the actual value of the " subtract from " number would be. and mikeO, if the govt had to subsidise fuel for long, the collusionist oil companies would have had mysteriously had some execs turn up missing and equally mysteriously had prices drop. come on, this is the us govt im talking about. but fuel subs would be nice...no more rediculous than cash for clunkers...
-- bobenhotep, Sep 26 2009


My knowledge of the US government begins and ends with what I have seen in '24' and the occasional Michael Moore documentary.
All I can say on that subject is rather you than me!
-- MikeOliver, Sep 26 2009


// when something like gas is expensive, you dont want to pay any tax on it at all //

I don't want to pay any tax, ever. But that's part of the cost of living in a country. If there has to be such a thing, I'd rather pay them according to the current system than to this one. I think [bigsleep]'s plan is a good one, as well.
-- tatterdemalion, Sep 26 2009


//tends to lessen price changes//

I think price changes exist to influence how much of a product is sold - supply and demand and all that. If this system meant that a price rise did not cause a concomitant reduction in demand, well the price would just continue rising 'til demand fell.
-- pocmloc, Sep 26 2009


Bad example, since I think most states and I know the Federal government (US anyway) actually use a fixed per gallon tax, not a sales tax, just as [bigsleep] suggested.
-- MechE, Sep 26 2009


Goodness, [MechE], I wish our Fed would be so unexpectedly sensible.
-- BunsenHoneydew, Sep 27 2009



random, halfbakery