I have been intereted with a tax on luxury goods, such as private boats, huge houses or expensive cars, because it would be a way to increase taxes on the rich without the income tax.

That tax may also be very helpful with universal sales tax instead of the income tax. In the best case scenario, a luxury tax would take away some of the regressive taxing that exists in a much larger sales tax.

Does anyone think that it would be practical, because I am unsure if the government would be able to determine what is considered "luxury" or not.
I would consider items such as large houses, fine wines or hellicopters to require an added tax.

What does everyone else think?

Then we hit the debate, of where is the line between "large" and "not large". Take "large" houses for example, what is the barrier that makes a house "large"? Is it 3,000 sqft? Is it 4 or more bedrooms? Obviously, to someone living in a studio apartment making minimum wage, "large" is not going to be that large. And to someone making six figures with a wife and four kids, "large" may seem very very large.

I like the idea of a spending tax, rather than an earning tax, because it would increase the incentive to earn, and decrease the incentive to spend, thus helping people choose to save their money (which our nation does not do very well).

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Which is why it is not in the government's interest...

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

Good idea, in theory. In principle? Not so good.

I play guitar, and have been playing for quite a while. In my dreams I'd play professionally; in reality I hope to at least teach on the side. In any case, what's to stop some dip**** buearocrat politician from deciding that a decent guitar over $1000 is a luxury item? What's to stop the same politician from deciding that a fast computer is a luxury item? For that matter, what about high-speed internet? Or how about any car that costs more than a Civic? Or any car at all? After all, we must "wean ourselves off foreign oil." Or any food more than the basics.

In the end we'll be paying luxury tax on everything that costs more than five bucks, or less! Never trust a politician with anything but his own skin and bank account.

Yeah, it would be incredibly difficult for politicians to determine what should be considered "luxury" and what shouldn't. If it was subjective then it would probably get out of control very quickly.

I suppose I can think of some objective ways to maybe determine what is a luxury item.

Possibly, a survey could be done of what items people of certain income brackets normally buy. That could determine what items the rich only buy, and those items can be considered "luxury" items. If the boundary of what is considered "luxury" could be increased to a very high level, it may be easier to determine what items the rich only buy.

However, a government or even private survey like that would have many problems...

If an item is purchased for someone's business then it would still need to be included in the tax, because then items would be bought at work and used at somenoe's house to avoid the tax. However, a guitar doesn't even need to be included with the tax if the cridentials for those items is high enough.

There's a problem with equating luxury with rarity. There are something that aren't rare that are a luxury, and somethings that are rare that aren't a luxury. I mean most business equipment is very rare for the average consumer. Not many individuals will go purchase Quickbooks Corporate edition (at over $300), but many businesses need it to function, if we accidently call those luxuries, then that will raise business costs, will will raise their prices.

Prehaps you'd be able to allow for businesses to be exempt from so many "luxury" tax items each year. Or something to prevent that from accuring.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

I am not saying that I would equate something luxury with something rare but with items that are only commmonly purchased by the rich. That is why if a survey could work to determine which items should be taxed more, that may work.

I suppose companies could have luxury items exempt compared with their size, but that would most likely cause a black market for luxury goods and tax evasion.

The luxury tax would only be a way to reduce taxes on the normal universal sales tax, so I don't know if it would harm companies too much because they would just be paying less on the normal sales tax.

The tax would become very biased and just another tool of the government to be corrupt. They would get to pick what is and is not luxuries. It would certainly be corrupted. Exemptions are one of the biggest problems with taxation. Even tax on all goods. No picking what ones get taxed and what ones do not.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

One of the reasons I support fairtax, to switch from spending to earning/investing/saving.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

If you could do it with no corruption whatsoever, and no chance of it, I'd approve. But you might as well wish for world peace, infinite money, and good weather every day. I prefer to keep my wishes realistic. For instance, I wish that I will fall asleep in fifteen minutes. Now that one I know can come true.