National Sales Tax to Replace Income Tax

[pchang]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Is there really a tax saving in the first one? Or is it designed to be withdrawn when you have a low income tax year, after being put in after a high income tax year.

Money can only be withdrawn upon retirement. So, really taxes are deferred. However, most people will withdraw less upon retirement than they earn during the working years so, their tax rate might be less in that deferred future.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I think there'd be a psychological barrier, though. I mean, what's a typical total income tax take as a percentage of income - 25, 30%? Add that back to your income. Are you now more likely to go out and buy a car that has a 40% federal tax on it (in addition to any state and local taxes) because the government needs to make up the revenue?

I think most people would rather just not see the money in the first place rather than make 25-30% more and see the cost of every non-essential item skyrocket.

I think people would overcome the psychological barrier fairly quickly. On the other hand, there are those who believe as you do. They think it will encourage people to save more and that this would provide a long term benefit to the economy too.

[pchang]

Originally posted by MrFun
funny . . . . . .


I thought most conservative voters find the Republican Party appealing, because Republicans were suppose to minimize the power of the federal government??

I don't see this as conservative or liberal. It is merely an attempt to come up with a cheaper, simpler method of collecting the taxes the US government is already collecting.

[ixnay]

Agh, god no.

We have NO sales tax period here in Montana and it always annoys the hell out of me when I go out-of-state and get tripped up by those damn things. When the menu says things are a dollar I want them to be a dollar, damn it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun
funny . . . . . .


I thought most conservative voters find the Republican Party appealing, because Republicans were suppose to minimize the power of the federal government??

Not that I'm a republican, but dont you think that doing away with a large part of the IRS would be minimizing the federal government.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

what about getting rid of the income tax, and cutting spending?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Though a question, would there be exemptions to individuals below a certain income level? Or on certain products (like food)?

Cause right now I don't pay income taxes cause I'm too damn poor, and while a national sales tax is a neat idea (at least at first) I'm wondering about myself. Would I switch from paying no taxes to having to pay 20% on everything I buy?

If you can give the poor some exemption card, then I think its a good idea.

There's no effective way for merchants, etc., who are enforced with collecting this tax, to know what your income situation or classification happens to be.

If you did have some kind of an exemption or classification system, then every time you bought something, the seller would have to verify your status to determine what kind of tax to charge you. Or the alternative is for you to pay the tax you can't afford, then file returns with IRS at the end of the year, so you not only have to keep receipts for literally everything you spend, but you still have to file returns and don't save you or the government any sort of paperwork.

If you have a lot of money, most of that will go to investments (the more income, the higher the investment percentage, since there are only so many Ferraris and Hummers and mistresses you can buy), so you won't get taxed much.

Only consumer spending will be punished, and the people who sell you stuff get to incur additional overheads and accounting costs in doing the government's work for them.

[pchang]

No politician really wants to cut spending

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Under the Fair Tax plan every consumer will receive a check from the federal government every single month equal to the sales tax that person would be expected to pay on the purchase of the basic necessities of life for that month. The size of the monthly payment will be based on the government's published poverty levels for various sized households.

hahaha this is the most socialistic thing i have ever heard and will need a bureacracy larger than the CIA to figure out. the government is going to figure out for each income group what their necessities are? hahahaah. what a load of crap. you can bet everyone will get underpaid.

[pchang]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There's no effective way for merchants, etc., who are enforced with collecting this tax, to know what your income situation or classification happens to be.

If you did have some kind of an exemption or classification system, then every time you bought something, the seller would have to verify your status to determine what kind of tax to charge you. Or the alternative is for you to pay the tax you can't afford, then file returns with IRS at the end of the year, so you not only have to keep receipts for literally everything you spend, but you still have to file returns and don't save you or the government any sort of paperwork.

If you have a lot of money, most of that will go to investments (the more income, the higher the investment percentage, since there are only so many Ferraris and Hummers and mistresses you can buy), so you won't get taxed much.

Only consumer spending will be punished, and the people who sell you stuff get to incur additional overheads and accounting costs in doing the government's work for them.

You don't exempt individuals, you exempt certain items.
All retailers already collect sales tax anyway. How much extra work would it be to collect a higher percentage?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia
From Neal Boortz regarding the poor and the fair tax plan:

Wonder who's paying Boortz? His "analysis" is full of ****.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by pchang


You don't exempt individuals, you exempt certain items.
All retailers already collect sales tax anyway. How much extra work would it be to collect a higher percentage?

You'd have more audit work because the incentive for a business to deceive its way out of a huge tax bill is increased.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by ixnay
Agh, god no.

We have NO sales tax period here in Montana and it always annoys the hell out of me when I go out-of-state and get tripped up by those damn things. When the menu says things are a dollar I want them to be a dollar, damn it.

Actually sales taxes are not that bad. I hate it when the sales tags and the end prices don't match but some merchants are kind enough to set it up so the menu prices already include the tax so you know what you're paying for.

However I don't get the rebate thing.... we pay this national sales tax then we get our money back? How does this benefit the feds?

And what happens to taxes like social security? If they take away that tax, we could end up getting more Americans unprepared for their retirements when they're of the age. There's a reason why FDR set up SSA in the first place, you know.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Barinthus
There's a reason why FDR set up SSA in the first place, you know.

And yet he said it was only going to be temporary.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Reductions in the tax rate -- ideally including reduction of the capital gains tax rate -- are the heart of the Reaganomic, supply-side, tax policy which the Bush team is unwilling to call by those names. The Reagan tax cuts led directly to the decades of prosperity that the Reagan presidency began.

Prosperity at the expense of higher deficit and greater gap between the middle class and the rich. No thanks.