National Sales Tax to Replace Income Tax

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Even if you talk about petrol, I know people who only go to the station of particular Big Oil chains.

That's true too. Personally I go to the cheapest close place. All this allows gas stations to charge more than they would otherwise be able to. Of course many of them would have to close down if they were under conditions of perfect competition, rational agents and all the rest of it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Some tax is more coercive than other tax.

Obviously, we have to have tax. Duh.

So what's the point of complaining?

I don't think tax is more or less coercive. Some tax is less fair, but it's all coercive.

[Ramo]

Some tax is more coercive than other tax.

Obviously, we have to have tax. Duh.

So what's the point of complaining?

Sin taxes disproportionately take away money from the poor, who have less to spend, i.e. they more greatly constrain the actions of the people. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes (if tax rates are set such that the two levies are comparable).

[Kuciwalker]

Poor people don't HAVE to buy the things that are taxed by sin tax. I'm not going to weep because people can't afford a luxury. It's only really a problem if they're unable to afford what they need to live.

[Ramo]

People don't HAVE to have a taxable income to live. Come on Kuci, I've already refuted that argument.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Poor people don't HAVE to buy the things that are taxed by sin tax. I'm not going to weep because people can't afford a luxury. It's only really a problem if they're unable to afford what they need to live.

Let's say you and I are boozers. The price of booze is $5 a unit or whatever. I'm willing to pay $6 for a unit, and you are willing to pay $7 a unit. A $2 tax is added onto a unit. You will still buy booze and I won't. You have been coerced into paying a tax and I have been coerced into doing something else with my $5. It's got nothing to do with having to pay the tax. Neither one of us has to do anything, but the govt has forced both of us into a different course of action.

edited cause it was screwed up.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
People don't HAVE to have a taxable income to live. Come on Kuci, I've already refuted that argument.

Only because the federal government provides for them. Even then, it's limited

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Let's say you and I are boozers. The price of booze is $5 a unit or whatever. I'm willing to pay $6 for a unit, and you are willing to pay $7 a unit. A $2 tax is added onto a unit. You will still buy booze and I won't. You have been coerced into paying a tax and I have been coerced into doing something else with my $5. It's got nothing to do with having to pay the tax. Neither one of us has to do anything, but the govt has forced both of us into a different course of action.

It hasn't forced you. You decided not to buy the booze. It made certain actions more desirable than others, but it has NOT coerced you into changing your course of action - at worst, it has coerced you into paying some more money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It hasn't forced you. You decided not to buy the booze. It made certain actions more desirable than others, but it has NOT coerced you into changing your course of action - at worst, it has coerced you into paying some more money.

That's how you coerce people. You make certain actions more desirable for them. Specifically, some action that benefits you. You can say **** you I will do something irrational because I'm pissed that you are coercing me, but then you can do that anytime someone is coercing you.

[Ramo]

Yep. The IRS can say "pay income taxes or go to prison or make a lot less money." Not paying taxes is still an option, it'd just have a worse consequence.

[Kidlicious]

I think the govt still takes donations for the national debt. To get money that way they 'influence' people. They don't influence people to pay any tax. People are 'compeled' to pay tax really by definition. It's never a donation.

btw, I think it's horrible that they ask for donations for the national debt.

[Agathon]

So we are going to put the responsibility for fixing smoking and drinking problems on the backs of the poor? You heartless miser and your regressive, anti-poor tax schemes.

OK - you try enforcing a scheme where people pay differential cigarette taxes based on income at the point of sale. It's the way it is because it is the most efficient way of collecting the tax despite whatever shortcomings it may have.

Sin taxes disproportionately take away money from the poor, who have less to spend, i.e. they more greatly constrain the actions of the people. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes.

But the alternative is people smoking and drinking too much and putting a strain on healthcare and law enforcement. Sin taxes are an unhappy compromise solution, but it is the best we can do right now.

[David Floyd]

If Bush were to come out in favor of a national sales tax instead of an income tax, I'd probably change my vote, and vote for Bush.

[Agathon]

I admire your relentless ambition to render the US a third world country, Dave.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
But the alternative is people smoking and drinking too much and putting a strain on healthcare and law enforcement. Sin taxes are an unhappy compromise solution, but it is the best we can do right now.

Sin taxes predate concerns over health effects. They are based on the presumption that if you can afford these things, you can afford to pay taxes on them.

You want to solve the health problems of tobacco? Ban it.