2006-10-04 06:19:02 · 12 answers · asked by gonzalez6450@sbcglobal.net 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sales tax. The wealthy would pay more tax, because they would be the ones spending more. It would also be more incentive for saving money since it would only be taxed at the time you spent it.
2006-10-04 06:46:10 · answer #1 · answered by Mutt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you mean a flat income tax no I'm not for that. Because I don't care how you work it. It leaves the door open for politicians to sell favors, just like they do now. Because what is income?
Its simple if you're an hourly worker. But what if you're a commissioned salesman. What are deductable expenses? Income taxes always leave too much play room for politicians.
The Fair Tax, national sales tax is not regressive. Because it includes a provision for "prebates" monthly checks to reimburse the tax collected on essential items. There is no play room for the politicians. Thats why most politicians oppose it.
2006-10-04 06:36:34 · answer #2 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sales tax, but what are you going to do with all of those out of work accountants?
a flat tax is a good idea, as long as there are no exceptions and deductions. take a flat 10% from everyone and 15% from every company. on their income, not the profit.
2006-10-04 06:38:29 · answer #3 · answered by ellisd1950 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm in favor of the FairTax, which is a national retail sales tax. The flat tax is better than what we have now, but only marginally.
2006-10-04 06:23:38 · answer #4 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Either one is a better alternative to our complex income tax system. A sales tax may be better as it places more of the burden on those that can afford to spend more, while allowing others to invest without tax penalties.
2006-10-04 06:25:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Flat tax-- but the problem there is that many will get upset becuase it is not progressive. "Rich" would get a bigger break and lower end would pay more (all as a percentage of income of course).
Sales tax would also be percieved as regressive (as sales taxes usually are). So again, people would say it wan't "fair"
I don't agree with those opinions-- just stating that that is what you'd hear.
2006-10-04 06:22:34 · answer #6 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Flat tax with very minimal deductions.... deductions for children/dependents and interest paid on mortgage on the primary residence only...
Everyone making more than about $20K per year then pays a flat tax of about 17 or 18% on every dollar earned above that 20K earning line....
2006-10-04 06:23:54 · answer #7 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Flat tax. THEN all of the Demorats who have been hiding their assessts would have to pay on them. Let's say that anybody who makes over $20,000.00 per year has to pay 7.5%. That would pay off the National Debt in two years.
2006-10-04 06:23:09 · answer #8 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
flat tax
2006-10-04 06:21:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why not used them both.That should give Washington enuth money without them borrowing from other countries.
2006-10-04 06:29:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋