What are the pros and cons of a federal sales tax instead of an income tax?

Question

With the billions of dollars it would save each year just by eliminating the IRS I feel it would be worth it. Have there been any studies on the subject? Which political party is for it which is against it.

I think it would not be unfair to the poor. The rich would pay tax on a new Lexus or Mercedes and the poor on a used dodge neon or a new kia. The rich would pay tax on tenderloin and the poor on hamburger.

Answer 1

I can only guess, but depending on the flat rate, everybody pays,no tax breaks or loopholes, high income low income it is the same for everyone

Answer 2

The lack of expertise in this challenge is fantastic. IF revenues TAX damage THE undesirable, THEN WHY DO ALL 50 STATES HAVE ONE!?!?!?!?!!?!?! human beings merely eat up rhetoric and not in any respect even placed 2 seconds into wondering about some thing. revenues tax does no longer damage the undesirable because undemanding needs are exempt. Any federal revenues tax might want to maintain on with this type. So when you're undesirable, and all you may have the funds for is fundamentals (food, outfits, look after, and so on.) then you surely might want to pay no taxes in any respect. that is a luxury tax. There aren't any cons to eliminating the income tax and replacing it want a revenues tax, so long via the undeniable fact that is executed correct (exempting needs). properly, i wager H&R Block might want to be out of agency, notwithstanding that's the in user-friendly words con, each and every thing else about that is professional. that is honest, it retains each and every man or woman from reporting to the authorities each and every 3 hundred and sixty 5 days (communicate about your huge Brother), no extra "less than the table" agency warding off taxes, no extra IRS seizing your sources because you've been $2 short on your taxes, no extra loop holes for particular pastimes (infant credit, preparation credit, householders credit, agency credit, and so on.) Why won't be able to the federal authorities lean from ALL 50 STATES?

Answer 3

One of the biggest pros is that it would eliminate the IRS< which everyone hates, and would eliminate a lot of the tax breaks that apply only to the rich. The biggest con is that proportionally, the poorer you are, the higher the percent of your income that would be spent on taxes. Rich people invest, and spend money on non taxable things, or they may spend less on groceries and other taxable items-- they spend more total dollars, but a MUCH lower percent of their income. Think about it-- if you only have $50 to spend on groceries for the month, it really hurts if the gov't takes $10. But if you have $500 to spend, you can still get $400 worth of groceries and be living pretty high on the hog. And chances are that the $50 is a much higher percentage of the poorer person's total income. I think there are individuals who are for it, but I don't think either party is for it.

Answer 4

The main difference is that one is a tax on spending (sales tax) and the other a tax on earning (income tax).

The theory is that a tax on spending is fairer because those that spend the most pay the most with obvious social implications of fairness; which is the main reason it hasn't been widely adopted.

Jules, Australia.

Answer 5

It'll just hurt poor people if they tax food and clothes and necessity items. If they just tax luxury items then it'll mess with people with more money.