Seems to me there are more pros than cons to the idea. What are your thoughts?
2007-02-23 05:51:10 · 11 answers · asked by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The poor and middle class would pay more in taxes, and more in percent of their salary due to the fact that they spend more of thier disposable income than the wealthy do. For five years in a row Americans have spent 20% more than they earn. And also lets not forget the huge price increase that would result in added value... sales tax on each element of production in each step of the production process being added to the final cost of the product.
2007-02-23 05:55:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The ignorance on this subject is astounding. IF SALES TAX HURT THE POOR, THEN WHY DO ALL 50 STATES HAVE ONE!?!?!?!?!!?!?!
People just eat up rhetoric and never even put 2 seconds into thinking about anything. Sales tax does not hurt the poor because basic needs are exempt. Any federal sales tax would follow this model. So if you are poor, and all you can afford is basics (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) then you would pay no taxes at all. It is really a luxury tax.
There are NO cons to eliminating the income tax and replacing it wish a sales tax, as long as it is done properly (exempting essentials). Well, I guess H&R Block would be out of business, but that is the only con, everything else about it is pro. It is fair, it keeps every single individual from reporting to the government every year (talk about your Big Brother), no more "under the table" business avoiding taxes, no more IRS seizing your assets because you were $2 short on your taxes, no more loop holes for special interests (child credits, education credits, home owners credits, business credits, etc.)
Why can't the federal government lean from ALL 50 STATES?
2007-02-23 14:34:44 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
An income tax, at least in theory, is progressive, that is, the more you can afford to pay for government, the more you pay. Yeah, yeah, I know, like that really works, but it is the theory.
Sales tax on the other hand is regressive: A person with less wealth must spend a higher portion of their income on goods and services: there is no way around it for them.
BTW- The MOST regressive tax on record is social security, since it actually has a cap on contributions.
-Dio
2007-02-23 14:08:12 · answer #3 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
For those of us who just don't have enough income to pay much of a Federal tax, and in my case, no State income tax, a national tax is not good. It would further reduce my buying power by making my dollar worth even less, for example, 10% tax, would make my dollar worth .90 cents. As there are a lot more people at the bottom of the income level, that would make life even more difficult for us. Please, no National sales taxes.
2007-02-23 14:02:00 · answer #4 · answered by tylernmi 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
One really big pro off the bat would be that there would no longer a an IRS.
Please don't think that I'm trying to be insulting when I say that I see mostly ignorance in the answers to this question. If anyone is really interested in knowing what the fair tax is all about go to the link I supplied.
http://www.fairtax.org/
2007-02-23 20:51:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sales tax is regressive and income tax is progressive. This means that poor people would be paying sales tax whether they could afford it or not, on everyday items that rich people don't worry about. Income tax is generally scaled based on who can afford to pay it or not. Look at it another way. Let's say you make 20,000 a year and you spend it on food clothing and medicine. If tax is 10% or income tax is 10% you pay $2,000 in tax. Do you think they can afford to give up 2K? That is alot of money to them?
On the other hand if one makes 20,000,000 income and pays 10% in tax they would pay 200,000 in tax leaving them plenty of money for food, shelter, clothing, concerts, a yacht, a nice home, a fancy car etc. etc. etc.
Who is better able to handle any tax burdin?
2007-02-23 14:01:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i asked this Q a few weeks ago, im still a bit divided, besides the fact it would eliminate a lot of paperwork and headache, here's the link if you want some more answers
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnY0wb.aJpWpJZou5cQgWIbsy6IX?qid=20070214194310AAsRcT0
2007-02-23 13:57:37 · answer #7 · answered by alex l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting. But, with income tax, it is already taken out of one's paycheck and you never see that money. And, since my sales tax here is already at 8.5% that would increase the cost of anything I need to buy. So, that might work for the rich, but it certainly won't work for people who live paycheck to paycheck.
2007-02-23 13:55:12 · answer #8 · answered by Groovy 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
eliminate income tax, downsize government. its simple.
2007-02-23 13:58:32 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as we keep people in Congress who don't follow the constituion it doesn't matter. They will keep spending more then what's coming in.
2007-02-23 13:57:52 · answer #10 · answered by Robert and Tanya 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋