inspired by voteronpaul08. Let's talk about income tax.?

Question

Do you think our nation could survive without income tax but with sales tax?

I'm kinda skeptical about the no income tax approach because yes I would love to keep our earnings and it would be great to hear less people complaining about where their taxes go to (usually getting pissed at the poor soaking up their income tax)

So, let's say the income tax were phased out. What would happen? Would we sink or swim? Would we have to get rid of government programs for this change like welfare and how would that work out? Would celebrities donate to poor americans? What would need to be done to our current system for this drastic change in order for it to work?

Think, healthcare
poor people
rich people (would they be happy too)
public schools what would happen?

When it comes to low income to middle, would the 200-400 saved make up for medical bills and would schools become run down?

What would you do to balance it out?

Answer 1

I think a sales tax only society would be a very bad idea. Instead of the Rich paying a higher percent in taxes, the poor end up paying more. I agree that the those who are better of is paying too much for programs for the poor. I get paid straight middle class several months ago. I didn't have any benefits at that time and I found over half of my pay check went to taxes. Yes over half to state and federal and all the otehr taxes. We need to cut back in taxes, because its choking our nation. The middle class is dieing, especially here in California. I was thinking of the mother of all Liberal cities, San Francisco. I love the city, but when I look at it, there is the rich and the dirt poor. Crime is blatant and I would see it in front of me, but When I mention it to the police, its nothing to them. Even with their liberak attitudem the poor is worse off than my home Los ANgeles. We have to cut the taxes, because if we let this continue, there is no hope for the poor. I know what the liberals want is to make a better life for the poor, but their system would still keep them poor. My belief is to give them hope for them or their children to be something better. Besides, I use to work for the government, and see some of the corruption, waste and abuse. The more money we hand the government, more money will be funnelled off. Besides, the social programs of the past, has been show to take the drive of the people. I do believe the fortunate should help those less than, but we have went too far. I also don't approve of a flat tax, because it would be a little too hard for the poor. We need to find a balance, but the emphasis now should be protecting those in the middle.

Answer 2

If the government stuck to it's strictly limited functions like it's supposed to, there would be no need for income tax. It's only been around for less than 100 years. The nation as a whole was more prosperous for over 100 years prior to that. The country is bankrupt now and has been for years.
We should get rid of welfare and the like. The federal government has no authority to provide benefits programs. Look up what Madison and Jefferson had to say about the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

The system was designed such that the Federal Government was minimal in its function and could be supported just fine on the excise and related taxes. It was not meant to be the largest employer in the country. The country was founded as one full of "sovereigns without subjects" and the most government 'control' / intervention / application / whatever is supposed to be at the most local level.

Consider how the economy would be stimulated by cutting out the income tax. There would not be a need for government assistance. It's a chicken and egg issue. Granted there will always be people who choose to be lazy or will consistently make bad choices. Those truly in need could certainly get help from friends that now have an extra say 30% in their pocket.

New Hampshire has no state income tax, and receives very little federal money. It's government still functions according to its Constitution as written for the most part. Of all the states, the people of N.H. probably have the most control of how it's government is run.

Public schools traditionally are funded from property taxes. All the grants of federal money to comply with federal education programs just seem to be detrimental to the quality of education as a whole.

The biggest thing in a change such as this, I would think, is education. Most people just don't understand or look at the big picture. It doesn't help that politicians used to the fat checks and lobby money are more interested in keeping the cash flowing in than they are in doing what's best for the people they claim to represent or upholding the Constitution they swore to uphold. The biggest problem in everything seems to be greed and corruption. From the reason healthcare costs are outrageous to welfare to the effectiveness of law enforcement concerning violent crime.

So cut all the handout programs, at least half of government, that necessarily means income tax can go (or at least can go to flat rate or some alternative) there is more money in the hands of the people (many of whom will spend it unwisely and continue to live outside their means anyway), remove any restrictions (or most at least) on independent contracting, encourage people to be entrepreneurs and promote small businesses.... the market (people) will take care of itself.

Answer 3

To all those that think paying more taxes to feed the goverment Pig trough is a good idea get real. They could scale down the budget keep programs going with a minimal tax if they would only make political positions vonunteer positions only. The poor can not dodge the tax bullet because the goverment has made it so they get their's first they pay the most taxes and are penalized the most.

We could have socialized health care just have small clinics for small stuff and hospitals for major surguries only and no petty stuff. Any health care is better than none.

Throwing moeny at schools does not work make teachers compete for students and have classes on the net when children are old enough to use a computer it would cut out fights at schools if there was no schools for kids to be bullied at. Have more insentives for students willing to learn real skills and have magnatory work programs that give students the worst jobs that are not willing to go to school. That way they are more motivated to get an education.

We could cut out fighting other people's civil wars and use the military to help the trouble areas of this country so we keep our millitary employed where they should be at home with their families and not dying for unwinable causes.

Their are always things the government could do, but they won't because they are comfortable with their execess and our suffering.

Answer 4

I could go for a change in the current income tax system,but the sales tax idea,the supposed "fair tax" idea would be the biggest tax break for the wealthiest individuals in America in the history of our country. A flat tax,where everyone pays the exact same percentage of all income,along with a tariff system that makes it impossible to avoid US taxes by making your products overseas when the intended market is the US,that I could accept. This isn't some tangent against the rich,it's simple fairness. Right now if you look at the facts some of the wealthiest individuals in America have some of the lowest tax rates. Lets take Warren Buffett for example,who makes almost his entire income through either dividends from investments or capaital gains when he sells off an investment. Both sources of his income have had their rates lowered to I believe 15%,the actual number is irrelevant the point is that it's been lowered. Also since both forms of income are not treated like regular income there is no Social Security tax,there is no Medicare deduction etc,so therefore he has effectively about a 20% lower tax rate than you or I from the start. A flat tax solves this issue,and puts every American on the same playing field,and is really the only "fair tax"

AD

Answer 5

I have been a tax accountant for 27 years and I have studied all the proposals out there, such as the "National Sales Tax" or the "Flat Tax" or the "Fair Tax." All of these ideas come with their own sets of fatal flaws.

For example, under the "Flat Tax" system, it has been estimated that the tax rate would have to be at least 18% in order to pay for everything, with no way to keep that 18% from becoming 25% or 30% or even higher. Why? It doesn't address spending! We could all end up paying 60% of every dime we earn to the government. It also taxes every damn thing, not just wages. You sell your home and get hit with an 18% tax? What idiot came up with this idea is what you'll ask yourself then. Also, these proposals to end income tax as we know it fail to recognize that the progressive tax system we have now (meaning rich pay higher rates than poor) allow the government to target weaker areas of the economy and strenghthen them by providing tax incentives. Under all the proposed alternatives, there is just no way to do that.

Tax codes should not be written by people who can't see past their own circumstances at the wider implications of their proposals.

Answer 6

Yes I do think can survive without income tax.
The thing about fairtax is
1. It has been calculated at a rate that would ensure enough revenue to the states to take care of public schools, roads and whatever else is needed and makes sure we can still have a federal funded military. Everything would be taken care of.
Our current income tax is unaccounted for. If you read my last question and the best answer chosen it states that the 16th amenment never actually incurred enough voted to be ratified.

About the poor--

"The new tax would be levied on food, clothing, medicine, all services, newly constructed homes – everything except used items. Then every U.S. household would receive a check from the federal government each month, based on the number of Social Security card holders in each family. This check would supposedly compensate each of us for the tax we pay on necessities. "
IF you are poor than that compensation on taxes paid for necessities is going to either give you some saving money!! Which is great, or extra spending money. This eventually can help people get out of debt and eventually out of the poorhouse.
It is a totally self-regulated tax. You want to be taxed less, then spend less.
It's pretty obvious most of the rich spend more, and therefore wil be paying more in taxes.
Nothing would happen to public schools or programs that are currently federally funded they would be funded by the sales tax.
I would save the money because that is my main goal. I know alot of friends who would use it to pay off their enormous school loans and debts.


Fairtax.org has some good articles and addresses alot of issues. THe fact remains that we need to do something because our system is going to collapse. The federal reserve is going to rob this country and we need to do something sooner rather than later.

Answer 7

I'll get all my stuff confiscated if I don't pay up, I know rich corps seem to get away with not paying taxes but us little people are screwed. So my inspiration is basically fear. Although we really really do need an epa, fda, we need some port security although i think we could probably be patting down fewer grandmas in airports. And we could be doing more for our injured mentally ill and homeless vets. But the help seems to come there from local not federal.

Answer 8

Its possible. But I think the income tax is the best way to collect funds for our government. The problem is that collection of funds has become much too complicated. The Congress has tried to manage our economy through out tax system. They also use the tax system to encourage larger family size and other social factors. We need to keep it simple. Tax laws should have only the objective of collecting revenue for the government. That way, people will be taxed according to their ability to contribute. And anyone with a GED will be able to fill out their tax form.
The fair tax is unfair. People with a subsistence income will be taxed on almost all their income while the wealthy will have much of their of their income -- untaxed.

Answer 9

I think we'd sink. I think it would be a fair way to tax, but I don't think it would work. Wealthy people make a lot of money that goes strait to the bank and sits there- sometimes for generations. If it's only taxed when it's spent, it's not going to be taxed.

Poor people will pay tax on every penny earned because they have to spend it to survive. Unfortunately, the income from their taxes won't be sufficient to keep things going at the level they are at now.

Answer 10

Linda, sx88 1663 hit a home run for you!!!! The elimination of the "welfarian" fed sponsored programs alone would save us untold billions in taxes. Eliminating "frivilous" law suits would once again make the cost of affordable medical care with in EASY reach of every one. Contrary to the "class envy" groups opinion, Wealthy people do not "sit" on their "fortune" THEY INVEST IT FOR A RETURN. Their "investments" provide employment for the LESS AGGRESIVE individuals in a society, not to mention the investment into infrastructure that benefits ALL with in a society. The elimination of the Fed Reserve & it's enforcer, the IRS is the first step towards financial/social freedoms. Backing the "buck" with precious metal is step #2 as it eliminates inflation & drives up it's purchasing power! It works also on the state level eg; eliminate property tax replace it with a sales tax, this FORCES the municipalities to live with in it's means! Property tax like the shrinking "reserve notes" is PUNITIVE in nature. Steve C's answer is flawed in this respect, we would not be paying for "everything" as he stated. The "FED" would be reduced to providing military protection/security for our citizens, & providing for interstate commerce, roads & waterways. Eg; states would be responsible for their own enviornmental qualities. EPA may well be retitled as "The Department Of Interstate Waterways & Offshore Waters Protection Agency". Bureaucracy would be shrunken in size considerably. My opinion is that sx88 1663 had best all around answer to your question & that Steve C is, well, more a product of the more left wing tilting professor's of todays womb to "da" tomb mentality!