An income tax is the only tax that abides by the first rule of taxation: Make sure that the taxpayer can afford to pay the tax.
Taxing sins as you propose will only create a robust black market to evade the taxes. Look at tobacco prices in NYC, and the NC pickups in the back alleyways selling cartons of 'Boros and Kools for $50 a whack. Levying a tax at the source such as an income tax does is the best way to assure compliance with the law.
2007-07-12 03:11:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bostonian In MO 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
oh man, i don't know how i feel about a booze tax...
but yeah, sales tax is totally preferable to income tax. the usual reason that people give for wanting an income tax is the following:
a sales tax is a regressive tax. the less money you make, the more percentage of your income goes to tax. this could be potentially harmful to the poorest people.
an income tax can be modified any way you like. you can make it regressive, flat, or progressive. the way it is now is progressive--the more you make, the higher a percentage of your money goes to income tax.
regardless--taxing specific things more than others, and giving incentives for good investment can offset the negative impact of a regressive sales tax.
cookies anyone--sorry to burst your bubble. but congress's ability to tax income does not stem from the 16th amendment. guaranteeing their ability does not mean they wouldn't have it without the amendment.
2007-07-12 10:12:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by brian 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, for now, unless you want the Chinese to redeem all their Treasuries and collapse our economy, we have to at least pay the interest on the 9 trillion dollar national debt.
Taxing the traditional vices will just lead to a huge black market; most of these industries already operate on the fringe of the law. It won't take an instant for them to figure out how to evade most of these consumption and use taxes.
2007-07-12 10:16:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Actually you have a good point. Do the revenues from these activities equal enough to pay for the social services that the majority of people partaking in these activities use?
2007-07-12 10:08:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Nah, that would only limit consumers purchasing products, which would lower profits for corporations, which would lead to fewer and lower paying jobs, which would limit consumers purchasing products, which would lower profits for corporations, which would lead to fewer and lower paying jobs, which would limit consumers purchasing products, and so on.
2007-07-12 10:11:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not gone, but lowered!!!
Out of a $1,600 paycheck I only got $1,000. Now that's just ridiculous.
2007-07-12 10:08:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Educate yourself......
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-1QjXIHIweLFD5T2wUKs-?cq=1&p=74
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-1QjXIHIweLFD5T2wUKs-?cq=1&p=80
It's illegal.....
2007-07-12 10:11:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Cookies Anyone? 5
·
0⤊
3⤋