except for food items, or clothing.
No property taxes, no income taxes, no state or local taxes.
oh...and the super dooper rich who die and leave and estate in excess of $300,000,000 must pay a 5% estate tax contribution back to society for having treated them so good.
and thats it, 2 thirds of the money would go to state and local government and one third to federal.... would that work for you?
2007-12-03 06:47:00 · 20 answers · asked by ningis n 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
First, it would be regressive since wealthy people don't spend as high a percentage of their income buying stuff like regular folks do.
Second, 8% wouldn't raise enough money to pay for anything.
2007-12-03 06:53:34 · answer #1 · answered by Damian M 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Single mother needs a car to get to work but with 8% sales tax can't afford a car. Welfare.
Elderly man who needs a walker to get around. On fixed income (low) has to pay 8% sales tax. Forget the walker he'll hobble around or lie on the sidewalk when he falls until someone picks him up.
Great Grandma, a widow, proud of her great grandchild getting married. Wants to buy a wedding gift. Fixed income. She gets a card because she can't handle the 8% sales tax on the purchase.
The government has already mandated states spend money for homeland security and the federal government still hasn't paid for it. So the 2/3 may not get to the state and local govt. anyway. Also what is to keep the feds from telling locals how to spend taxes and witholding money when state and local govt. doesn't do exactly as requested by the federal govt. ?
2007-12-03 07:13:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you go back and calculate how much your local, state, and federal governments spend, I don't think 8% will cover it. In NY, we have an 8.75% sales tax already, plus state income tax, local property and school taxes, and federal taxes. I don't think anyone even knows what all of the hidden excise taxes are on things like gasoline and phone service.
I have said it here many times. It doesn't matter how you collect the taxes, the answer is to reduce government spending!
2007-12-03 08:44:36 · answer #3 · answered by mjmayer188 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the FairTax better because it reduces the burden on the poor by providing a prebate (a check from the government at the beginning of the month to cover taxes on essential items) for everyone. Rich people spend more than poor people on luxury items, hence it's not true that the rich will not pay their fair share. The arguement that the cost of goods would increase with the FairTax (a 24% tax on retail goods and services) is inaccurate because it is an inclusive tax. The embedded tax that the consumer pays on goods and services now (the percentage of a product's price that manufacturers charge to cover the cost of taxes on their own businesses) would simply be replaced by the FairTax (since businesses are no longer paying income tax) so the $1.00 you paid for a loaf of bread would still be $1.00 - the consumer would never notice. It's a good system. Estonia, is one of the fastest growing economies of the former Soviet Union largely because of a national sales tax similar to the FairTax. Check out the website at FairTax.org.
2007-12-03 07:02:54 · answer #4 · answered by Rob B 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The FED loans our own money to us, at interest. It's like me loaning you $100 at 4% annual interest (just an example). At the end of that year, I'm standing there with my hand out wanting $104 from you. But I only order $100 to be printed, so where are you going to get the other $4? You are force into taking another "loan" from me to pay that interest.Abolish Tax on wages its not Lawful only corporate tax
2007-12-03 07:27:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lacey is an idiot. It only taxes those who buy things, i.e. the wealthy.
States need income, too, so state taxes would have to remain. Cities would still need funds, so property taxes would stay the same. However, if you just wanted to add 8% to sales tax for federal government, and get rid of my income taxes, I'm on board.
Beware, though. If this passes, and then Democrats get control, they will re-institute the Federal Income Tax, while maintaining a Federal Sales Tax. That's how libs work.
2007-12-03 06:53:49 · answer #6 · answered by Brad the Fox 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
In Texas we don't have a state income tax and already pay 8% sales tax plus property tax etc.
If you really want a tax on purchases to cover all of our tax needs it would be in the 18 - 25% range.
2007-12-03 06:52:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
a sales tax is regressive. meaning it hurts the poor more than the rich.
the poor spend a far greater percentage of their money on buying stuff like food and other necessities. exempt them, and you might have something.
but you'd need to include capital gains taxes as well as the estate tax.
but that's better than an income tax, you're right. as long as we find a way to make it progressive.
2007-12-03 07:09:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So the uberpoor- those who pay NO income tax now, get an increase from 0% to 8%? On Diapers? Gasoline?
That hardly seems fair.
Drop $300M to $3M on the estate tax and we're getting there.
2007-12-03 06:51:53 · answer #9 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, that wouldn't be enough money to sustain our government- we'd have to disband most of the military. I don't think that's a good idea.
Won't Somebody think of the Dollar? National sales tax is just a bad idea anyway, but one that low is unfeasable considering the budget.
2007-12-03 06:51:15 · answer #10 · answered by Beardog 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋