Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands April 24th, 2016 3:08pm

Would you be in favor of a federal sales tax that replaced (dollar for dollar) the current federal income tax system?

59 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

LimeJello
05/03/16 5:14 pm

Exactly, the income tax has a bracket system, while sales tax does not protect the impoverished and hurts businesses.

LimeJello
05/03/16 5:15 pm

From Buffalo as well.

SenatorFreedom Pennsylvania
04/28/16 10:13 pm

I'd take it over our current tax code any day of the week, easily. But I'm not oblivious to the fact that it isn't perfect.

Reply
SpecialJ Illinois
04/28/16 10:36 am

A large sales tax would be devastating for poor people, so no.

Reply
Captainbstring Biden is a Clown
04/26/16 9:09 pm

Using a sales tax, those that don't pay any taxes would now pay their fair share!

Reply
lightsabr2 The Big Sky
04/26/16 7:19 am

This fails to mention the prebate that's outlined in the proposed FairTax, making it a progressive system rather than regressive. Read more at fairtax.org.

evoecon nearest binary system
04/25/16 8:42 pm

Let's replace a flawed Progressive system with a repressive regressive system.

Reply
joabsquash
04/25/16 8:44 pm

The flaw is the fact that it is progressive.

dlaw4570
04/25/16 7:52 pm

As I recall from Econ classes a sale tax would be a far greater burden on those with lower incomes if all purchases were taxed equally. Making food, prescriptions and perhaps other necessities exemptions would help even the burden out, maybe...

Reply
joabsquash
04/25/16 8:43 pm

You needed a college class to tell you that? Let's see...10% of $30K = $3K. 10% of $300K = $30K. So...the"rich" pay 10 X what "poor" people pay. Not fair?

evoecon nearest binary system
04/26/16 4:58 am

joabsquash, Your statement assumes each income level spends all of their income in a given year. The reality has the lower income groups will spend nearly 100% (sometimes more through borrowing), but the upper income groups do not spend 100%. Therefore, a sales tax is a regressive tax.

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:39 pm

Taxing spending only to raise revenues for the rightful role of government is fine. Taxing income in order to spend on anything other than limited government is obscene!

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:39 pm

Taxing spending only to raise revenues for the rightful role of government is fine. Taxing income in order to spend on anything other than limited government is obscene!

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:37 pm

Incentivize success, not failure.

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:36 pm

If the goal were equal taxes, the poor would be broke.

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:36 pm

The only "fair tax" is a tax on spending. Not income.

Reply
joabsquash
04/25/16 6:32 pm

Here's fair... I'm beautiful, healthy and rich. You're beautiful, healthy and rich. Shut up idiots. Fair is not the goal!

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:32 pm

Here's fair... I'm beautiful, healthy and rich. You're beautiful, healthy and rich. Shut up idiots. Fair is not the goal!

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:29 pm

It was the 16th amendment that added the tax on income. Simply repeal it!

seb766 Missouri
04/25/16 1:41 pm

No way. It would unfairly tax middle and lower class people who spend a larger percentage of their money on goods and services.

Reply
joabsquash
04/25/16 6:33 pm

So what? Let them get on with it.

SirTokenhale Farmington, MO
04/26/16 8:00 pm

I don't think you understand how our economy works. Without the middle and lower class no one is buying. If no one is buying then the upper class crumbles and you are left with a broken system. This is all very simple. I don't see where you're confused.

Dhawgg Hoist The Black Flag
04/25/16 10:41 am

hells, yes! then everyone literally pays their fair share, unlike the system now where nearly half pay zero federal income tax.

Reply
DounutHole
04/25/16 1:59 pm

The tax would have to be at least 50%!

ProfCluck Prospect, KY
04/25/16 2:34 pm

False, if it only replaces income tax like it says in the question it would be very low, less than 10%.

DounutHole
04/25/16 10:00 pm

Not so sure and economics would agree with you on that one. Might even be 60%, look at Norway.

bubbaman
04/25/16 8:37 am

It wouldn't help. The government would continue to find ways to get more money so that they could waste it.

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:34 pm

Yeah, maybe, but it would have to be very transparent.

Wackacrat Harford County
04/25/16 4:03 am

It would make everyone pay their fair share, even people collecting money through a black market.

gbunyard7 Maryland
04/25/16 2:41 am

That way, you would be taxed on what you consume, not on what you earn. It's not perfect, but it's better by a long shot than all this progressive bs.

Reply
ParaguasPato Columbus GA
04/25/16 1:59 am

If its a sales tax instead of an income tax we'll essentially be punishing people for having children because they will be forced to buy more things to take care of their child.

More than that, we would be punishing people for spending their money, therefore encouraging them to save. Personal debt would be less of a problem, but the economy would quickly spiral into devastating descent that would immensely raise the national debt to the point that we couldn't pay it back.

By the way, more spending => bigger economy => more money in taxes => less national debt.
Less spending => smaller economy => less money in taxes => more national debt => panic from the whole country => even less spending => never ending death spiral

That is a doomsday scenario, but the point is that the question isn't whether or not a sales tax would hurt the economy, its how much it would hurt the economy.

Reply
mstory918 Manhattan
04/24/16 10:12 pm

It'd make me second guess the bullshit that I buy and help me save $$

Reply
Korosensei Maine
04/24/16 9:44 pm

It would end up hurting the poor

Reply
gazamidori Florida
04/24/16 8:33 pm

People wouldn't purchase as much which would cause tax rates to increase, which would cause spending to decrease, Which would cause tax rates to rise...

Reply
obertar1 NY
04/24/16 8:31 pm

If so, people might do a lot of saving rather than spending. Might be a huge but temporary impact toward shrinking the economy that we would need to get past.

eradicator JC
04/24/16 7:01 pm

Brutally regressive

Reply
Wackacrat Harford County
04/25/16 4:02 am

Double taxation.

mstory918 Manhattan
04/27/16 7:24 pm

If you think about it, so is income and all other types. I get taxed on what I make and then those taxed dollars (my taxed income) gets taxed again on purchases.

cornybread The Large Malus Fruit
04/24/16 5:44 pm

If it's easier than filling out those obnoxious forms, I'm all for it!

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
04/24/16 5:07 pm

Absolutely not. That would disincentivize consumption and further ruin the economy.

Reply
MurrayHitchens The Truth Wins Out
04/24/16 8:44 pm

A VAT is effectively the same as flat tax in this regard. Since all savings is eventually consumption it doesn't really matter if it's taken out before you touch it or after you give it away.

MurrayHitchens The Truth Wins Out
04/24/16 8:47 pm

If prices are, lets say, 20% higher cause of VAT, it doesn't really matter if everyone is getting paid 20% more cause they aren't paying a flat income tax. It's all relative.

ParaguasPato Columbus GA
04/25/16 2:08 am

Toes matter when you take money away. If its immediately gone (income tax) then its just kind of "boo hoo, I'm over it" and you go about your day. If its when you purchase you will notice that you could just not purchase instead and save a lot more money. Income tax is punishing people for having a job, sales tax is punishing people for spending their money. We've gotten used to the income tax and its never really incentivized people to not have a job. I mean, have you ever heard someone say "I'm not getting a job until they get rid of the income tax"? But sales tax you have a choice whether or not to participate in that tax (you either buy or don't buy something). You'll still pay for the essentials like food and bills and such, but you'll be incentivized to not buy anything else. That would hurt the economy which would lead to fewer jobs which leads to even worse economy which leads to even fewer jobs and you can see the death spiral.

MurrayHitchens The Truth Wins Out
04/25/16 6:41 am

Person A makes $1000/week, has $10,000 in savings, wants to buy a flat screen TV for $1000. What would be the difference if they made $1200\week, had 12,000 savings, and wanted to buy a flat screen TV for $1200? The price is only nominally different.

MurrayHitchens The Truth Wins Out
04/25/16 6:53 am

What's the purpose of earning income you don't ever want to spend?

Think Lovin Life
04/25/16 10:20 am

Murray ... some of us came from nothing, and want the money we've saved to work for us. We don't have to spend it.

MurrayHitchens The Truth Wins Out
04/25/16 4:24 pm

You don't have to spend it, but if you don't then you worked and invested for nothing. Most aren't motivated to do that. My point is since it has the same spending power, the incentives must also be the same.

EarthMunkey The Golden Rule. Always.
04/24/16 5:04 pm

Better than income tax. Then at least I would have SOME control...

Reply
JeffreyBurk
04/24/16 3:50 pm

No, sales tax should be abolished everywhere.

Reply
Krystina Let Freedom Reign
04/24/16 1:49 pm

As long as necessities aren't taxed, absolutely.

Reply
brentwho Home
04/24/16 1:43 pm

This is one of those things that sounds good from far away, not sure it stands up to a closer inspection though

Reply
fredd TrumpLand
04/24/16 12:52 pm

Nope. Too regressive.

Reply
million Along the Puget Sound
04/24/16 1:02 pm

What governments do not have taxes?

CyanEide
04/24/16 1:04 pm

Sales tax is not theft because you consent to paying it when you buy the item

BatmansParents Monarch Theater
04/24/16 1:05 pm

Switzerland doesn't have income tax, and up until 1913 the us had no form of taxes whatsoever. In fact the first consistent tax was in 1861, the first year of the civil war to pay the soldiers and pay for the gear. It has been demonstrated throughout history that taxation is unneeded.

gocubsgo
04/24/16 6:14 pm

Switzerland has income tax, property tax, and VAT.

MurrayHitchens The Truth Wins Out
04/24/16 8:12 pm

Cyan, I think sales tax is theft as well since there is a threat to the sellers to give the percentage from goods sold.

BadLogic101 I commit fallacies.
04/24/16 12:21 pm

If food, beverages, medical drugs and devices, and healthcare services aren't taxed, the sales tax actually becomes more progressive than the income tax. The rich would then pay more for the non-necessities than the poor and middle class.

Reply
bkro37 existential crisis
04/24/16 12:07 pm

I hate the income tax system with an absolute burning passion. That being said. A sales tax is, by definition, a regressive tax, meaning it hits the poor hardest. That's not something we need.

Reply
snozwaffer Dove Canyon, CA
04/24/16 1:45 pm

Not if items such as food, and services such as medical, were at a lower rate.

mfjd1948 rural johnson co iowa
04/24/16 11:43 am

A higher percent of a person salary is spent on food, shelter, medicaL, transportation and other necessities of life the lower their respective income is. The rich would make out like bandits, which they are.

Reply
Vietman manhattan
04/24/16 11:55 am

Just don't tax the things you need to live, like food, rent, or healthcare.

Think Lovin Life
04/24/16 5:48 pm

1948 ... when you say that the rich would "make out like bandits" you mean because they get to keep more of what they earned, or because they give you less of what you didn't earn?

bluerum29 optimistic idealist
04/24/16 11:38 am

Not a fan of this idea.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
04/24/16 11:36 am

While I agree that it's be a more fair approach, we could never trust politicians. I'm confident that they'd reinstitute an income tax and we'd end up paying both.

Reply
badattitude no place like home
04/24/16 11:25 am

Absolutely. Totally fair. Like state sales tax.

Reply
Liberty 4,032,064
04/24/16 11:24 am

Yes on a more and philosophical level.
On a practical level, I do like that the income tax is fairly easy to avoid once you reach a certain point.

liam2013 iowa
04/24/16 10:50 am

That would be the most punitive tax on anyone making less than 100k per year. Since most of their purchases would be for necessities.

Reply
badattitude no place like home
04/24/16 11:26 am

It would give you back all of your sales tax below a certain income level.

Think Lovin Life
04/24/16 11:38 am

Liam "necessities" like alcohol, tobacco and drugs?

gocubsgo
04/24/16 6:16 pm

No. Like food and shelter.

Rationalis Classical Liberal
04/24/16 10:32 am

Replace the bad tax code with another less bad tax code?

Reply
ronderman North Carolina
04/24/16 10:25 am

Only if an amendment was added to the constitution stating that income tax is abolished. The last thing we need is to implement a sales tax and then let someone bring the income tax back and then get stuck with both.

Reply
badattitude no place like home
04/24/16 11:27 am

Yes. Just like the says. You can't have both.

joabsquash
04/25/16 6:28 pm

It was the 16th amendment that added the tax on income. Simply repeal it!

badattitude no place like home
04/25/16 6:33 pm

The fair tax act would abolish the IRS and the income tax to prevent double taxation.