It's often called a "Fair Tax" where consumption is what drives taxation. It is so hard though to get Uncle Sam out of your wallet, especially when he is dug in like a tick right at the employer.
I've heard the pros and cons of a consumption tax, but I have never heard it discussed beyond Friedman enthusiasts or ever at the candidate/national level. I don't think there are problems with the idea, but rather other more vested interests which make it nearly impossible to hear about.
I'm with you on this one, balsary. Why the hell do we need accountants to make sure we are paying the right amount of taxes? What a waste of money to placate the politicians that have given us such an effed up tax code :12:Why isn't this ever seriously considered as a replacement for income tax? It seems like such a simple solution. Are there obvious problems with such a tax that I'm not seeing? I'm interested to hear what others here think of the idea.
Not so fast, Dandelion. I'm no Republican, but I'm sure that they would agree to a national sales tax in short order, as long as it was a net wash on taxes received. I'm sure the tea party would be for it too, as it would allow anyone to pay as little taxes as you choose......just spend less.Seems to me republicans do not favour taxes which bite equally in the rich!
I'm with you on this one, balsary. Why the hell do we need accountants to make sure we are paying the right amount of taxes? What a waste of money to placate the politicians that have given us such an effed up tax code :12:
But I will bet you a beverage of your choice, that Obamacare will ultimately be funded by a national sales tax. That will be the only way to keep it afloat.
Under such a plan, the poor, who spend most of their money, would be taxed at a higher percentage of their income than the rich, who save most of theirs.
This strikes me as neither fair nor effective.
So investments too such as houses or shares should have tax upon them.Under such a plan, the poor, who spend most of their money, would be taxed at a higher percentage of their income than the rich, who save most of theirs.
This strikes me as neither fair nor effective.
Under such a plan, the poor, who spend most of their money, would be taxed at a higher percentage of their income than the rich, who save most of theirs.
This strikes me as neither fair nor effective.
I've never understood why going to a flat tax would be such a problem.
Flattening tax scales creates massive income and wealth imbalance. You end up with a plutocracy.
If all the loopholes were closed and everyone were paying the same percentage of their income I really don't see how it could be any fairer. Everyone would be paying "their share".
I do understand at some point there would have to be some exceptions for the elderly, handicapped and such but I think it could work.
It doesn't work. You've had 40 years of reducing taxes on the wealthy and look where we are.
We have a superclass of filthy rich people with more social and political power than the other 7 billion of us combined.
Like I said, close the loopholes.
Their taxes would go up.
Under such a plan, the poor, who spend most of their money, would be taxed at a higher percentage of their income than the rich, who save most of theirs.
This strikes me as neither fair nor effective.
That's right. Consumption taxes raise a lot of revenue but they are very unfair to lower income people.Under such a plan, the poor, who spend most of their money, would be taxed at a higher percentage of their income than the rich, who save most of theirs.
This strikes me as neither fair nor effective.