• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

National Sales Tax Good or Bad?

I think a flat income tax is a better idea.

I cant imagine paying a 26% sales tax????

Imagine paying an additional 20% tax on a new car???



National Sales Tax Promoted as Fairer System
Thursday, September 09, 2004
By Peter Brownfeld
STORIES
?Bush Says Kerry Would Raise Taxes?Kerry Seizes on Bush National Sales Tax Comment?Two Choices for Tax Reform?Small Businesses to Still Get Tax Breaks?Lawmakers Extend Tax Cuts
WASHINGTON ? The IRS and all payroll taxes should be scrapped and replaced with a national sales tax (search) that would require the poor to pay nothing, some tax reform advocates are proposing as an ideal plan to rejigger the U.S. tax code.

The proposal has been gathering strength among leading lawmakers, and the issue has made its way into the presidential campaign and at least one key Senate race.

Rep. John Linder (search), R-Ga., has been promoting a national sales tax for years. He said he is gaining more and more allies on Capitol Hill, including members of the Republican leadership.

Linder, a six-term representative, dismisses the central criticism of a national sales tax ? that it would disproportionately tax the poor ? by saying they would be exempted. But critics say Linder's plan is a little too neat, that his math does not add up and that it would be impossible to exempt the poor and still avoid having a behemoth agency like the IRS.

"It's not worth the tremendous pain that it would cause for a questionable promise of success in the long run," said Adam Kovacevich, communications director for Inez Tenenbaum (search), the Democratic candidate for Senate in South Carolina who is facing a national sales tax advocate, Republican Rep. Jim DeMint (search).


"This is the kind of idea that sounds great at the Heritage Foundation, but when you actually apply it to South Carolina, it would cause serious pain in the state," Kovacevich said, referring to the conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

Under Linder's plan, the national sales tax would be set at 23 percent, which he claims would be enough to replace the funds that the canceled payroll tax would have raised. The national sales tax would be in addition to the average 6.2 percent state sales tax that people already pay.

Linder said low-income Americans would benefit the most because they would receive a rebate or "prebate" for the new 23 percent sales tax. Linder's plan would abolish the IRS, creating in essence, he said, a $3 trillion to $5 trillion tax cut. The states would then be responsible for distributing these funds.

Spending up to the poverty level, a figure determined by the Department of Health and Human Services (search), would be tax-free for all households. Households would receive a "prebate" on the first day of the month for all spending expected during the month.

In 2004, HHS estimated the poverty level (search) for a single person to be $9,310. For a family of four it was $18,850. Linder said "prebates" would result in a huge increase in purchasing power at the bottom end.

Critics of Linder's plan say "prebates" would complicate the supposedly streamlined plan, and make it impossible to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service.

"One of the reasons Linder and others have been supportive is because you can get rid of the IRS, but if you start doing rebates, who's going to be responsible for that? The simplicity starts to evaporate, so then what's the point?" asked Paul Weinstein, chief operating officer of the Progressive Policy Institute (search).

Linder responded that under his plan, prebates would be administered by the states. He acknowledged, however, that some additional bureaucracy would be necessary, but nothing on the scale of the IRS.

Under his bill, the Fair Tax Act of 2003 (search), Linder said that not only would the tax burden actually be less regressive, but America would benefit by creating a more competitive market with the elimination of corporate payroll taxes. America would be "ferociously competitive in world markets."

"We'd become the world's biggest tax haven and foreign capital would be in our markets. We also know that virtually every international corporation located elsewhere would build their plants in the U.S. for the same reason."

Linder's measure has 54 cosponsors, and he said he believes it is gathering support on Capitol Hill and across the country. The bill has the support of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Linder predicted that another powerful ally would soon start lobbying President Bush.

"I fully expect him to hear from [Speaker of the House] Denny Hastert on this," Linder said.

In Hastert's book "Speaker: Lessons From Forty Years in Coaching and Politics," which was published in August, he called for replacing the current income tax system with either a national sales tax or a "flat" income tax.

Responding to a question at a Florida campaign rally last month, Bush sounded open to discussion of a national sales tax.

"I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's kind of an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously," the president said. The next day administration officials said Bush was not considering such a reform.

John Kerry's campaign quickly condemned a national sales tax, and Bush for potentially supporting it.

?If [Bush] has his way, every trip to the supermarket will feel like a visit to H&R Block and every day will be April 15. And now that this plan has been exposed, George W. Bush is trying to mislead the public into thinking it was just an off-the-cuff comment," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said in an Aug. 12 statement.

Linder said he is unsure how the proposal would be received in the administration.

"There is a battle going on in the administration between those who think he should jump into this and those who are afraid of big ideas," he said.

But while some think the system sounds good, critics dispute Linder's expected tax rate of 23 percent. William Gale, an economic expert at the Brookings Institution (search), estimated that to replace the income tax, the sales tax rate would have to be more than 26 percent. Other economists place the number at 40 or 50 percent.

Adding to this chorus, Weinstein suggested that 30 to 36 percent would be more realistic, and said he worried about the effect of a national sales tax on consumer activity.

"A considerably high tax may dampen consumption. Quite frankly we got out of the last recession through consumer spending," he said.

The debate is not only taking place in Washington. The idea of a national sales tax has emerged as a major issue in the race between Tenenbaum and DeMint. The two candidates have written dueling op-eds in South Carolina's leading newspaper The State, and debated the issue last Friday.

"Helping our companies and workers drop the enormous burden of our tax code is a vital first step," DeMint wrote in his Aug. 22 op-ed.

Back in Washington, retiring Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., has also proposed legislation abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a national sales tax. Tauzin's bill, the Individual Tax Freedom Act of 2004 (search), was introduced in April and has three cosponsors. It was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means in April, but no action has been taken on it since then.

Linder said he hoped to have a hearing on his bill in the Ways and Means Committee this month, but one has not been scheduled yet. He acknowledged that any action before the election is unlikely, but with powerful lawmakers like DeLay and Hastert interested in the topic, the debate will certainly continue on Capitol Hill.

 
horrible. It will work against everyone but the rich.

Many middle and lower class people must spend their entire paycheck to buy the things they need. The upper-class makes enough where they dont spend a huge percentage of their wage/and or investment gains. A national sales tax would therefore have the middle and lower class paying a much higher percentage of their income than the rich would.

Now a REAL flat tax would be fine by me. The past proposals in congress had excluded taxing investment income and capital gains, so again the upper-class was getting a much better deal than the middle and lower classes.
 
as long as you have to pay that 26% on the purchase of stock and the person who purchases it off of you also pays 26% on their purchase.

Hey fair is fair.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
I think a flat income tax is a better idea.

I cant imagine paying a 26% sales tax????


Good news,you won't!! No... you'll pay the Federal sales tax and your STATE sales tax combined on ALL purchases. Around here that total would be 33.3%. Wonder when people are going to wake up to that fun fact or did the really think that 26% would fund the Fed Gov AND their STATE??--ROFLOL..

Hmmm...So now it's up to 26%?? Wasn't that long ago(when Bush didn't want to discuss it) that it was pegged at around 20-23%. Of course he didn't want to discuss it with a Presidential election coming up.

Bottom line:

ASTROMOMICAL savings for guys like Limbaugh who will go from paying eight million per year down to ZERO. Limbaugh would have to spend enough per week--almost $600,000 for the government to break even just on him. Of course he won't even approach 600K in purchases so where do you think it will come from? Yep,same old whipping boys--Middle and lower class and espicially seniors like my dad who live on a pension and SS. He makes around 16K per year but isn't taxed on that low of an amount.

Add the 26% to our State and local sales tax and he'll get to pay 33.3% sales tax on every purchase he makes so guys like Limbaugh,Gates and the Walton family can keep stashing their billions in the bank. Meanwhile my dad and millons of other workers paid in S@#T LOADS to the Federal Government in the decades they worked.

Bush is going to allow home mortage to still be deducted and charitable contributions--Re: Churches, wink wink. This tax will add $50,000 to the price of a 150K house,over $8,000 on a new car,easily add nearly $100 to a new set of tires for the old clunker and on and on. And oh boy,paying an additional 26% for everything at the grocery store each week.

If you make about $150,000 per year and up,you'll come out ahead, if you don't you'll break even or get screwed. That tax might start at 23-25% but they'll be back for more,thats no where near enough to run this country and fund Social Security and they know it.
 
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: piasabird
I think a flat income tax is a better idea.

I cant imagine paying a 26% sales tax????


Good news,you won't!! No... you'll pay the Federal sales tax and your STATE sales tax combined on ALL purchases. Around here that total would be 33.3%. Wonder when people are going to wake up to that fun fact or did the really think that 26% would fund the Fed Gov AND their STATE??--ROFLOL..

Hmmm...So now it's up to 26%?? Wasn't that long ago(when Bush didn't want to discuss it) that it was pegged at around 20-23%. Of course he didn't want to discuss it with a Presidential election coming up.

Bottom line:

ASTROMOMICAL savings for guys like Limbaugh who will go from paying eight million per year down to ZERO. Limbaugh would have to spend enough per week--almost $600,000 for the government to break even just on him. Of course he won't even approach 600K in purchases so where do you think it will come from? Yep,same old whipping boys--Middle and lower class and espicially seniors like my dad who live on a pension and SS. He makes around 16K per year but isn't taxed on that low of an amount.

Add the 26% to our State and local sales tax and he'll get to pay 33.3% sales tax on every purchase he makes so guys like Limbaugh,Gates and the Walton family can keep stashing their billions in the bank. Meanwhile my dad and millons of other workers paid in S@#T LOADS to the Federal Government in the decades they worked.

Bush is going to allow home mortage to still be deducted and charitable contributions--Re: Churches, wink wink. This tax will add $50,000 to the price of a 150K house,over $8,000 on a new car,easily add nearly $100 to a new set of tires for the old clunker and on and on. And oh boy,paying an additional 26% for everything at the grocery store each week.

If you make about $150,000 per year and up,you'll come out ahead, if you don't you'll break even or get screwed. That tax might start at 23-25% but they'll be back for more,thats no where near enough to run this country and fund Social Security and they know it.


What you are saying is a good thing. People would finally realize how fvcking bloated the federal government really is. Income taxes on the "rich" have hidden this fact for decades.

I'm not in the tradeoff racket, so I do not endorse the Fair Tax or any other tax, but IF under a national sales tax people finally realized how much the Feds loot Americans every year, then that would definately be a positive aspect of the tax. Therefore, let grandpa on social security pay the tax, maybe this will finally get a long overdue tax revolt going.
 

Now a REAL flat tax would be fine by me. The past proposals in congress had excluded taxing investment income and capital gains, so again the upper-class was getting a much better deal than the middle and lower classes.[/quote]

I'm,I'm shocked!! Funny isn't it,they all shout about eliminating ALL those pesky rules of the IRS code to make it simple and then a second later they start kicking in a bunch of IRS type of exclusions. Of course all are aimed at helping the wealthy so they can tinkle down on us...

 
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05

Now a REAL flat tax would be fine by me. The past proposals in congress had excluded taxing investment income and capital gains, so again the upper-class was getting a much better deal than the middle and lower classes.

I'm,I'm shocked!! Funny isn't it,they all shout about eliminating ALL those pesky rules of the IRS code to make it simple and then a second later they start kicking in a bunch of IRS type of exclusions. Of course all are aimed at helping the wealthy so they can tinkle down on us...

[/quote]

Instead of using the wealthy as a scapegoat, why don't you face the fact: the government is too big. We should be slashing the size of government, not complaining about the "wealthy."
 
How small do you want it dissipate? And do you believe people that make more use of government services should pay more for them?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How small do you want it dissipate? And do you believe people that make more use of government services should pay more for them?

I want 0 taxes & 0 government. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

Yes, I want government to become another service industry with those who are receiving the services paying for them in full.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How small do you want it dissipate? And do you believe people that make more use of government services should pay more for them?

I want 0 taxes & 0 government. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

Yes, I want government to become another service industry with those who are receiving the services paying for them in full.

Do you mean 0 federal government or 0 government, period? Who will enforce contracts?
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How small do you want it dissipate? And do you believe people that make more use of government services should pay more for them?

I want 0 taxes & 0 government. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

Yes, I want government to become another service industry with those who are receiving the services paying for them in full.

then who would buy Bombs and tanks?
 
If there was a national sales tax I bet people would be less inclined to spend their money on stuff that is not a necessity and more inclined to save it. I'm pretty frugal and I have hard time spending money on high ticket items or things that I think are not a good value. I don't think having more money in my pocket would change that and the added cost of the item due to the tax would make that item even less appealing to me.
 
Instead of using the wealthy as a scapegoat, why don't you face the fact: the government is too big. We should be slashing the size of government, not complaining about the "wealthy."[/quote]


Problem is we need Government and its agencies to protect citizens from the wealthy and corporations. Or should we rid our Government of OHSA,FDA,EPA etc,etc? Do away with legislation such as the Wagner act,Wage and Labor act??

Sorry but this hunk of land was set up as a Government to help its citizens. If you want 0/0 you'll have to move...
 
I want 0 taxes & 0 government. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
That is what the original occupants of America had (Native Americans). Their numbers have diminished dramatically over the years. But at least they didn't have a government looking over their shoulder, they just got wiped out by someone else government.
 
Not a fan of a national sales tax myself. I feel like it places a disproportionate burden on the lower to middle class. The case being, a cube of butter costs me a much higher % of my income.
 
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Not a fan of a national sales tax myself. I feel like it places a disproportionate burden on the lower to middle class. The case being, a cube of butter costs me a much higher % of my income.

Lots of European countries have sales taxes but still have more social justice than the US. I'm not sure how exactly they correct it, but I assume their income taxes are more progressive. It must be possible to have national sales taxes and yet have progressive tax schemes. Of course I wouldn't trust the next government to do that...
 
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Instead of using the wealthy as a scapegoat, why don't you face the fact: the government is too big. We should be slashing the size of government, not complaining about the "wealthy."


Problem is we need Government and its agencies to protect citizens from the wealthy and corporations. Or should we rid our Government of OHSA,FDA,EPA etc,etc? Do away with legislation such as the Wagner act,Wage and Labor act??

Sorry but this hunk of land was set up as a Government to help its citizens. If you want 0/0 you'll have to move...
[/quote]

BWAHAHAHA, you think those agencies actually help anyone? You are delusional, all those agencies do is strangle the economy and get bureaucrats set up with big fat salaries.

In fact, those agencies just maintain the position of the wealthy while shutting out the competition. Imagine if the FDA was abolished and anyone could go into the drug manufacturing industry. Do you really think we would be paying so much for drugs at that point? No way, because then the big corporations would actually have to compete.
 
Back
Top