Voter

Independence, KS

#1 Nov 8, 2012
We now have a tax system that penalizes people who work and save: if you work and save, you pay taxes. If you choose not to work and save, you not only don't have to pay taxes, but also may get a refund in the form of an earned income credit.

What would you think if we did away with the current tax system and instituted a national sales tax instead? EVERYONE would contribute and the more you could afford to spend, the more taxes you would have to pay. We would see and feel the effects whenever the national sales tax went up, so we would have a clear understanding of the people responsible for each increase and could vote them out.

I'm aware sales taxes can be regressive, but wanted to throw this idea out for discussion.
taxpayer

Independence, KS

#2 Nov 8, 2012
I would be in favor of it, if the rate wasn't too high. If they put in a 5% national sales tax, with no other income taxes and they didn't allow big corporations huge tax breaks, it would work and go a long way toward establishing U.S. solvency again. Imagine getting say, $30,000/yr. and actually taking home that much. Of course, you would still have state tax, Medicare and Social Security taken out. But, you could control how much you pay by how much you spend.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#3 Nov 8, 2012
as a fiscal conservative i take offense to the term "regressive" when refering to the ability of the poor to pay their share of taxes. and i quote "2.taxing poorer people more harshly: describes a tax system in which those with low incomes pay proportionally higher taxes than the wealthy"
well no stinking monkey crap they pay proportionally higher taxes than the wealthy. if its a .01 cent tax its a .01 cent tax. here is an idea, IF YOU CANT PAY FOR IT DONT SPEND IT!!!
libtards using this mentality must believe in the redistribtion theory that everyone deserves all the same toys. Well i am 6'1" and i deserve to be 6'3"....guess what...LIFE AINT FAIR. i guess i will have to live in a world that is unfair. it still does not limit me on my ability to grow either financially or socially.
REGRESSIVE!!!....sales tax is not dependent on whether or not your rich, its dependent on whether or not you can pay it. if you cant pay then it the tax does not apply to you. if you can then you get the EXACT SAME thing whether you were rich or poort. you obviously were able to pay for it if you paid the "sales tax". so in that aspect its FAIR. ok...i will breath now...you were saying...KILL THE FED OR IRS or something to that affect...you have my attention again......
Voter

Independence, KS

#4 Nov 8, 2012
Poorer people tend to spend the bulk of their money on the necessities (groceries, utilities, housing, etc.) If a person making $1,000.00 a month take home pay, spends $300.00 of it on groceries, he would pay $30.00 in sales tax (at a tax rate of 10%). He therefore would have spent 3% of his take home pay on sales taxes.

If a person making $3,000.00 a month take home pay spends the same $300.00 on groceries, and pays the same $30.00 in sales taxes, he would have only spent 1% of his take home pay on sales taxes, far less than the 3% paid by the person making $1,000.00 a month.

Although simplified greatly, this is why the sales tax is considered regressive.
wally515

Neodesha, KS

#5 Nov 8, 2012
Voter wrote:
Poorer people tend to spend the bulk of their money on the necessities (groceries, utilities, housing, etc.) If a person making $1,000.00 a month take home pay, spends $300.00 of it on groceries, he would pay $30.00 in sales tax (at a tax rate of 10%). He therefore would have spent 3% of his take home pay on sales taxes.
If a person making $3,000.00 a month take home pay spends the same $300.00 on groceries, and pays the same $30.00 in sales taxes, he would have only spent 1% of his take home pay on sales taxes, far less than the 3% paid by the person making $1,000.00 a month.
Although simplified greatly, this is why the sales tax is considered regressive.
i understand the term regressive tax but my point is they both got the SAME groceries so what is the big deal? if the rich guy had to pay more than the poor guy, would that be fairer? as long as both get what they are paying for and they both can afford it then regressive can just go pound sand. i dont feel this term is worth feeling sorry for the poor guy. he was not denied what he could afford so its FAIR in my book.
Voter

Independence, KS

#6 Nov 8, 2012
wally515 wrote:
<quoted text>i understand the term regressive tax but my point is they both got the SAME groceries so what is the big deal? if the rich guy had to pay more than the poor guy, would that be fairer? as long as both get what they are paying for and they both can afford it then regressive can just go pound sand. i dont feel this term is worth feeling sorry for the poor guy. he was not denied what he could afford so its FAIR in my book.
They did both get the same groceries, but the poorer person paid a higher percentage in sales taxes of his available funds to get those groceries.
wally515

Neodesha, KS

#7 Nov 8, 2012
Voter wrote:
<quoted text>
They did both get the same groceries, but the poorer person paid a higher percentage in sales taxes of his available funds to get those groceries.
does that mean when he craps his percentage of crap will be more than that of the richer fella? if not then WHATS your point? both got what they paid for. in life, you spend what you have and you dont spend what you dont have. i bought a house because i think i can afford it. i used to RENT because i knew i could not afford more. i made due with what i had until i improved my situtation. if i want more groceries then i work more to have enough to buy more, REGARDLESS of the percentage of my pay it takes.
wally515

Neodesha, KS

#8 Nov 8, 2012
i personally believe the term "regressive tax" was invented by some bleeding heart to give creedance to his view that the world is unfair to poor people. when truth be told, LIFE has NEVER been FAIR. that does not mean a sales tax is any more burdensome on someone who is rich or poor. it is due to the taxing authority regardless if your poor or rich. so pay up and stop crying foul or do without until u can.
Bull ship

Euless, TX

#9 Nov 8, 2012
Voter wrote:
Poorer people tend to spend the bulk of their money on the necessities (groceries, utilities, housing, etc.) If a person making $1,000.00 a month take home pay, spends $300.00 of it on groceries, he would pay $30.00 in sales tax (at a tax rate of 10%). He therefore would have spent 3% of his take home pay on sales taxes.
If a person making $3,000.00 a month take home pay spends the same $300.00 on groceries, and pays the same $30.00 in sales taxes, he would have only spent 1% of his take home pay on sales taxes, far less than the 3% paid by the person making $1,000.00 a month.
Although simplified greatly, this is why the sales tax is considered regressive.
Wrong! He spent 3 percent of his take home on food tax. He still has 700 to spend And if he spends it all then he would spend 10 percent on tax! The same as the higher paid guy if he spent his entire pay check!
People live in their means, the 1000 income guy may drive a Corsica while the higher paid guy may drive a Cadillac. So in essence the higher paid individual would pay more taxes just a less percent of his income per transaction of equal value!
If these two hypothetical wage earners attended the same college and took the same classes but one worked harder on his grade and received an A and the other guy got a C should they share the success/failure and both be given a B?
Voter

Independence, KS

#10 Nov 9, 2012
Bull ship wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong! He spent 3 percent of his take home on food tax. He still has 700 to spend And if he spends it all then he would spend 10 percent on tax! The same as the higher paid guy if he spent his entire pay check!
People live in their means, the 1000 income guy may drive a Corsica while the higher paid guy may drive a Cadillac. So in essence the higher paid individual would pay more taxes just a less percent of his income per transaction of equal value!
If these two hypothetical wage earners attended the same college and took the same classes but one worked harder on his grade and received an A and the other guy got a C should they share the success/failure and both be given a B?
You are assuming every penny someone earns will be spent on items on which sales taxes will be charged. Chances are, some of his take home pay will be spent on items that would not result in a sales tax. For example, if an individual had to make a $250.00 semi-annual payment for their car insurance and a $200.00 payment towards their mortgage, they would not pay the 10% tax on the $450.00.

Two basic principles of economics are that regressive taxes work against the poor and that progressive taxes work against the rich. Not saying one's right and the other's wrong. It's just the way it is.
WontHappen

Independence, KS

#11 Nov 10, 2012
Currently they are many people that make over a million dollars a year that don't pay any income tax. Of those that do, many pay a lower tax rate than someone making only fifty thousand a year. There are also many people that work under the table, and money made from illegal activity like drugs. If there was a national sax tax instead of the income tax, all that lost revenue we currently have would be then be collected. In other words, the amount of taxes for middle class people would go down. However, the majority in congress are millionaires, so the tax system will not change.
FairTax

United States

#12 Nov 11, 2012
try this

Independence, KS

#13 Nov 12, 2012
Go to this website http://lastresistance.com/ and read the article The Wealthy Need to Pay a Little More, Do They? It explains how taxing the rich won't work and will keep them from investing in things to improve the economy.

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14 Nov 12, 2012
Voter wrote:
We now have a tax system that penalizes people who work and save: if you work and save, you pay taxes. If you choose not to work and save, you not only don't have to pay taxes, but also may get a refund in the form of an earned income credit.
What would you think if we did away with the current tax system and instituted a national sales tax instead? EVERYONE would contribute and the more you could afford to spend, the more taxes you would have to pay. We would see and feel the effects whenever the national sales tax went up, so we would have a clear understanding of the people responsible for each increase and could vote them out.
I'm aware sales taxes can be regressive, but wanted to throw this idea out for discussion.

If you change to a sales tax you would have a system that penalizes people for spending money as opposed to penalizing people for making money. No matter how much you tax people for their earnings they are still going to be motivated to make as much as they can (or want). Penalizing them for making purchases would discourage people from buying and I believe it would hurt the economy.

The current method would be great if we just cut out most of the loopholes and deductions.

A rich man pays the same rate on his income as the poor man for his initial earnings (first 18,000 is taxed at one percentage rate, next 12,000 taxed at a higher rate, etc.). When his earnings accumulate to the top bracket - only that portion of his earnings are taxed at the highest rate. Seems fair to me. Basically, everybody is charged the same rate for the same income amounts.

A regressive tax will obviously hurt the lower income folks as has already been explained by someone else.

A progressive tax is the way to go but it needs to be streamlined (dropping deductions and loopholes) so we can fill out the forms in five minutes instead if five hours.

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#15 Nov 12, 2012
Voter wrote:
We now have a tax system that penalizes people who work and save: if you work and save, you pay taxes. If you choose not to work and save, you not only don't have to pay taxes, but also may get a refund in the form of an earned income credit.
What would you think if we did away with the current tax system and instituted a national sales tax instead? EVERYONE would contribute and the more you could afford to spend, the more taxes you would have to pay. We would see and feel the effects whenever the national sales tax went up, so we would have a clear understanding of the people responsible for each increase and could vote them out.
I'm aware sales taxes can be regressive, but wanted to throw this idea out for discussion.

Well, it appears you were the one who explained why the regressive tax doesn't work. What's the deal? Just wanted to hear Wally support a bad idea?

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#16 Nov 12, 2012
taxpayer wrote:
I would be in favor of it, if the rate wasn't too high. If they put in a 5% national sales tax, with no other income taxes and they didn't allow big corporations huge tax breaks, it would work and go a long way toward establishing U.S. solvency again. Imagine getting say,$30,000/yr. and actually taking home that much. Of course, you would still have state tax, Medicare and Social Security taken out. But, you could control how much you pay by how much you spend.

Heh-heh, 5 percent. Try 23 to 27 percent. I know - outrageous. The plan (Fair Tax) includes cutting checks in advance to the poor to help decrease the regressiveness of the tax because even "most" fiscal conservative Tea Party types realize how unfair this system would be.

They've still never come up with a plan that explains how I am supposed to spend the money I have in savings (which I've already paid taxes on) without getting double taxed at the cash register.
Voter

Independence, KS

#17 Nov 13, 2012
Robert L Lorth wrote:
<quoted text>
If you change to a sales tax you would have a system that penalizes people for spending money as opposed to penalizing people for making money. No matter how much you tax people for their earnings they are still going to be motivated to make as much as they can (or want). Penalizing them for making purchases would discourage people from buying and I believe it would hurt the economy.
The current method would be great if we just cut out most of the loopholes and deductions.
A rich man pays the same rate on his income as the poor man for his initial earnings (first 18,000 is taxed at one percentage rate, next 12,000 taxed at a higher rate, etc.). When his earnings accumulate to the top bracket - only that portion of his earnings are taxed at the highest rate. Seems fair to me. Basically, everybody is charged the same rate for the same income amounts.
A regressive tax will obviously hurt the lower income folks as has already been explained by someone else.
A progressive tax is the way to go but it needs to be streamlined (dropping deductions and loopholes) so we can fill out the forms in five minutes instead if five hours.
Can't agree with your comment that, "Penalizing them for making purchases would discourage people from buying and I believe it would hurt the economy." Many people in our society spend, spends spend, even when they can't afford it, something which the massive credit card debt and bankruptcies would confirm. People ALWAYS will either HAVE or WANT to spend money.

Considering social security is probably bound for extinction, we shouldn't tax people who are trying to work and save for their own future (which is exactly what we are doing now).
Voter

Independence, KS

#18 Nov 13, 2012
Robert L Lorth wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it appears you were the one who explained why the regressive tax doesn't work. What's the deal? Just wanted to hear Wally support a bad idea?
I DID explain the regressive tax, but DIDN'T say I thought it couldn't work.

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#19 Nov 13, 2012
Voter wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't agree with your comment that, "Penalizing them for making purchases would discourage people from buying and I believe it would hurt the economy." Many people in our society spend, spends spend, even when they can't afford it, something which the massive credit card debt and bankruptcies would confirm. People ALWAYS will either HAVE or WANT to spend money.
Considering social security is probably bound for extinction, we shouldn't tax people who are trying to work and save for their own future (which is exactly what we are doing now).

Certainly people will both have to spend money and want to spend money but where will they spend it? Years back Bush Sr. agreed to a luxury tax on yachts and expensive jewelry. Folks quit buying yachts and expensive jewelry made here and it cost a lot of jobs and the government didn't make any revenue on the deal.

When they raised taxes on cigarettes, many people quit smoking. When gas prices soar - people don't travel as much and cut back what they can.

If you have a 25 percent sales tax on new homes and new cars - people will decide that used cars and homes are a much better prospect. You will hurt both markets.

I'm not even addressing the hurt it will put on the folks with the least amount of income. Many pay no federal income tax right now. If a National Sales Tax is instituted - their spending power drops drastically - unless you write them massive checks. I can only imagine the ways people will find to take advantage of this system.

Regardless of the tax rate on income - people will always try to earn as much as they can. In my opinion, that is where the federal tax should be kept.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Independence Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cops Spot lighting 5 min they can you cant 6
Reporter Monkey Island Article 30 min Indy_Dick 37
Does anybody know Matt Carpenter he's worthless!!! (Mar '11) 2 hr Amanda 60
Palin to Campaign with Roberts in Kansas 5 hr Le Duped 48
Cherry Berry Re-Opening Soon! 10 hr Federal Express 26
2 More Years of Obummer 12 hr what happened 30
101 Reasons Why Southeast Kansas Sucks 14 hr Pretty Woman 26
Chamber of Commerce New Building 16 hr nonono 67
where is wally 17 hr Ignore 41
Independence Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Independence People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:01 pm PST

Bleacher Report 2:01PM
Should Jerry Now Be Considered a Top-Quality GM?
NFL 6:28 AM
Witten: It's 'silly' to think Murray is easily replaceable
NBC Sports 7:10 AM
Jason Witten: Every back couldn't do what DeMarco Murray did this season
Bleacher Report 9:39 AM
Murray Will Command Up to $10M Per Year
NBC Sports 9:48 AM
Tony Romo: I have to be better