An interresting question (a poll if you will)

[Methuss]

Would you accept a National Sales Tax if it the law creating it abolished the Internal Revenue Service and eliminated all forms of income tax?

[zfire]

Of course...providing it was a reasonable amount.

[2001Badyear]

Yes,

In a minute. Pay as you go would be much more fair than the current system and eliminate the huge mess that is the IRS.

Sign me up.

[brokeinok]

please yes... that would be WONDERFUL!!!!

[nascar]

I think most Americans would find that a national sales tax or so-called flat tax of some sort would cost much more in the long run. As is stands now, income tax for many Americans is really nothing more than a recurring interest-free loan to the government each year. In fact, lots of folks get much more back than they put in. That would no longer be the case with a flat tax.

[LadynRed]

Yes, I believe I would. That means the RICH, who should be paying more taxes, would actually pay more tax given that they're going to be buying more high-dollar goods and incurring a lot more tax. The low-income folks will pay some tax, but they won't be buying goods at the rate of higher incomes. Middle class won't have to be paying for the loopholes that the rich get now, since the middle class bears the biggest burden in the current system.

[Freak]

Yes, because it would reward those who save, and take power away from the government.

[Hedwig]

Yes, I believe I would. That means the RICH, who should be paying more taxes, would actually pay more tax given that they're going to be buying more high-dollar goods and incurring a lot more tax. The low-income folks will pay some tax, but they won't be buying goods at the rate of higher incomes. Middle class won't have to be paying for the loopholes that the rich get now, since the middle class bears the biggest burden in the current system.

That's not necessarily true. Part of the Law of Unintended Consequences. High-income folks are more likely to save or invest. They may not actually SPEND much more than many lower-paid workers. Sales taxes tend to be regressive, meaning the lower earners pay proportionately more of their income.

I did some calculations several years ago when this was an issue. At that time they were talking about a flat tax on income, and some mentioned 20%. That sounds low, but most people don't really pay that much in taxes. When you look at your tax rate, you see what you will pay of the next dollar you make. The first increment (I don't know how much any more, since I haven't done taxes for years) is tax-free, then there are "steps" where a higher rate is applied to each subsequent increment. I think I figured out that I was actually paying about 12%.

Calculate this number by taking ALL of your income (whether it's taxed or not, so don't just take the wage amount from your W-2) and dividing it into your tax due (again, actual taxes owed, not what was withheld).

I haven't done an analysis on sales tax, but I think that you again would be surprised at how much lower-income workers would pay AS A PERCENTAGE of income. They may well be worse off. With a sales tax, there is no way to exempt $5K or $10K or whatever amount may now be exempt. There is also no way to pay a credit, which gives some families money back even if they pay NO tax.

[Freak]

Yes.

[ceowens]

Oh Hell yeh!

[rmuse00]

Yes Indeedy!

[CleverCynic]

I'd have to look into it more. See how it affects corporate taxation and some sort of trial to see if it significantly stifles consumer spending.

It wouldn't be good for students (me).

[ShortBus]

Hedwig made some good points. Those of you who answer "yes" might want to do the math first. Sales taxes are regressive and hurt the working class.

Ex: Bob Rich makes $100k/yr. John Poor barely squeezes by on $20k/yr. With an income tax, Bob has to pay more because he makes more. However, with a sales tax, they're taxed on what they spend, not what they make. They both have to pay the same amount for gasoline, electricity, water, food, etc. So, as a percentage of his income, Mr. Poor has to pay the government much more money compared to Mr. Rich.

[Freak]

One option I have studied is the Fair Tax, as it is being proposed, is revenue neutral to the current system, and provides monthly "prebates" on everyone's basic purchases such as food etc.

With respect to ShortBus's comment, that is true, but also, the guy trying to make it on 20k/year is not buying as much non-essential stuff, and since he is getting the prebate, he would actually pay less of a percentage.

[chelseagirl]

Yes...Yes.....Yes!!!!

[sgip2000]

It's only good if you earn less than you spend.

[wdspeedbump]

i would go for it if food, etc were exempt, much as it is in most state sales taxes today. that way, the burden of the lower income would be mitigated.

[whocares]

It depends on the results...

I wonder if it would include tax on gasoline...in my state it's over 41 cents per gallon...

[Amerikaner83]

DF and I would...

It would have to be a small percentage (BC, Canada has like 16% for "state" and "federal" taxes...a bit much IMHO)....like somewhere around 4%? And food and whatever else is currently excempted remains so...the "necessities"

[lavs412]

I live in Taxachusetts.......everything is taxed here except clothing and food, unless the food is prepared and served to you it's a 7% meal tax! Sales tax is 5%. Any piece of clothing over a certain amount (not sure what it is) there is a luxury tax. Thank God Massachusetts is a small state, because many many people drive to NH for big ticket items, alcohol and Smokes....it's a tax free state.......fortunately for me it takes me less than 30 minutes to cross the state line.

[stefdr]

Yes, I believe I would. That means the RICH, who should be paying more taxes, would actually pay more tax given that they're going to be buying more high-dollar goods and incurring a lot more tax. The low-income folks will pay some tax, but they won't be buying goods at the rate of higher incomes. Middle class won't have to be paying for the loopholes that the rich get now, since the middle class bears the biggest burden in the current system.

Really depends on the definition of "RICH". And how much more in taxes should they be paying?

The top 1% of wage earners pay almost 35% of income taxes,

The top 5% pay almost 55%,

The top 10% - 66%

The top 25% - 84%

The top 50% - 96% of the taxes.

Seems like the "RICH" are paying enough of the tax burden as it is.

[brokeinok]

I'll volunteer to be rich... I won't even complain about the taxes!

[Freak]

Really depends on the definition of "RICH". And how much more in taxes should they be paying?

The top 1% of wage earners pay almost 35% of income taxes,

The top 5% pay almost 55%,

The top 10% - 66%

The top 25% - 84%

The top 50% - 96% of the taxes.

Seems like the "RICH" are paying enough of the tax burden as it is.

It should also be pointed out that the top 1% of wage earners only earn 21% of the income and pay 35% of the taxes (actually, it is more). That sounds "fair." It sure it hard to discuss this without mentioning income redistribution. Here is a link to back the numbers up: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

[stefdr]

Excellent article. Some who spout out the notion the rich need to pay their fair share don't realize the actual percentages. Its seems to be all about class envy and redistribution of wealth. Personally, If I earned it, it should be mine to spend. If you don't earn it, its not yours. The so called "less fortunate" need to stop looking for a handout and support themselves.

[2001Badyear]

Excellent article. Some who spout out the notion the rich need to pay their fair share don't realize the actual percentages. Its seems to be all about class envy and redistribution of wealth. Personally, If I earned it, it should be mine to spend. If you don't earn it, its not yours. The so called "less fortunate" need to stop looking for a handout and support themselves.

Correct,

And what I believe to be the fundemental difference between the parties.

(Not the Space Federation Party Kirk)