Posted on 12/01/2004 8:25:22 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
...President Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (search) have both said the idea of a national sales tax deserves a serious look. For many, the idea of a world without the Internal Revenue Service is very seductive.
"We spend about $400 billion a year complying with the tax code. We spend $200 billion a year just filling out IRS paperwork," said Rep. John Linder (search) , R-Ga., who has proposed a bill that would create a national sales tax.
Proponents have spent millions on research and have concluded that a national sales tax can replace the income tax, payroll tax, estate tax and corporate tax. Advocates say the new tax would lower the cost of manufacturing and job creation and attract foreign investments, among other things.
"If we were to get rid of the sales or the income tax and the payroll tax and all compliance costs, we would be so ferociously competitive in a world economy that corporate America would not be competed with unless foreign corporations started building their plants in America," Linder said.
Proponents seek a 23-cent national sales tax on all retail goods, everything from groceries to clothes, cars to electronics. Everyone would pay the same rate, which critics argue is part of the problem.
"If you consume $40,000 a year and you make $50,000 a year, would you feel it is fair if a guy who made a half a million dollars a year but spent $40,000 a year paid the same tax you do? I think you wouldn't feel it's fair," said Buck Chapoton, former assistant treasury secretary.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Actually, it is the 16th Admendment
Sales tax is definitely not the way to go. If the Republicans push it, the cost politically will be enourmous. With a sales tax, the rich truly will pay less and the poor truly will pay more. It pours gasoline on the class warfare fire. I think a flat tax is a much better option.
HR:2525
Thanks
Too much centralized control that would make it real easy for the DC politicians (demoncRAT, pubbies & indep) to start increasing the sales tax--at first it would start to creep, then bang it'll increase quite noticeably all under the disguise of "we've got to balance the budget but we won't decrease spending."
Bump for eliminating the IRS/IRC, the Constitutionally-repugnant, tyrannical, Federal Mafia enslavement system...
Stop participating in the fraud...
"The feds are also talking about adding the tax to everything..food (oh come on now) housing"
Holy cow, can you imagine what that would do to the real estate market?
The rate in terms used for sales taxes is 29.87%. So your $25 shoes would be $34.59 with state sales tax.
The sales tax has a built in offset for low-middle income families. You pay the sales tax up front, with a refund for necessities. The first 35,000 to 40,000 is exempt. Also, remember, you're getting ALL your wages. No witholding tax. you earn 40K a year, you take home 40K.
Not to mention delusional.
ANY supplemental 'National Tax' or VAT is yet another gub'mint scam to suck more blood out of the citizenry -- and that's what it would be -- supplemental.
The IRS is not going anywhere.
relacing the income tax with a national sales tax means that those who have savings will be double taxed. once when they earned the money that they have managed to save and the second time when they now spend it. it seems that it would be hard to exempt spending from savings that have already been taxed under the current income tax system.
Does this mean a 23 percent tax, or 23 cents? If you buy a $500,000 house, the tax is 23 cents, and if you buy a pack of gum the tax is also 23 cents? That seems ridiculous, so i assume it must mean 23 percent. But 23 percent sems high; for a $20,000 car, you'd pay $4,600 in federal tax. Who's going to support that?
I agree. I like the flat-tax better. In a consumer driven economy, the last thing you want to do is discourage spending, which is what I think this large of a national sales tax would do. I KNOW I would cut my spending and buy as much as I could second-hand.
"Does this mean a 23 percent tax, or 23 cents? If you buy a $500,000 house, the tax is 23 cents, and if you buy a pack of gum the tax is also 23 cents? That seems ridiculous, so i assume it must mean 23 percent. But 23 percent sems high; for a $20,000 car, you'd pay $4,600 in federal tax. Who's going to support that?"
Please telll me you're kidding.
If you consume $40,000 a year and you make $50,000 a year, would you feel it is fair if a guy who made a half a million dollars a year but spent $40,000 a year paid the same tax you do?
Seems fair to me. This guy has the right to save as much as they want...They earned the money. On a different note however, can someone explain why 23% is not high?
Whatever they decide to do you can bet the taxpayer will be screwed because they don't intend to lose any money. They've got tons of bureaucrats to support and programs to run.
The IRS currently adds 22 cents on the dollar to the cost of everything sold in the US - so it only costs us one cent above that per dollar to be rid of the IRS forever.
As an employer, try to imagine not having to spend the accounting time on witholding. As a taxpayer, imagine getting your entire paycheck - but at the same time only paying one cent more for everything you buy per dollar.
By eliminating all of those taxes that drive businesses offshore, as well as make American goods overpriced (thanks unions), our economy would skyrocket by getting this 800 pound gorilla off of our backs. Federal tax cheats would be SOL as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.