Amazon.com Widgets

Would a federal sales tax be more equitable than the current federal income tax?

  • Everybody pays a little. ijustaretiredguy

    1% tax on all goods and services, exempting determined basic needs. This tax would added to current irs and state sales taxes. Costs on everything seems to always go up, so how do we pay for them? We either pay a little more or get a little less, just ,for example, coffee. Fact of life is you can't get what you want and need for last years price. Research the expected tax revenue and adjust federal spending to eliminate or at least substantially lower our cost over-runs. I know this seems a little simple, but I favor the kiss principle. Plus it seems this could happen fairly quickly ,if the congress would consider the best interests of the majority of the people in the us instead of their own self interests. (getting reelected ,getting wealthy, and making their party happy with them).

  • A federal sales tax would be more equitable than the current federal income tax.

    I believe a federal sales tax would be more equitable than the current federal income tax as long as it is not an additional tax. A federal sales tax would effect people equally throughout income levels because the more you purchase the more you pay, which means if you don't make a lot of money and don't purchase items you would pay less, likewise the more goods you buy the more tax you pay. I also agree that a flat federal sales tax would work fine as long as the current federal income tax is abolished.

    Posted by: MycCra2ii
  • A federal sales tax would be very equitable in any country based on capitalism.

    Capitalism is driven by consumerism. The "American" way of life is based on buying things. We are told to work hard so we can buy the so-called finer things in life. In this day in age, Americans, in general, are driven by greed and over consumption, to always have the newest and best things in life. I don't think a federal sales tax could lose in this country unless it is brought into action while the federal income tax is still active. You have to do away with the income tax in order for the federal sales tax to be beneficial. You can't raise the prices of everything while continuing to take money out of paychecks, it just won't work.

    Posted by: BrianDj
  • A flat Federal sales tax would be more equitable than the current income tax system.

    A national sales tax would fall evenly on all citizens regardless of their income. No matter who purchased, for instance, a washing machine, they would have the same tax placed on the purchase price; there would be no level of differing taxes based on income. For this to be truly equitable there must be no exemptions for luxury goods, such as yachts, to shield the rich.

    Posted by: FLindsay
  • I think a national sales tax would eliminate most, if not all, of the tax loopholes that currently exist.

    All too often, higher income earners and business enterprises pay less tax than rank-and-file workers. A national sales tax, as a form of consumption tax, would tax every one equally across the board, and people who spend more would pay more taxes.

    Posted by: etlaummo
  • People couldn't opt out of paying taxes

    Those who have undocumented income would be required to pay taxes on their purchases, which would prevent them from avoiding federal taxes.

  • Tired of the rich not paying fair share

    With the current tax bills and medical insurance going sky high since Obamacare, the only way to equally share the pain is through a Federal Sales Tax. Not on staple foods, clothing, except Luxury items. Hit everyone the same way. Lower incomes who buy more food and basic clothing will not be hit as hard as the ones buying Vineyards and G6's. How much odes the Goverment pay the IRS in salaries to harass middle income Americans? Why not just turn the IRS into tha sales tax collecting agency and get rid of a tax program that has turned the 1040 into a lesson in Astro-Physics and Nuclear Reactor Engineering?

  • Who are the poor?

    This tax would also hit those purchashing items with illegal untaxed income such as gambling, drugs, working under the table, etc. The poor already pay a federal sales tax on gas, liquor, and tobacco products. Who uses more of those products, the rich or the poor? Are we defining POOR as anyone not having a cell phone? 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. Guess the rest of us are rich and should support this overwhelming minority.

  • A federal sales tax would be more equitable than the current federal income tax, because it would prevent class warfare.

    When income is taxed, it always ends up with the rich people being taxed at a much higher rate than poorer people. The poor people then start to feel entitled to other people's wealth. If everyone is taxed based upon a fixed sales tax rate, then no one group of people can band together to take other people's money.

    Posted by: 5h4yGust
  • A federal sales tax would be more fair in that everyone would participate.

    Presently, 47 percent of Americans do not pay any income tax, at all. That kind of percentage of citizens not contributing is not healthy for our society. It can be argued that if everyone had to pay a federal sales tax, then everyone would be more involved in making sure the federal government does not waste the tax payers' money.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • Crunch the Numbers

    The leak is in spending; fix the leak and then we'll figure out how to decrease taxes. Otherwise, this is just an alternative way to raise money that will be wasted. Many people confuse *lower* taxes with *fair* taxes - which is an oxymoron in the first place: "fair" and "tax" shouldn't even be in the same phrase.
    If you actually do the math, you'll find that this doesn't lower anything; just moves the costs from the rich to the poor. I think those who earn their money should keep it - including the rich. But creating a vast economic gap between the rich and the poor is not exactly the way to avoid a 1780 France. Do we really want to eat cake?
    Think about it. Say, someone makes $30,000/year. Under current (2014) brackets, they'll pay income tax (15%) on $21,074 of it. That's a $3161.10 tax liability. Fair Tax is going to be about 23%. Let's say they spend $1300/month on rent, utilities, and groceries (all supposedly exempt from a nation-wide tax...But since when has our government agreed to permanently exempt anything?), and the remaining $1200/month goes to gas, clothes, non-grocery items, furniture, electronics, entertainment, and dining out. That's $14400/year, which, in a 23% tax comes to a $3312 tax liability.
    And that's if our notoriously waffling government keeps it at 23%.
    Besides hurting those with lower income, we're tempting people to buy internationally, producing a shortage of American jobs - and tempting people not to buy at all, which is good for long-term economy, but fatal short-term. We shouldn't punish for earning money, but should we punish for providing the means for people to earn money - i.E., buying? We're supposedly putting the IRS out of business, which sounds great, except we're transferring the workload from them to the shoulders of the sales tax collectors - businesses. That will be doable for the large retail stores, but small businesses spend hours every month (I know; I used to be a bookkeeper for a small store) filing taxes. Do we really want to make it harder for them to make ends meet?
    The tax system needs serious work. But I think people are so in love with the "Fair Tax" name, they aren't paying attention to the ramifications.

  • Would just increase inequality

    In the past few years, the income of the top 1% has increased 275%, and the flat tax would just worsen this! The rich would have no income tax, and the sales tax would be a mere part of their yearly income. In addition, why should we tax those making $50,000 yearly the same amount as those making $1,000,000 yearly? Furthermore, if we decrease the salary of the poor, a chain reaction will occur, as they will be forced to use more healthcare provided for them.

  • Many people buy things

    Many people buy things in the store, including kids. With sales tax, kids would have to pay more for the things they like. A little kid also doesn't have to pay income tax, seeing how they don't make money. I think that federal income tax is the better way to go.

  • Demand drives our economy.

    No matter how gleefully supporters argue that a federal sales tax will encourage people to save, they are merely obfuscating the fact that this saving comes at the expense of spending that creates demand, and it is always demand that creates economic growth. Nothing supply-siders say about giving businesses money to "create jobs" addresses the basic economic fact that it is demand that creates jobs.

    People do not create businesses in order to add jobs to the economy, they crate businesses to make money, and the only way they can make money in a capitalist system is by meeting demand. No demand, no business. No demand, no new jobs.

    Therefore any, and all, arguments supporting supply-side stimulus are merely ideological, and are not accurate.

  • Federal sales tax would not be more equitable at all, because it penalizes consumption and taxes people unequally.

    Federal sales tax sounds like a good idea at first, but there are many problems with it. Among these problems would be that it discourages consumption, which in the long run, hurts our economy. It is also unfair because it taxes the poor at a much higher rate than anyone else. If a poor person has to spend 100% of their pay check to get by, then they get taxed on 100% of their pay check. Whereas a rich person might only spend 20% or 30% of it, leaving them largely untaxed.

    Posted by: M0r3Fire
  • A sales tax would not be more equitable than the federal income tax because it would hurt the poor the most.

    There are basic needs that every person, rich or poor, must have. To tax heavily the basic needs and services that everyone must purchase is to place an undue burden on the poor. Certain basic things would become completely unaffordable for those who didn't have much money. The rich and poor would basically be paying the same taxes, but it would cripple the poor while not affecting the richest. This is not a humane concept.

    Posted by: OnfBIeak
  • A sales tax replacing an income tax would simply encourage the wealthy to save their money, thus strangling the economy.

    If income taxes were eliminated and replaced with sales taxes, the hardest hit would be the lower class, who can't afford to save money and have to spend everything they have simply to keep on going from day to day. The wealthy, by contrast, would save all their money, investing it in ways that wouldn't be taxable, thus maintaining a 'rich get richer' feedback loop that would ultimately destroy the economy.

    Posted by: T0mFlames
  • I think a federal sales tax would not be more equitable than income tax because people in lower socio-economic groups would end up paying more.

    Everyone (rich and poor) needs to buy things like food, clothes, utilities and these expenses often take up the majority of poorer peoples income. If they are paying the same tax levels on these as those who earn a lot more money, their percentage of tax paid is going to be much higher than those on higher incomes which is unfair. Income taxes also have their problems but ideally under this system those in poverty should pay less tax and is thus a more equitable system.

    Posted by: StoopAllen
  • A federal sales tax would be just as regressive as the state's sales taxes.

    I live in a state where there is no income tax, but we pay a 9.25% sales tax on everything we buy. The problem with sales tax is that the people who can least afford to pay it have to carry the burden of it. Those who are able to pay the extra, might not seem bothered by it. I can understand the temptation to use a sales tax, especially on unessential items. But, when you buy $100 dollars worth of groceries, then have to pay an extra $9.25 on top of that, it will bust your budget if you have a limited income. Now, suddenly, you are out of the $10 you needed to buy diapers for the kids. This is the kind of regressiveness that a sales tax can cause.

    Posted by: C3II0Friend
  • A federal sales tax will result in lower-income people paying a greater percentage of their income in taxes than higher-income people.

    A sales tax appears to be equal across the board. It is not, however, due to the fact that there is a certain amount of things that are necessities that everybody must purchase. If the income tax is abolished, lower income people will pay a greater percentage of their income in tax than higher income people, simply because lower income people spend a greater percentage of their income than higher income people do.

    Posted by: A Shelton

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.