Sales tax favors the rich. If a guy makes $500,000 a year and only spends $200K on himself (food, living, pleasure, etc.) then he gets to invest $300K tax free. If a poor guy makes $30,000 a year and spends all $30K just trying to live, he pays sales tax on 100% of his earnings whereas the "rich" guy is only taxed at 40% of what he made. Let's see, the rich guy pays tax on 40% of his earnings and the poor guy pays 100%? Yeah, that is fair. A progressive income tax is the most fair and if we want to make it a lot better, kill the loopholes. Going to a sales tax is not the answer and it will only tax the lower end of the income earners.
Sales tax is regressive and hurts the middle class.
punishing people for haveing an income desentivises income, w/o income theirs nothing to tax. put in full tax deductions for: -health care/insurance costs, and health care saveings account(for testing for and treating physcial health problems and birth control. -education costs for learning how to make physcial survival needs(renewable energy, water purifiers, heating and cooling, shelter, soap, medical supplies and services for testing for and treating physcial health problems and birth control, ...) -charity for giving to the poor for their physcial survival, $12/h+, +resources you spent and gave......$100/m deduction for being a registered organ donar. -business costs for makeing physcial survival products. individual gets $7/h to $12/h for makeing and teaching uncorocred willing people how to make physcial surivial products. -only man made property value tax, maybe plus sales tax only on lavish items/dangerous rec drugs. everyone allowed to keep at least 3mil started at age 0 minus $23,000/y, plus deductions. deductions roll over. tax % not higher for poor than rich.
This is much more simple, plus more would pay tax.
This would not be a direct tax. The government spends to much without care. A direct tax is not legal in the first place. . The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
The argument for the Sales Tax is that the tax on consumption would persuade people to save (allowing others to invest) and invest (allowing others to save and you to create new wealth) rather than spend it all at once. In reality, investment and savings generally tend to benefit society as a whole as you create new wealth (if you are successful), rather than just transferring it into a more efficient manner. So in conclusion, the idea that people hoarding wealth is bad is simply not true. When they don't spend their money, they have helped society through mutually beneficial transactions (thats how they got their money) and have not claimed the goods in which they are (in essence) entitled (for lack of a better word) to. In other words, they are allowing these goods and services to go to someone else other than themselves (which is a more noble thing than just spending it on yourself). If you save at a bank, you are in essence lending to someone who will then (probably) create new wealth. If you invest your money, you are in essence creating new wealth. If you save your money (but not at a bank) by just keeping it you wallet, private stash, etc. You are not using it, and thus the money then has no value (if you don't use money, it has no value) and you are taking money away from the system (opposite of inflation). And if you take your money out of the system, you are in essence spreading out your wealth to all those who hold money in that currency. Thus, the conclusion: Saving is the virtue, and the Sales Tax encourages it (especially more than the income tax).