Would You Be In Favor Of Doing Away With The Income Tax And Replacing It With A Consumption Tax (illegal, lawyers)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those with low incomes will see a larger percentage of their income go to tax no matter what tax is implemented. One is neither is more or less fair than the other.
So rich people will like a consumption tax best. If they feel overtaxed, then they can just cut back on their luxury spending.
I don't think so as long it means all income tax gets abolished. But true, conservatives hate taxes in general.
Who doesn't hate taxes? Do you like some faceless government bureaucrat forcibly taking money out of your pocket only to set fire to it before your own eyes?
The 16th amendment needs to be repealed and replaced with a 28th amendment that places a permanent ban on income taxes. In the same amendment, cap government revenue and expenditure to 8% of the immediate past year's GDP or less.
Who doesn't hate taxes? Do you like some faceless government bureaucrat forcibly taking money out of your pocket only to set fire to it before your own eyes?
There are exceptions to the rule, though. For instance, Oklahoma City voters love to keep their sales tax up to pay for civic improvement projects to make city government yet bigger. The latest tax and spend program they approved of will cost close to $1 billion over the next 8 years. Their Republican mayor sure didn't mind promoting it. And no bureaucrat is setting fire to things before everybody's eyes. Just where in the heck do you get such a wrongful, screwed up idea?
There are exceptions to the rule, though. For instance, Oklahoma City voters love to keep their sales tax up to pay for civic improvement projects to make city government yet bigger. The latest tax and spend program they approved of will cost close to $1 billion over the next 8 years. Their Republican mayor sure didn't mind promoting it. And no bureaucrat is setting fire to things before everybody's eyes. Just where in the heck do you get such a wrongful, screwed up idea?
Have you seen the $3.5T porkfest that's more like $5.5T if you look at all the deferred costs designed to make the price tag look better that Congress wants to pass in the name of "infrastructure"? If that doesn't qualify as setting money on fire, I don't know what does. Things like California's bottomless money pit of a high speed rail project, that is only "high speed" between Merced and Bakersfield, are Exhibit A. There's a New York City subway line that took 80 years to finish. Yeah. Eight-zero.
I might as well throw Benjamins into my fireplace and it'll still cost me less.
As for tax and spend programs, I generally have a distaste for any government spending but the degree of distaste varies between mild dislike and absolute unequivocal disgust depending on what they're spending the money on. If it's for actual civic improvements, it falls on the mild dislike end of the spectrum. Tree equity goes beyond unequivocal disgust.
I had a serious argument once with someone who thought traffic fines should be calculated by your income. As in, rich people pay less than poor people because they can easily afford a fine that'd possibly break a poor person.
A consumption tax would be fair in a very basic sense, but may not operate very well.
BTW, didn't Steve Forbes run for president back in the 90's on this platform?
Replacing income tax with a consumption tax is not suitable for the US. The American economy is 100% dependent on consumption. Once you discourage consumption, guess where we are heading….
A better (and practical) solution is replacing income tax with a wealth tax. It will encourage work and have people pay according to their real financial status.
The bottom don't have to pay anything, it's the middle that pay the largest percentage of their total income.. it's a bell curve... which is why I say top and bottom suck from the middle.
With a consumption tax the bottom would be unfairly hit just to get bare essentials. Frugal people like me would fair better than big spenders, but a lot of rich people are super frugal and have little in the way of expenses relative to income. I don't think it would work well, and the point is moot because it will never happen, not anytime soon.
The rich would hoard everything before the new tax would begin so that everyone else would have to go without for a while.
I agree with this all taxes removed and we replace it with consumption tax. This would do away with the IRS mostly, tax preparation, and the best part no one would ever get into trouble for not paying taxes of course a business could still get into legal trouble over not collecting the tax. I know people who lost their home to the IRS because someone did their tax wrong he filed bankruptcy they lost their home.
Think how much money business's would save not having to deal with tax issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
