Do you think Income Tax should be replaced with a National Sales Tax?
 

Do you think Income Tax should be replaced with a National Sales Tax?

Yes/No? Reason? Age?

This is a survey for my Econ class. Thanks very much!

Yes. They shouldn't take money away just because you earned it. If they are going to tax you, at least only have them tax on money you actually spend.[EDIT]I forgot to say my age. I'm 18.[/EDIT]

18. No. They income tax pays for your shit dude. Whereever you live, that tax pays for you police, and firefighters. It also helps pay for the armed serveces. The very water and electrical lines you are using were put in place and are maintiend thnx to the income tax dollars. The income tax is a relativly fair tax, where the sales tax would not be. Imagine somebody makin 100k a year. Paying a extra doller for, lets say milk, is no big deal. Now imaging someone making a mere 22k a year. That simple dollor is a MUCH higher percentage of their net income (what they get to keep). A national sales tax will do so much more harm than good. It gives the rich a huge advantage. National Sales tax, bad:down:. Income Tax, good:up:!

[edit]
I understand that police and firestations are paid for on town taxes, such as property tax, but what I am gettin at is that taxes should be based on what you make. That is the most fair way to tax imho.
[/edit]

dlinkwit27, I see your point, but I personally don't think that the government has the right to take away money you worked hard to earn. If they are going to take it away, at least only take it away based on how much you spend.
Also, if they take away the income tax, then this means that the company selling that milk won't have to pay its exorbiant taxes, so they will be able to lower the prices on the milk causing even back out.

I believe there should be no income tax or national sales tax. Both of these things are way beyond the range of powers the federal government was ever meant to have. Our founding fathers would be ashamed at the bloated orginazation that the federal government has become.Although I have to admit I am an anarchist and don't believe there should be any law. But I would be perfectly happy with the Jefersonian democracy we started out with.

Yes, wouldn't that be grand. The only problem is that the US government would have to figure out a way to make their own money again. And seeing how they love welfare so much(since they are almost all near retirement age) they wouldn't be able to abolish many things that are sucking our income dry. The government is very unlikely to do this and is currently digging their own grave. There is very little chance of them pulling themselves back out. Who knows, maybe even the US with have an overthrow of it's current government to go back to what the founding father's intention was.

How do you two suppose the US will fund the armed forces and such with no tax? Welfare is a good idea, it is jsut run poorly. But, welfare has nothing to do with their retirement, that is social security. This government only works because of the money it has. And this country only works because of the government. What do you think the original intention of the government was? It was to govern a land where we could all be free (relativly). I don't see what the governemt has done so wrong. I can pretty much speak my mind without fear of being kidnapped and murdered by the governemtn. I can practice my own religion. I can get any job I wish, and I have almost full control over the extend of my education. My rights are preserved by my government, and if they need some of my money, so be it. They do plenty for me.

social security is a welfare program.
No, you can't. The main thing wrong with the government is that stupid crap keeps on getting passed(like the mcdonald's crap, etc.) and it just keeps on piling up with no foreseeable future of it getting overturned. Really our government just needs to be wiped clean and started anew. Everything that is working well now could be easily inserted and the rest could be thrown out. Don't see this happening though.

Come up to Canada, we have both. :D

dlinkwit27 you need to study your history and rethink your statement. The federal government was meant to be a somewhat loose organization to regulate commerce between the states and give the states a united leadership for dealing with foreign countries. It was to have no more power than that. Period. What we have today was never meant to be. Government bloat and omnipotence was specifically what the Revolutionary war and the Civil war were fought about. The basic ideals this country was founded on are that the people have the final say on how they live their lives. True, their definition of "people" was male Anglo-Saxon property owners, but that is one of the very few principles of our founding fathers that could be improved on. That still needs to be improved on.

The few social services the government could effectively provide for us would be much better served by local governments and overseen by the state. That is the way this country was meant to be. Think about it, are people who have never experienced living where you live, talking to the people you talk to or seeing the things you see, better suited to deciding what is best for your welfare. Or would you rather have your friends and neighbors, people you actually talk to, eat with and truly know, running the government. For almost two decades I have been telling people to only vote for people they actually know. Do you know someone you trust to make those decisions for you? If you do then that's whom you should vote for. If you don't then why should you vote for anyone? Aren't we supposed to pick the best person for these jobs? So why vote for someone if you aren't or can't be sure they are the best person for the job? And how can you be sure if you don't personally know a person? Imagine how different our government would be if everyone voted this way. I used to work with someone who said "Why vote for the lesser of two evils, when you can vote for C'thula, the greatest evil of all". I thought that said it perfectly.

Is this going to happen? Not likely. Am I going to change the world with my little rants? Not hardly. But I will keep vigilant where I can. And maybe, just maybe, get through to one or two people if they listen. And if I do the world will be a better place for my trying.

:igor:

I voted "don't know". Assuming that the sales tax was fair, yes, I would definitely support it over an income tax. I have to vote "don't know" if I'm not given more specific info, though.

m0e, if everybody followed what you just said, then the election would merely be a contest to see who knows more people. Only a select few people would know both and have to actually make a decision. Most everybody else would either vote for one that they know(not many) or not vote at all(99% of the population). I'm sorry, but most people do not know personally any of the presidential candidates, so this would be a rule by a few(what is that called?), not everyone.

I understand the enormous flaws in my theory/system. The leaders of the country would be elected by a small group of people, but is that any different than what happens now? How do you think someone gets to run for a federal position now? A very small portion of our population (the 1% of the people that have 80% or better of the money) decide who gets the funding necessary to run. And then we get to choose between those few, all of which have the same goals and interests, mainly to get and keep more power. Don't get me wrong, there are some good people in government trying to do what's best for the country, and/or what they believe their constituents want.

The only way this could possibly work is if everybody voted honestly and true to his or her feelings. Yes the people winning the election would still be elected by a small number of people. But if everyone voted honestly, the people who could get enough votes to be elected would have to be among the best ones for the job. And wouldn't that be better than what we have now?

Like I said before, is this going to happen? Not likely. Am I going to change the world with my little rants? Not hardly. But I will keep vigilant where I can. And maybe, just maybe, get through to one or two people if they listen. And if I do the world will be a better place for my trying.

:igor:

They would only be the best for the job according to that select few. Maybe this select few is also biased. One thing I think we need to get rid of is the electoral college. I think the popular vote should decide.

We all do realize that the first try at an American government that was only funded through the states, ie had no way to get money on its own, failed. Right?

What the federal government wasn't meant to do is say that we won't give you any money, which the state is depending on, unless you lower the legal blood alcohol limit in you state to what we think it should be.

Comparing what the founders idea was to what is the current situation is hard. The concept of the United States was very different at the time. The concept was more of what we would call a confederation. Each state today has no thoughts that they could and or should be an independent nation.

I would have to say no. A sales tax would decrease spending and encourage saving, which would not work for the present economic situation. Right now spending is what the government and the "Fed" are encouraging by lowering the interest rate.

That is the only legit argument I can think of against the sales tax Xerxes. I still keep my vote for the sales tax though because it is better to tax someone on what they spend than what they earn in my belief system.

And this is what I believe we should be working towards. More independence for the states and less dependence on a central government.
:igor:

This would bring about problems with people from one state doing things in another state that would be illegal in their resident state, but aren't in the other and vice versa. Although this problem should be easy to decide, the courts have had many troubles over cases of this kind. Giving more independence to the states could make this much worse.

Not to be insulting, but anubis2003 you don't seem to be getting the point. Maybe I am not explaining this very well. Does anyone get what I'm trying to say? If so maybe they could explain it in a more easy to understand way. Or is it just part of what I said in another thread.
:igor:

Wow this is starting to look like the O'Riley Factor!

Is that a good or bad thing?
:igor:

In my screwed up opinion on goverment....I like kittens.

i'm 18. where the hell are you coming from? w/o Income tax the government would probably crumble. you cannot enjoy the freedoms and government services w/o paying for it.

<< against changing income to sales tax, and tax deductions.

The idea there liquid is that the Sales Tax would be replace the Income tax insofar as to replace the revenue from the income tax. So government service would still be paid for.

Although I still don't agree with it.

I never said that I wouldn't pay for it. Taxing income seems like the worst way for the government to get money. I still don't agree with taxes at all, but if they are going to tax then they should tax based on what you spend. I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but I never said that I wouldn't pay for freedoms and government services. I think that government is a good thing, but I think that our government has been inflated too much. It needs to be deflated some or else I think it might burst.

m0e, you have a good point. And your rigth, after I posted my last post i went to some history books and found out teh same things u already knew. Perhaps a loose fed. gov would work, if the loval government took a bigger role. I still think income is better than sales tax tho.

No. Income Tax stays the same. No doing a National Sales Tax.
That is stupid anyway because thinking about it, your tax money goes somewhere other than back to government offices, and educational institutions, and other necessary things. For example your tax money might go somewhere that you don't know.
Sales Tax in general is two things. Duty-free for foods, and Tax for non-food items. It should stay that way for certain states, and some stay at an all tax on everything.
Whats also odd but interesting, the tax on Gasoline amounts to over 50% of the price going to the government.

No, I would have to agree with xerxes, subsidizing income tax with a national sales tax would severly hurt our economy and would only serve to seperate the difference between the rich and the poor.

As far as no tax, that is non-sense, what would we do with out a military? I guess we would be in little tribes attacking each other because one tribe believes in one god and another doesn't or just waiting to be taken over by a real working government/country.

Isn't that the state of the world right now?:igor:

(I got your meaning KXRM, I am just pointing out the similarity.)

actually as i typed it I thought of many many different countries ;)

obviously, but either they raise sales tax to 50% or whatever or the govt. services wouldn't be paid for.

either way, you are still paying taxes. why change a good thing?

and, why shouldn't there be a difference between being rich and being poor? If I work hard during my lifetime and accrue a large sum of money in return, why shouldn't I be able to say that I've worked harder or accomplished more than someone without?

that brings me to another thing: why tax rich people more? I think everyone should pay a flat rate.

Actually the way it was meant to work was each state was supposed to orginize and maintain it's own militia. If the country as a whole needed to be defended the federal government had the ability to call those militia's to join together. I don't know if that would be the best plan in todays world but I think it is still a viable plan in some form. Maybe have a smaller national force ready for imediate action and increase the size and scope of the National Gaurd with a regular interactive training with the national forces. Thats kinda what we have now, only with the proportions reversed. I don't have enough info to make a valid decision on that though.

Thats been tried, and failed many times ago. The 13 Original English Colonies that made up the United States? Well, they acted on their own until their economies started to fail and nothing was working their way. Including an almost re-takeover of the US by English army and naval forces in the American Revolution. Never worked then, won't work now. Their own militias won't be funded adequately plus don't you know how much money is used up starting up a stealth F-117 in the first few seconds?

why the hell do we need armed services, if no one had armed services there would be no need for armed services, therefore making taxes less.

That brings me to my favorite graph in the whole wide world:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/men....ImageFile.gif

As you can see the very rich, that is, the richest 5 percent, pay more than half of the taxes in this country. When people attack "lowering the taxes for the rich" it is only fair because we are talking about VAST amounts of money. To think, it means the other 95% pay less than half of all income taxes.

This is also why a spending tax would be terrible, because the Rich are rich because they know how to make money work for them- and this is investment and capital gains. If you do not tax their income, then that is half of the revenue of the US nearly gone. The rich do not spend enough money to re-coup that 56 percent.

Now, I am all for lowering all income taxes, and I am also for giving the rich a bigger break than everyone else. They control employment, they enrich the stock market with capital.

I should also point I am not rich, before anyone accuses me of being Baron Blue Blood Republican here. ;)

But if the money collected by the federal government for defense was left in the states what would be the difference. I believe that the closer the money stays to where it came from the more effectivly it will be used. And I think it did work once or twice. If it hadn't I believe Canada would be much larger now. But I did say that I wasn't sure that this would work in todays world. I am just showing that there are alternatives to what we have now. From reading posts here and in other forums, seeing interviews on TV and reading national news magazines I get the feeling our parents and schools are not teaching enough about the past for people to make informed decisions about the future. It seems as though most people only know and understand things from personal experience.

That's a negatory. Not in the US.

Look at the graph Xerxes posted. I don't consider that to be a good thing.

income tax should remain. national sales tax encourages black markets, and illegal procurement of services, as these would not be taxed. also, as X pointed out, it's a discouragement from spending, which would send the US economy even further up shit creek. and take away the paddle.

as for the tax graphs, remember that the critism mentioned is the fact that tax cuts for the rich remove billions of dollars from the money that the government has available, while affecting a relatively few of the people in the population. so many, many people feel the pinch, but very few feel the benefits. also in question are their motivations for cutting taxes. is it because they feel these taxes are unfair, is it because they feel that it'll increase spending by those who have the money to spend, or is it simply because this is the tax band that they, and their backers, fall in to?

i'm not trying to answer these questions, by the way. just trying to clarify some things ;)