The way we would take care of the black market is to create a handful of multi-billion dollar government agencies to corruptly and inefficiently police it. Problem solved A sales tax will do nothing more than place more of the tax burden on the middle class, which I assume most of us here proably fall into at some sub-level. The rich will pay less of a percentage of their income, as you have to figure Red's guy making $2.5 billion per year most likely isn't going to spend anywhere close to $2.5 billion in that year on goods and services. Then we have the mention of breaks and rebates for the poor, so they'll get off the hook. In the end, it all falls back to the middle class, which will in effect push the middle class down closer to the poor, and elevate the rich to an even higher level. This would be a failure and lead to a bunch of socialist converts chasing after Hillary Clinton. The system we have now is fine. The problem is each bracket pays a higher percentage than they should due to waste and corruption. Before any major changes of our tax system take place, we need a complete overhaul of our government's spending policies. Once that is accomplished, then we take a step back and look at taxation. For example, I heard on the radio one of our po-dunk towns here in MS got a $500K grant from the USDA to set up wireless internet for the entire town. One guy said well that's only $500K, but how many other towns received the same grant, and how much more garbage like that goes on? To sum it up, changing the income tax structure without first changing the spending policies of our government is like putting a new bandaid on a wound that keeps getting worse without ever stopping to treat the wound. No matter what color bandaid you put on it, it ain't gonna get any better.
Sales taxes are another tax that favors the rich. A loaf of bread costs the rich guy the same as me, so does a gallon of gasoline or a nice car. The percentage of tax for the middle class would go up, while the billionaire's goes down. Remember most of his money goes into investments and he does't pay much sales tax. Too many inherent inequalities. Good luck ever getting a figure that high off the ground.
I ain't sure. But there are highly trained economists and tax experts who have surely thought about it. A lot would depend on whether we have a pay-as-you-go budget policy or whether we keep borrowing $ Billions from the Chinese so that the politicians can spend out the Wazoo while pitching tax cuts to the voters to get their sorry asses re-elected. 10% might cover all our basic government expneditures, but I doubt it woul pay down the huge national debt, or cover contingencies like wars and disasters. You just like the idea of a tithe, don't you? :wink:
I'm not so sure. The 33% is based on one's taxable income. You buy a lot less than you earn (at least you should) with much going into savings and investments or spent on college or rent or paying the mortgage. What we actually buy and pay retail taxes on is a smaller number than our income, so the figure would logically have to be higher in order to generate the same revenue. Possibly WAY higher, it seems to me. During WWII, income taxes were raised to help fund the war and war bonds were sold. But rationing severely dropped the household spending and sales taxes accordingly. Future wartime shortages, or fuel crises, could wreck a sales tax plan for funding emergencies.
I am all for both a flat tax rate and a national sales tax. Flat tax for obvious reasons; we would all be paying a fair share. I also supports a national sales tax. Now, I know that the rich will not pay as much considerering their income BUT, it is a chance to get some money from the people who normally be able to skip out on taxes, illegal immigrants for one. Also, even though we would have to pay the same for a price of bread as the rich would, chances are, if they are rich, they buying more crap, expensive crap anyway so they are putting more money in the government. Which brings me to this, do we have a luxury tax in this country?
I have a feeling here that the super rich don't mind the tax brackets as much as it would seem. It makes it look like they are paying a much higher percentage, but by the time they get done setting up their charity shields etc, they don't pay any more. Setting up a flat-tax rate would work, but accountants wouldn't like it because it would take away a lot of their jobs. Theoretically though, I see no problem with it. As for a national sales tax, absolutely not. First of all, it would be outrageously high. 18%? Ha, we pay 9% already... Second of all, it would create black markets. How serious? Who knows, but I guarantee it would happen. Third, it punishes the poor who can't afford not to spend almost their entire pay check, as opposed to the rich who don't consume as much as they make. Fourth, it would make our economy save more money. Red will probably argue that this is a good thing, but our economy will suffer greatly if it happens.
I think charities need to better regulated. I'm not sure what kind of regulation there is already, but atleast 75% of the money donated should actually get to the cause.