What if Huckabee had the right answer??

[backtoblue]

And I never agree with the man, so bear with me. I just want to explore a different view, so please don't get ruffled.


What would happen if all taxes were abolished except for sales tax? People could buy exactly what they could afford and no one would argue over who pays more tax. Obviously, wealthier people would pay more taxes because they could afford higher priced items.

Property taxes would be gone, so an individual who saves up and buys land, etc, can actually OWN that land/vehicle/etc. if he/she were to go broke and couldn't afford the taxes.

How would that effect the manufacturing and sales in America? I'm sure there are many downsides to the proposal and I'm not sure how to convince people to buy American made products so that our government receives enough revenue to function properly.

Just thoughts.

[JamesA1102]

1. He didn't

The one sales tax is regressive and shifts the tax burdon on to the middle and lower classes.

[rurallib]

9. agree - middle and lower income folk spend all their money

on necessities. Rich folk have much more discretionary money. I suspect it wouldn't be long before sales taxes were dropped on things like luxury yachts, scond homes etc.
How about a tax on stock trades, maybe?

[backtoblue]

13. Stock trade taxes doesn't seem like a bad idea.

[rurallib]

19. and it could be very minute per trade

like a hundredth of a penny.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Sales. Taxes. Bite. Balls. n/t

[Deep13]

3. If it was a progressive sales tax, I'd be okay with it.

A Honda Civic would have a 10% tax while a Lamboughini would have a 50% tax.

[backtoblue]

16. Hmmm. We would have to make it a tax of value then.

The more valuable the item, the higher the tax.

[Deep13]

20. Yes. There could be different rates for different kinds of products.

The thing that is appealing about this is that no matter how well someone insulates his income through trusts or other legal tax evasion, there is no way to get around consumption taxes.

[Mrs. Overall]

4. Delete--mixed up Huckabee with Ron Paul.

Oops.

[Liberty Belle]

5. Sales tax is the most volatile tax and plunges when the economy is bad. CA's problem is

largely related to its reliance on sales tax since Prop 13 limited state revenues from property taxes, a far more stable form of taxation. This would be a devastating move.

I speak as a journalism who has written extensively on the harmful aspects of Prop 13 and received praise from a then-San Diego County tax assessor for the best article ever written on the topic years ago.

[cliffordu]

14. Speak as a journalism......

:rofl:

[BolivarianHero]

23. ;D

I guess some of us spend so much time at the Freeptard Asylum that we start talking like them.

[Goblinmonger]

6. If you can make it progressive

I'm all for it. Refund a base level, perhaps?

I think it would be easier to create a flat tax that is adequately progressive.

[endarkenment]

25. "a flat tax that is adequately progressive"

ain't a flat tax.

[Warpy]

7. Sales taxes are inherently regressive since the poorer you are

the more of you income will be devoted to paying that sales tax as you try to survive. It falls most heavily on subsistence income and least heavily on disposable income.

In addition, the national sales tax would have to be in the neighborhood of about 30% to compensate for loss of revenue from plutocrats. Consider what slapping a 30% surcharge on everything would do to the consumer economy. What's left of it would be gone overnight.

Nothing that taxes the poor and middle class and excludes the rich will ever be a fair tax by any measure of the word "fair."

[BlooInBloo]

8. Why do people seem to gravitate to the stupidest possible answer?

[backtoblue]

12. I love you ,too Bloo. Just thoughts, didn't claim it was the answer.

[magellan]

10. Where would the money for public services come from?

Police, fire, roads, waste, etc and so on...Sales tax wouldn't cover all the many things local and federal gov't provide which people take for granted.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Sure, if you would like an additional 27-32% added to the cost of everything. Sales tax, by nature,

is the most regressive type of tax. I can't see how a federal sales tax could replace property taxes which are solely from state and local governments. In Huckabee's Arkansas we have a 9.375% sales tax on everything, including all services, like dog grooming and electrical repairs, plus a 5.25% sales tax on groceries (which has been cut by 3% since Huck left)! And I still pay property tax and taxes on new and used cars to the state of Arkansas.

[backtoblue]

18. Well, it would definitely cut down on government spending.

Politicians would be forced to spend wisely. I think taxes on groceries could be taken away, but I'm not sure how to replace those funds. The lottery in Arkansas is supposed to bring in alot of revenue to the state. (it is ridiculous to pay property taxes on vehicles imho)

[endarkenment]

24. Huh? why? Funding for war is unregulated by any revenue issues

and debt service is mandatory. So the only gummint spending that would be cut would be infrastructure spending on things like roads, bridges, mass transit, education, healthcare, regulatory activities, research, etc. stuff that actually benefits the general welfare of we the people.

Why is it ridiculous to pay property taxes on vehicles when states and towns spend huge amounts every year providing for the roads those vehicles use?

[WeDidIt]

15. Sales tax is the most regressive tax going.

So no, he had the wrong idea because sales tax puts the highest burden on those with the least.

[Puzzler]

17. It's unfair because...

... lower income people use ALL or MOST of their income for basic necessities, whereas wealthier people do not. So, on average, lower income people end up paying far more, on average than wealthier people.

This actually turns the tax system upside down.

Remember, the lower income people have to spend all or most of their income for living. They have no choice.

[burning rain]

21. The "Fair Tax" is regressive.

Lower income people have to spend a higher proportion of their income of their income on necessities.


Under no circumstances would I vote for Huck, a theocon and one who panders to racism. But he is somewhat interesting as a rare Republican who recognizes that working class and poor folks have legitimate interests. I suspect advocating the absurd, plutocratic "Fair Tax" is Huck overcompensating for his heresy of giving a shit about the non-rich.

[endarkenment]

22. The national sales tax would have to be something like 30% or more.

to replace current federal income and payroll tax revenue. That does not include state and local taxes. Let's just take a guess and say that 40% would be required. And this 'fair tax' would be level - all progressivity would be eliminated. Working people would be paying 40% on necessary purchase - a huge burden that would eliminate savings and discretionary spending for most if not all working people. The rich of course would make out like bandits, which is why they love this bullshit.

[FormerDittoHead]

26. Do some homework on "regressive taxation".

checkout: http://fairtaxfraud.com/fair.asp

[immoderate]

27. Bad idea. Sales tax is the most regressive.

The economy does much better when the upper incomes are taxed more heavily -- forcing them to put money into stimulative activity.

--imm

[Fire1]

28. First and foremost, sales tax alone could never support

this nation's infrastructure, schools, hospitals, military, social programs, etc., etc.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. To be revenue neutral, the tax rate would have to be 50%+

For life of me, I can't seen any downside of an inflation rate of 50% the instant it is implemented. What could go wrong? :shrug:

It would completely collapse manufacturing and retail sales. It would require IRS agents at each flea market and garage sale. It would stop business infrastructure investment. It would end capital projects by state and local government (who would also be subject to the tax)