If the U.S tax code was changed to impose taxes based solely on consumption...

1. 70

   nflagatorposted 14 years ago

   If the U.S tax code was changed to impose taxes based solely on consumption...
   
   do you think that would be a good idea or not? (and why)

   replyreport
2. 59

   ndnfoodie530posted 14 years ago

   Yes, I believe that consumption is at a much lower rate for the proletariat than usual. By adjusting tax codes, our government may create opportunities for our hardest hit communities.

   replyreport
3. 61

   hillriderposted 14 years ago

   
   
   Since the income tax didn't get initiated as law until @1913 and the US used a consumption tax base from the beginning until then, I am all for going back.
   This will doubtful receive little push in Congress since it generates less revenue for the government, at least as far as what becomes taxable. Interest, dividends and annuities are currently taxed, removing this would reduce what the feds can make money from and when they are currently crying for tax increases I just can't see them doing a back flip...good question though..

   replyreport
4. 0

   Butch Newsposted 14 years ago

   To a certain degree we already have that kind of tax... at least in Canada and Europe.  In Canada most everything you buy has a tax on it.  But it is not nearly enough to fund government.
   
   Food is exempt except prepared foods... i.e. there is a tax on fast food.  One can expect to ad about 12% to the cost of everything you buy.

   replyreport
5. 61

   BobbiRantposted 14 years ago

   I would like a tax bases on income, no breaks, no loopholes for the rich.  Wouldn't that be refreshing instead of us having to foot the entire bill.

   replyreport
6. 82

   Wayne Brownposted 14 years ago

   Consumption tax has merit but I think the fly in the ointment might be selling it to the American people. Remember when the Bush Administration attempted to allow Social Security funds to be invested at the option of those paying it into their accounts...remember how all that was demonized as an attempt to bilk people out of their money. It was demonized by the left, the same group who under LBJ authorized the use of Social Security funds in the General Fund and now our SS is nothing more than a pot of worthless IOU's from the government.  If Bush's plan had gone through, the democrats would have been exposed for there would have been no real money to invest in the market...only IOU's.  The same holds true with consumption tax.  Rather than seeing a 6% or 8% tax on goods and services, we would face a tax in the range of 24-30% which would immediately create phsycological issues with the average American.  The would be better off because the would no long be paying income tax but just try it and see how hard it is to sell especially when those against it start stirring the pot.  Oh, and if you are asking "Who would be against it"...it's anyone in favor of wealth redistribution and class envy/warfare.  Why how dare we let a rich man buy something and pay the same consumption tax on it that a poor man pays...see, problems before you even start. Good luck! WB

   replyreport
7. 37

   Scott_Griggposted 14 years ago

   I'd love it, depending on the tax rate. Face it. Those who consume more SHOULD pay more. While those who consume less, should pay less. The idea that certain segments of our society don't pay taxes is ridiculous. Everyone should pay.  I'd rather see a flat tax that everyone pays, period. Would eliminate the IRS pretty much other than as an enforcement tool and think of how easy it would be to fill out. What were your earnings?

   replyreport
8. 70

   nflagatorposted 14 years ago

   Thanks everyone for the responses.  I guess, because there are so many loopholes in our current tax structure, I wish we could truly come up with some way(s) to make taxing FAIR. 
   I know there are people out there earning an income and simply don't file their taxes.  Others get unemployment but work under the table.  Some get disabilty and work a job on the side (also paid under the table). 
   How many people DON'T own property, and those who do foot the bill for local taxes. 
   I'm sure I could go on and on.  There's got to be a better way.

   replyreport