Please DU this CNN Poll RE the regressive National Sales tax idea!

[UdoKier]

Do you prefer scrapping the federal income tax for a national sales tax?

Yes

No

Don't know

http://www.cnn.com/

[B Calm]

1. I voted NO / 53 % YES 27% NO & 20% DON'T KNOW

[UdoKier]

2. Can you believe that?

Don't Americans realize that if they ever did such a thing, it would be a net tax HIKE for the vast majority of us? Except for the rich, of course.

Is filling out those forms every year THAT much of an imposition?


I feel like I live in a nation of Moonies...

[siteleader]

6. Loopholes only the rich take advantage of

A plus for this system is that there are no longer any loopholes. All taxes are collected at point of purchase. The rich buy way more than the average American. Undocumented workers and people that work off the books will be forced to pay their share.

There is also rebate up to the federal poverty level that all taxes paid up to that point are returned.

[CottonBear]

10. This would be an unfair tax.

The rich purchase very little in relation to their income. The poor spend most of their income. This is a very bad idea.

[siteleader]

13. Not from what I've seen

I work in construction in the silicon valley. These people can't spend their money fast enough. From granite countertops to state of the art home entertainment rooms to BMW's in the driveway.

[CottonBear]

15. Well then, they would pay a lot of taxes.

I hope that they are putting money into savings and personal retirement accounts and paying off their credit card debt. They'll be totally screwed if this regressaive tax is passed.

[siteleader]

20. I Agree maybe they..

will come to appreciate SS a little more.

[CottonBear]

37. SS is one part of a "3 legged stool"

SS,
work pension/401K/simpleIRA
and private savings (home equity, IRA, ROITH IRA, CDs etc)

We need all three.

SS is an insurance program NOT an investment vehicle. SS also cover the disabled, widows and survivors.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. All I know is if this current bunch squatting in the WH

is pushing this, it can't be good for the little people. Nothing this gang of thieves does, is. Trust them at your own peril. I don't.

[PA Democrat]

19. Consumption tax is the most regressive type of tax

Wealth by its very definition means that you spend less than what you make. The poor and middle class are spending almost every penny they make, and sometimes even more, when you consider the fact that they are incurring debt to support their lifestyles.

The ultra rich will make out like bandits and the middle class and the poor will get screwed under a consumption tax. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has written an excellent analysis of the effects of a consumption tax.

http://www.itepnet.org/sale0904.pdf

I suggest you read it carefully before jumping on the consumption tax bandwagon, because unless you are wealthy, you'll be paying SIGNIFICANTLY MORE taxes. In fact, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that a consumption tax would increase taxes for the bottom 80% income bracket by more than 50%.

[DearAbby]

27. Imagine paying 35% tax on a new Car...sales would drastically be down...

Car manufactures would have to lay off people. Plants close. And the trend spreads as people are trying to survive. Making do. Its a bad idea. the Poor and the middle class would suffer the most. Why do the republicans feel that the poor and middleclass have to pay for their Wealthfare plan?

[Is It Fascism Yet]

28. wealthfare. good point. n/t

[UdoKier]

34. So close the loopholes.

The rich should pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME in taxes than working people, NOT THE EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE.


And the rich spend a lot LESS of their income on consumables. They put most of their money into investments. As for undocumented worrkers, they already pay local sales taxes, and since they only make $2 an hour, I don't WANT them to pay any more taxes.

As for the rebate, the period between the time when a person pays in and the time any taxes would be refunded would represent a hardship on people who live paycheck to paycheck (approximately 40% of the country)

Why do you hate poor people?

[CoffeeCat]

3. This is the consumption tax, correct?

I heard our local rightwingradionut propping up the consumption tax. In addition, Steve Forbes was on the Michael Reagan show (last night) pimping for a 30 percent consumption tax.

Forbes was also calling for a repeal of the 16th Amendment (Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration).

My guess is that, with their SocSec plan tanking--their new tax plan is waiting in the wings, as their next propaganda project.

CNN appears to be testing the waters for BushCo. How convenient. What timing.

Damn, these people are so transparent.

[CottonBear]

12. Neil Boortz has been trumpeting this idea for years now.

The stupid poor and middle class rubes that listen to him probably think it's a good idea by now.

[rzemanfl]

4. Do the morons who are voting yes realise that this tax is as

regressive as hell and that there wouldn't be any tax refunds for them ever again? A lot of people, for reasons I don't understand, use withholding as an interest free savings account then splurge when they get their refund.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Depending on which economist you believe

This would be REGRESSIVE as hades, and come in between 22% and 35%.

Let's see - they want to Piratize Social Security and turn it into Social INSecurity, remove Bankruptcy protection to protect MBNA and CITI, and now go to a regressive national sales tax.

[moggie12]

7. Done and kick n/t

[punpirate]

8. Given the amount of consumer spending which...

... goes onto credit cards, guess where all that tax goes--directly into more debt, more interest, more fees. I'll bet MBNA is just licking its corporate lips over this one.

And, since most corporations are exempt from paying sales taxes on resold items and materials, this also seems like yet another way to eliminate taxes on corporations (and on dividends and capital gains).

This is one of the ugliest ideas to come down the pike, and yet, the idiot followers of Bush will embrace it, thinking it's going to save them money, that Bush is doing them a favor by simplifying their lives.... :grr:

[rzemanfl]

25. Nobody has thought about the implications.

No charitable deduction.
No tax-free municipal bonds.
No mortgage interest deduction.
Thousands of IRS employees, tax preparers, etc. out of work.
Years and years of people holding off major purchases because of sticker shock-preceded by a last-minute buying spree-then a huge retail recession, salespeople, clerks, stockers out of work, along with the few people in this country who still make things.
No "tax refund" spending spree each year.
A huge fight over exemptions for things like medical expenses, legal fees, etc.
Just to name a few.

This idea is insane. It might work if you could start a country from scratch. This is the stalking horse for Social Security, the Repubs will offer to give it up in exchange for concessions on SS.

[Career Prole]

9. I don't freakin' believe it!

Yes 53% 85597 votes

No 27% 43923 votes

Don't know 20% 31699 votes
Total: 161219 votes

This has to be the result of freeping. The country can't be this stupid. If anything it should roughly be 50-50, no?

[B Calm]

11. No doubt in my mind it's been freeped..

but then there are an awful lot of stupid people who enjoy pain..

[Is It Fascism Yet]

14. done, but, the results are scary, 53% yes!

[Is It Fascism Yet]

16. Gee, we are building a house, does this mean we should pay 30% more on all

our materials? That will make it impossible to do.

[rzemanfl]

18. And you won't be able to deduct your mortgage interest. n/t

[siteleader]

21. No income tax witheld

The number I read was 23% at the checkout

[Disturbed]

22. RW is now going to try to push though their longtime ageda.

The Right Wing Agenda

Abolish

Social Security
Medicare
Employer supplied health insurance
Unemployment Benefits
Welfare
Abortion Rights
Collective Bargaining
EPA
Public Education
Public Housing
IRS

[Is It Fascism Yet]

23. So, you think everyone should just afford to pay 23% more for their house?

Are you crazy?

[opusprime]

24. Please help me with this one...

I hate income tax. The more I make, the more they take.

I try and save alot, and my wife and I are very frugle. If I only had to pay tax on my purchases, I think I would end up paying alot less tax.

And if I was a consumption pig, I would pay more.

I see this reducing luxury automobile purchases, boats, inefficient cars, etc, etc.

Plus, think of the power the consumer would have over the government. A consumption boycott would put a real squeeze on the feds.

Help me here.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

26. OK, I will help you.

income tax does not oppress the poor as much as sales tax does because no matter how poor you are you must still buy certain things, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medicine. These things are not optional. They are required to have any quality whatsoever in your life. Poor people need to eat just as much food, and stay just as warm as rich people. There is little choice about how much you will spend on the necessities. Except for housing, you will be spending virtually the same amount on necessities regardless of what your income is. My household income tripled, but I still spend the same amount on shampoo and groceries as I used to when we had less income. It doesn't matter what your income is, it still costs the same to feed you. It costs the same to wash your clothes, no matter if you make a thousand a year, or a 100 thousand a year. Now, if you only make 20 or 30 thousand a year, you cannot buy less, because, you are already only buying the necessities, and you already don't have enough money to buy all the necessities, so, if the price of the necessities goes up 23 or 30 percent due to a tax, you will have to go without some more of them as well. Now, if you are making 200 thousand a year, you will have much more "disposable income" which is income above and beyond what you need for the necessities. You can not only afford the increase but it will actually save you money because you won't be spending all your earnings on necessities, you will be saving lots of it, and therefore if there is no income tax it will be tax free. So, like most of Shrub's ill conceived notions, this will beat the lower classes down into the mud, while relieving the upper income strata of having to pay taxes at all on most of their income. PS, please don't hate your taxes, they are what we pay to fund social programs, which improve the quality of life for everyone. Please hate the way your taxes are being misused, misspent and misappropriated instead. And BTW, it makes a difference if you have a good accountant, you will get every deduction you have coming...some tax preparers are not as conscientious as others about making sure you got all your deductions, ask around to find out who is good!

[opusprime]

30. OK, I see your point... but...

If the new tax system didnt tax food or rent, or other necessary items, and anyone making below $30,000 was exempt from paying the tax, i.e., they get all their taxes back at the end of the year, would you be for it?

[Johonny]

31. I think

if it was set up like that it would be impossible for it to actually generate enough money to pay the nations budget.

[opusprime]

33. Thats the point... starve the beast.

The government has taken enough, and forced me to do with less for long enough. Its time for them to be responsible and deal with what they have.

Starve the beast.

[Johonny]

35. The beast won't starve

but the poor might.

[UdoKier]

38. "Starve the Beast" is a typical right-wing talking point.

Essential services and infrastructure have been starved for decades already, and the military-industrial complex continues to wallow in wasteful spending and fraud.

Are you aware that this is a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC site, and that right-wing crapola doesn't fly here?

[opusprime]

43. Am I aware?

Yeah, I can see the name of the site in my URL locater.

Are you aware that I work in both the State and Federal government? Are you aware that these enormous bureaurcracies are bloated, inefficient, and ineffective because nobody in either party is willing to stand up and tell the truth about these 'services and infrastructure'.

There is so much waste in our government that it should be illegal. Our services and infrastructure are not starved due to lack of funding, they are starved because of the monster bureauracracies that run them. These bureacracies are self-feeding and self-sustaining. They only get bigger, and people like you are fooled into thinking they need to be feed more.

As far as my "typical right-wing talking point" goes, so be it. I dont care who's idea it is... its a good idea. Our government is a giant vaccum that takes in far more than it produces. I'm not a person who goes by labels, but if you want to call me a fiscal conservative, then fine. I actually think when comparing Bush to Clinton, Clinton was the conservative one.

If you ever wish to win this political environment, you had better abandon the notion that a big all powerful government is a good thing. You should also realize that it is Bush's spending and irresponsible use of our tax dollars that has caused me to come here... CONTRIBUTING IDEAS!! With an attitude like yours, we'll never defeat the GOP.

[UdoKier]

45. Bureaucracy is wasteful and often redundant, yes.

But even bureaucracy is a form of job creation. And unlike military spending, it doesn't create a backlog of weapons systems that need to be used up so that there will be a need for MORE weapons systems - the whole thing is just a racket.

I just reject the notion that our government needs to be "starved". People on the receiving end of government programs have seen their benefits eaten away for decades, and your "solution will only make that worse. The tendency has been to cut veterans' care, welfare, unemployment, forest rangers, whatever BEFORE the bureaucracy is ever touched.

The government was as small as it had ever been in over 30 years by the end of the Clinton administration. Had it not been for Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the government might not have even gone into the red (the recession would have happened, but 9-11 might well have been averted if Gore had taken his rightful place as president).

I might have overreacted to your post, but the problem with the old right-wing "starve the beast" rhetoric is that that is NOT their real intention, at least not as you define it. They MO has always been to cut taxes to create massive deficits, then force radical cuts to essential services. They are always very reluctant to make cuts to the bureacracy (but they love to strip away govt' workers' civil service protections) So that we end up with a government that's just as big, less efficient, and stuck in spiraling deficits because their trickle down flim-flam schemes NEVER create enough stimulus to bring revenues up to where they need to be.

I'm all for cutting wasteful government spending, like that rainforest in Iowa, or the phony missile defense shield, but not "starving the beast". That always creates phony budget "crises" where they decide to slash health care for kids or education funding.

Enough already!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

46. Are you willing to give up roads and highways to drive on?

Are you willing to give up education for your children?

Are you willing to give up clean water to drink?

Are you willing to give up clean air to breathe?

Are you willing to give up the armed forces that protect you?

Are you willing to give up National Parks lands to developers?

Are you willing to give up putting criminals in jail?

Are you willing to give up watching sports on weekends?

Taxes pay for and support all of the things I just mentioned. I, for one, don't mind paying the gov't a percentage of my wages in order to have all of those amenities and privileges.

If you think that you could get by without all of that, why don't you move to a wilderness somewhere? Then you won't have to pay taxes anymore, and you won't have to deal with all of that hassle every April 15th.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

42. of course not!

Listen, Bill Gates can only spend so much on food and rent. Why should the millions he doesn't have time to spend go tax free? With income tax, he pays taxes on the millions he makes. With sales tax, he only pays taxes on what he spends. If you are poor, you must spend everything you make. If you are rich, you do not spend everything you make, the richer you are, the less you spend, proportionate to your total income. Why should people not pay taxes on money they earn but don't spend? This plan would probably save money for my household, because we have a lot of disposable income. So, I guess we'd just take our tax free income and go to Spain to spend it on holiday. A few months there would be pleasant, and we could live on money we never had to pay taxes on. Do you think that would be fair or supportive of our nation? I don't mind paying taxes, I only mind when taxes are oppressive and misappropriated. I totally agree that person's earning less than $30 thou a year should not be subject to a sales tax, and I think we need tax reform so that they shouldn't be subject to an income tax either! If the top 10% paid their fair share, the bottom 10% wouldn't have to pay anything. Yes, we need to restructure our income tax system, but not by replacing it with sales tax. We need to restructure it to recognize the poverty line where it actually exists today, which is much higher than the officially recognized poverty line.

[opusprime]

44. good points...

You got me thinking.

[rzemanfl]

29. This tax is regressive. The less you make the more it hurts you.

The income tax is progressive, the more you make the more you theoretically pay. It doesn't work out that way because earned income is taxed more than investment income and there are lots of dodges and loopholes. So your frugal ways may help you some day when you can live off your investments. This tax would have the opposite effect from what you posit, the wealthy would have more money to spend on luxury cars, boats and the like and could afford the tax, the poor and middle class couldn't.

[UdoKier]

36. The income tax is already at historic lows

And it's lower than almost any other industrialized country.

And we spend more on military and less on services per capita than any other western democracy. Even if you are in the 39% bracket, you only pay that on the amount over $278K, etc (this is 1998 rates, they are lower now) A typical wealthy person pays less than 15% of their actual gross income in taxes, after deductions and loopholes, so why all the whining?

Maybe you need an accountant.


BTW, if you disagree with the concept that people should pay more tax according to their means, you cannot be a true democrat, IMO.

[PA Democrat]

40. Good analysis of consumption tax by

the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan research and education organization that works on government taxation and spending policy issues.

According to their research, the only people who benefit from a consumption tax are the wealthiest Americans.

http://www.itepnet.org/sale0904.pdf

[girl gone mad]

41. Any changes to the tax code would need to be revenue neutral.

In other words, they would need to take in the same amount they are now.

Before you suggest "starve the beast", Bush himself has said any changes he makes will be revenue neutral. He isn't ready or willing to make the tough cuts to defense spending that would be required, and he's stymied by the massive debt.

Most poor and middle class people pay relatively little in Federal Income tax. The bulk of their taxes are payroll taxes - SS and Medicare. Federal Income tax is one of the few progressive taxes. The rich pay a large share of the tax, and swithcing to a national sales tax would remove that progressivity, unless very complicated steps were taken.

You say you buy very little. Well, if the majority of people are like you and buy very little, then the consumption tax will have to be very high for it to take in enough tax dollars to support our budgetary needs.

Most likely, the poor will get some kind of relief, the rich will end up much better off than they are now, and the middle class wil be left with an increased burden.

[GetTheRightVote]

32. voted

:kick:

[UdoKier]

39. DAMN! THey already changed it to a steroid abuse topic. Who cares?

ANother one of Bush's dumb pet "issues".