Ventura: Eliminate Income Tax and Replace it with 15% National Sales Tax

[Free Bird]

What would be the revenue projection for this?

[King]

More revenue as it is a massive tax increase on half of Americans will no longer get a refund in April, as it is impossible to account for one with a sales tax, and still get gouged on their checks by paying FICA. Of course, that's assuming they still have jobs, after this state induced hyperinflation of 15% completely destroys American auto industry, real estate, and retail once and for all. In that case, less revenue.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The man is a bumbling idiot.

The highlight of his governorship:
When he took a pie to the face

When he visited my high school and made a 15 year old girl cry and a lady handed him a brown paper bag with a bottle of her piss in it.

His character was revealed in how angry and sore he was about it.

Someone needs to tape his mouth shut.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Libertarians (actual ones, not the Rand Paul type ones) are idiots. News at 11.

[ag]

Depends on the base. If it is 15% on absolutely all transactions, it is 15% of the GDP (2.5 trln dollars). Now, that would be a lot broader-based than any state-level tax - and is not going to happen.

[Free Bird]

More revenue as it is a massive tax increase on half of Americans will no longer get a refund in April, as it is impossible to account for one with a sales tax, and still get gouged on their checks by paying FICA. Of course, that's assuming they still have jobs, after this state induced hyperinflation of 15% completely destroys American auto industry, real estate, and retail once and for all. In that case, less revenue.

I assume he also implied eliminating FICA and payrolls too

[Free Bird]

I don't see how this will be a tax increase. It increases purchasing power. Poor people buy less so they pay less like they pay less now!

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't see how this will be a tax increase. It increases purchasing power. Poor people buy less so they pay less like they pay less now!

Oh wow.  Dat libertarian logic.

[Ebsy]

I don't see how this will be a tax increase. It increases purchasing power. Poor people buy less so they pay less like they pay less now!

Oh wow.  Dat libertarian logic.

I can't believe he just said that.

[DC Al Fine]

Canada combines a hefty VAT with payments too the poor to ensure they don't overpay. I get about $50/month from the government to compensate for the sales tax I paid, and this amount goes up if you have children.

I could see an expanded version of this system working. The problem is, in order for it to work, you have to keep the income tax system in place without the collection aspect in order to assess low income payouts. I'm not sure if the extra taxes taken from wealthy tax evaders would be worth the trouble in that case.

[136or142]

Canada combines a hefty VAT with payments too the poor to ensure they don't overpay. I get about $50/month from the government to compensate for the sales tax I paid, and this amount goes up if you have children.

I could see an expanded version of this system working. The problem is, in order for it to work, you have to keep the income tax system in place without the collection aspect in order to assess low income payouts. I'm not sure if the extra taxes taken from wealthy tax evaders would be worth the trouble in that case.

Hefty? The federal GST is 5%.  Of course, most provinces (All but Alberta?) also have provincial sales taxes (not necessarily provincial GSTs) that in most if not all cases at least double and in some cases add much more to the federal GST.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     As bad of an idea as a national sales tax is, it sure is persistent. Let's try something that makes sense.

[/]

OMG that is super regressive

[DC Al Fine]

Canada combines a hefty VAT with payments too the poor to ensure they don't overpay. I get about $50/month from the government to compensate for the sales tax I paid, and this amount goes up if you have children.

I could see an expanded version of this system working. The problem is, in order for it to work, you have to keep the income tax system in place without the collection aspect in order to assess low income payouts. I'm not sure if the extra taxes taken from wealthy tax evaders would be worth the trouble in that case.

Hefty? The federal GST is 5%.  Of course, most provinces (All but Alberta?) also have provincial sales taxes (not necessarily provincial GSTs) that in most if not all cases at least double and in some cases add much more to the federal GST.

The combined rate in my province is 15%, which if far heftier than pretty much anywhere in the US.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So he likes having deficits of well over $1 trillion a year?

[Indy Texas]

I don't see how this will be a tax increase. It increases purchasing power. Poor people buy less so they pay less like they pay less now!

If you spend 100 percent of your income, as the poor do, your effective tax rate is 15 percent.

If you only spend, say, 60 percent of your income, as a more well-to-do person may, your effective tax rate is 9 percent.

How are the poor paying less? Do you mean less in absolute terms due to their lack of money?

[Free Bird]

I don't see how this will be a tax increase. It increases purchasing power. Poor people buy less so they pay less like they pay less now!

If you spend 100 percent of your income, as the poor do, your effective tax rate is 15 percent.

If you only spend, say, 60 percent of your income, as a more well-to-do person may, your effective tax rate is 9 percent.

How are the poor paying less? Do you mean less in absolute terms due to their lack of money?

Generally speaking, yes. That's the idea, but in the derogatory way you'd think. Who says that rich people don't spend all of their money? The idea is that they will buy lots of stuff, such as their 50 sports cars and 3 yachts, and therefore pay more in taxes. It would be preferable to have the sales tax be bracketed in terms of inherent value/necessity, but how would one go about determining that?

[Ebsy]

I don't see how this will be a tax increase. It increases purchasing power. Poor people buy less so they pay less like they pay less now!

If you spend 100 percent of your income, as the poor do, your effective tax rate is 15 percent.

If you only spend, say, 60 percent of your income, as a more well-to-do person may, your effective tax rate is 9 percent.

How are the poor paying less? Do you mean less in absolute terms due to their lack of money?

Generally speaking, yes. That's the idea, but in the derogatory way you'd think. Who says that rich people don't spend all of their money? The idea is that they will buy lots of stuff, such as their 50 sports cars and 3 yachts, and therefore pay more in taxes. It would be preferable to have the sales tax be bracketed in terms of inherent value/necessity, but how would one go about determining that?

I say the rich don't spend all their money. Evidence: the increasing concentration of wealth in the richest households. As to your next comment, that's really too ridiculous to respond to.

[ElectionsGuy]

I don't like the idea. It taxes the poor more disproportionately because they're spending a bigger proportion of their money on needs. Even though its flat, in practice its more regressive, which is never good.

[King]

Generally speaking, yes. That's the idea, but in the derogatory way you'd think. Who says that rich people don't spend all of their money? The idea is that they will buy lots of stuff, such as their 50 sports cars and 3 yachts, and therefore pay more in taxes. It would be preferable to have the sales tax be bracketed in terms of inherent value/necessity, but how would one go about determining that?

Is 50 sports cars and 3 yachts really the best use of our economic power? How many companies manufacture sports cars and yachts? Not many.

Or would we rather have it where as many Americans possible can afford to eat dinner at a restaurant and buy new clothes and furniture, which are the largest retail sectors of our economy and compose majority of the small businesses in this country?

To me, Option 2 sounds like it would create millions more jobs and triillions more GDP.

[Boston Bread]

The average person will have to pay significantly more tax than they did under income tax, so it's a really bad idea.

[King]

STOP WITH THE FACTS. WHY WON'T YOU LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES JUST SHUT UP AND ADMIT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA?!?!

[The Mikado]

So...I currently live in Texas, which has an 8% state sales tax. Add on a 15% national sales tax and...23% sales tax on anything I would buy.

That is...pretty hefty. Wouldn't this incentivize me to begin importing things from overseas to avoid sales taxes and cut domestic businesses and Uncle Sam out of the loop? At that point, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy things off of Amazon Canada and pay the shipping fees?

[justfollowingtheelections]

OMG that is super regressive

Exactly.  This is the most terrible idea I have ever heard.  We should be eliminating the sales tax because it's regressive taxation that hurts the middle and lower classes and increasing taxation of high incomes.

In other words we should be doing the exact opposite of what this moron suggests.

[Indy Texas]

I don't see how this will be a tax increase. It increases purchasing power. Poor people buy less so they pay less like they pay less now!

If you spend 100 percent of your income, as the poor do, your effective tax rate is 15 percent.

If you only spend, say, 60 percent of your income, as a more well-to-do person may, your effective tax rate is 9 percent.

How are the poor paying less? Do you mean less in absolute terms due to their lack of money?

Generally speaking, yes. That's the idea, but in the derogatory way you'd think. Who says that rich people don't spend all of their money? The idea is that they will buy lots of stuff, such as their 50 sports cars and 3 yachts, and therefore pay more in taxes. It would be preferable to have the sales tax be bracketed in terms of inherent value/necessity, but how would one go about determining that?

That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works. Most rich people are not Larry Ellison or Stephen Schwartzman. They're not flaunting their wealth in the most flamboyant way possible.

Mitt Romney is actually a pretty accurate representation of rich person consumption. They basically buy the same quantity of stuff normal people do, and only occasionally in considerably better quality. Mitt Romney has an iPhone. His housekeeper probably has an iPhone too. They both need cell phones. They both have to pay telecom companies a monthly fee to use them. Just because he's rich doesn't mean he suddenly needs 20 cell phones. There's no "rich people" iPhone that creates more jobs or more economic activity than the one we all buy.

Where does the rest of their money go? Real estate - which can drive economic activity, but can also push housing prices up so that it is less affordable for everyone else (which is what is currently happening).