Tax Reform

[Ats]

Strongly opposed to all of the above.

agreed.  at the risk of sounding like a left-wing nut, I think all those are pretty damned regressive.  In BRTD's example, a person making ten grand would probably pay more with a federal sales tax, since he's pay for purchases because he'd ending up spending his whole income (hard to save any on that salary.)

Not sure what form this domestic agenda will take, but I can't imagine that the Grover Norquist model will fly, even with a 55/45 republican congress.

A regressive tax is one where the poor pay a higher % than the rich.

How can a flat tax be regressive? If income under $35,000 is exempted, then the tax is definitionally progressive. The sales tax is another issue.

Also, the only people that make $10k a year are illegal immigrants. The Cato Institute estimates (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-240.html) a person on welfare recieves a minimum of $11,500 and a maximum of $36,400 a year in state benefits alone, not to mention local and federal ones. People that make that little pay almost no taxes to begin with.

[Ats]

JFRAUD

Keep the Income tax for businesses (WHAT IT WAS REALLY CREATED For). Sales tax for all citizens. Sales tax would NOT be regressive as food would be exempt obviously. You wouldn't be paying anymore payroll taxes either so that makes up a large part of the sales tax. We get along just fine here in FL without a Income tax and our economy is booming. I have no reason to see why it wouldn't work nationally.

www.fairtax.org

If all this stuff is exempt, how the hell are you going to come up with the $2 trillion per year needed? Argue one way or the other.
Either
1. It will pay for the entire federal budget
2. It will be only 23%
3. It will be extremely regressive

You can't win them all.

You'd still have business taxes, you'd save $150 billion a year in IRS expenses. Plus people will be more cognizant of the taxes they pay and thus will be more willing to reduce the scope of government.