What percentage of the country wants to abolish the income tax?

[A18]

...

[TeePee4Prez]

11-15%

[David S]

Probably not enough to make it happen.

[??????????]

16-20%. If we keep pushing we can get it done.

[Alcon]

16%-20%? If you can push it with those numbers, I think the Democrats need to give Utah a long, hard look.

I'm sure 95% "want" it to happen. 11-15% consider it realistic.

[David S]

Is there any serious effort in congress to abolish the income tax? I think not. The Democrats hate the idea. The Republicans drag this idea out of the closet at election time to win a few votes and that's the end of it.

[opebo]

A majority.  Certainly over 21%.  However it is actually in the economic interest of only a small minority - I don't know if that is 1% or 5%, but I'm sure one could figure it out.

[phk]

100% of the country wants to abolish it
it will only benefit 2% of the country.

[A18]

Is there any serious effort in congress to abolish the income tax? I think not. The Democrats hate the idea. The Republicans drag this idea out of the closet at election time to win a few votes and that's the end of it.

I didn't hear it in 2000 or 2002 at all, and I didn't pay attention to politics before then so I don't know. There's a bill in Congress that would replace it with a national sales tax, and I think there's a flat tax proposal as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

almost everyone.  But the number would drop greatly once you take into account what would happen if it were to occur, probably around 15%

[A18]

Like?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

putting something such as a national sales tax in place or drastic cutting of public services.

[A18]

You could just slash useless stuff like the Department of Agriculture (and most other ones) and put in place a small national sales tax.

[J-Mann]

You could just slash useless stuff like the Department of Agriculture (and most other ones) and put in place a small national sales tax.

No.  The Dept. of Ag is not useless, nor would a national sales tax be fair.  Republicans deal with the tax issue because we want to help the lower-to-middle income folks, remember?  A flat rate sales tax would screw them, unless we also keep an income tax for those making over a certain amount of money.

[A18]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272es.html

What's the Department of Agriculture good for?

[Trilobyte]

You could just slash useless stuff like the Department of Agriculture (and most other ones) and put in place a small national sales tax.

You think every government department is useless; do you know what the USDA does? It's one thing to advocate tax cuts, but dismantling basic government itself is quite another.

[A18]

No, I don't know what it does. That's why I assume it's useless.

[J-Mann]

No, I don't know what it does. That's why I assume it's useless.

Obviously you're not from a farming family.  Certainly there are wasteful things about the USDA, but that's true of every department.  Try looking up some pros and cons of the Department on your own (internet research, op/eds, library resources) and come to your own conclusion, but don't assume that it's useless because you don't know what it does.

[Lunar]

No, I don't know what it does. That's why I assume it's useless.

I'm not going to even address this one except to say that the bulk of our governmental spending is not on organizations where the only thing people do is sit around in an empty room.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My problem with the Sales tax has always been a couple issues:

1- It discourages buying crap in a consumerist society.  People buying stuff beyond the bare essentials is how our economy works.
2- Even taking this poverty "rebate" into account, it screws the middle class.  Anyone above the poverty line now pays the same amount that rich people pay, despite spending a far higher portion of their income on goods.   This means we shift the tax burden on those that a) drive the economy and b) have a hard time supporting it.

I'd find a sales tax that assigned a "luxury" value and a corresponding tax to each product ok.  Basically a loaf of bread would be assigned a "0" and not be taxed while a new TV might be assigned a "4" and a luxury yaught the highest, a  "10." It still causes my first concern to come about, but it gets out of the second.  Of course, it would create bureaucracy and lobbying organizations out the wazoo, but besides that..

[J-Mann]

2- Even taking this poverty "rebate" into account, it screws the middle class.  Anyone above the poverty line now pays the same amount that rich people pay, despite spending a far higher portion of their income on goods.   This means we shift the tax burden on those that a) drive the economy and b) have a hard time supporting it.

Exactly.  Notice that it's always the well-off who are pushing "fairness" in taxation.  The poverty rebate is interesting, though, and probably would offset the inequities caused by a flat tax or straight NST.  ie: someone making less than $18,588 probably won't buy that much in a year's time and thus pays no tax.  A middle-class family making around $60,000 a year may spend $40,000 and pay taxes on a bit over half of that.  Someone making $800,000 a year may spend $500,000 and pay taxes on nearly all of the goods he buys.  There's a certain merit to such an idea.  It's too bad that politicians can't talk of such things openly and honestly, though.

[A18]

I said slash the department, not abolish it.

I'm not well off, and I'm pushing for fairness in taxation.

Your poverty level spending -- basic spending on needs -- should be tax free. Everything above that is a luxury and should be taxed at the same rate.

A VAT, which is the kind of tax you're describing, is a terrible idea. It basically undermines the free market value of the dollar.

[J-Mann]

I said slash the department, not abolish it.

I'm not well off, and I'm pushing for fairness in taxation.

Your poverty level spending -- basic spending on needs -- should be tax free. Everything above that is a luxury and should be taxed at the same rate.

A VAT, which is the kind of tax you're describing, is a terrible idea. It basically undermines the free market value of the dollar.

Who is talking about a VAT?  I haven't seen reference to that.

[A18]

I'd find a sales tax that assigned a "luxury" value and a corresponding tax to each product ok.  Basically a loaf of bread would be assigned a "0" and not be taxed while a new TV might be assigned a "4" and a luxury yaught the highest, a  "10." It still causes my first concern to come about, but it gets out of the second.  Of course, it would create bureaucracy and lobbying organizations out the wazoo, but besides that..

This is something that's done in many socialist countries, with a VAT.

[Trilobyte]

What do you think about the Negative Income Tax system? If you don't know what I mean, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

[David S]

In the 2004 elections, there were two parties that advocated eliminating the income tax, the Libertarians and the Constitution party. Together they got less than 1% of the vote. That's why I say this will never happen. The Republicans only bring this up before an election. They have no intention of making it happen.