Consumption Tax?

[SheetWise]

How about formulating a budget, counting heads, and presenting each with a bill for their share?

This would allow us to see exactly how much government we really want. Of course, it would also require that the government come clean on all of their past lies -- but that would be a step in the right direction.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because taking away the tax benefits would cause an immediate devaluation in most homes of 25% or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

So once again a problem caused by government requires "more government" as its solution. Lovely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you perceive it as a problem. Home ownership is a huge driver of the US economy, so most dont see it as a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahah. Intellectually dishonest or just retarded?

But just for [censored] and giggles, let's go down your rathole. Most people don't see going to church as a problem. Should I be forced to subsidize it?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. Making it even as progressive as the current income tax system would be difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Simply charge a higher percentage for more expensive items. Most cash registers are computers these days anyway, so it can all be done automatically. The only real problem is finding a way to allow consumers to buy in bulk (say 1 16 pound package of beef instead of 16 1 pound packages), but I doubt that would be terribly difficult.



[/ QUOTE ]

That still isnt very progressive, unless you are going to tax home sales which would help.

Taxing more expensive items a higher rate doesnt automatically make it a progressive tax. You have to tax specific purchases that represent a larger percentage of wealth at a higher rate.

Eg a higher tax rate on cars would make the system more regressive, since the wealthy (other than a handful of collectors) spend a smaller percentage of their wealth on cars then middle and low income families.

There are few items that I can think of that arent of that nature, and the total cost and total sales of those items (eg true luxury items...boats come to mind) couldnt be taxed at high enough a rate for there to be much progressivity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it wouldn't be flat out more for more. A $5000 car would not be taxed nearly as much as say a $5000 pair of shoes. It would be just as complicated and convoluted as our current tax code, just less people would deal with it directly. Stuff like bread and milk need not be taxed at all. Clothing, you might have no tax for items under $5-10 with a heavy tax for items over $500 and a ludicrous tax for $20000 dresses. There's no reason the government can't do this is they want.

Once again, I'm not supporting it, just pointing out the viability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say you are pointing out the non-viability. Again, to achieve the kind of progressivity that would even mimic the current code, tax rates on the luxury items would have to be huge, which would dampen their market, which would require a bigger tax and so on.

It can mechanically be done, but modelling the tax rates on the different items would be a huge problem, and very likely to miss the revenue targets. It also runs the risk of "creative purchasing" that bypasses the watchful eye of the "revenuers" as they used to be called.