- March 6, 2008 at 3:15 pm #256364
I was responding tothe emailI quoted, which referred to a flat tax. And is there really that much benefit to a federal sales tax?To generate the same federal tax revenue a tax on luxury goods would have to be over 20%. That’s over and above sales taxes that already exist.I think it would mostly deprive those with the lowest incomes of even the least luxuries. And what about corporations, what items that corporations purchase are considered non-luxury and which are luxury? Do we just forego all corporate federal taxes? Or do they pay on everything they purchase? Either way the cost of goods will either not change or more likely go up. And the notion that the rich don’t pay federal taxes is patently absurd. While the top quintile may pay a slighly lower percentage than the middle quintiles (and the bottom quintile pays the lowest
percentage) they definitely pay. I’m not trying to be argumentative, it’s simply that U.S. economics and taxes are not simple and without a total crash or creating a total crash there isn’t likely to be anything but incremental changes. Lori.
wrote: I just have to point out that Liss was not promoting a flat tax. She was talking about a sales tax on luxury items. That would clearly benefit the poor
while forcing the rich to pay (by removing loop holes). And even if the difference in my taxes is not that great with a smaller IRS, it’s still a savings! Why continue paying for a huge organization that is not needed?? Jenny DOn Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Lori <email@example.com> wrote:And a flat tax is likely to be a huge burden to the poorest who already pay the least in overall taxes, while only make a small difference to the richest. Most folks are likely not to see a change at all. The difference in overall tax rates is not that huge. Even with a substantially reduced IRS. The difference in overall tax rates is
not that huge. Lori.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.