No Income Tax; 5-10% Federal Consumption Tax

[No Free Beer]

What do you all think about this idea?

Put into consideration that we are 17 trillion dollars in debt.

Would you all consider this?

Edit: Please, no anarchist opinions. I realize most of you don't believe in federal laws. Thank you.

[mport1]

What do you all think about this idea?

Put into consideration that we are 17 trillion dollars in debt.

Would you all consider this?

It would be an improvement on today, but why not just go for no taxes whatsoever? Taxation is theft, and we need to get rid of it altogether.

[Pauls' Revere]

as in a flat consumption rate? or would this be metered/measured somehow individually? but I agree with the previious post, a tax, is tax, is a tax.

[No Free Beer]

a 5-10 percent flat consumption tax.

the poor tend to buy cheaper goods. they would only pay 10 percent of what the product costs.

the rich tend to buy more expensive products. they would pay 10 percent on the product they purchased.

it's fair.

whether uwant to believe it or not, the government needs some sort of revenue.

on top of that, we are 17 trillion dollars in debt.

[echebota]

a 5-10 percent flat consumption tax.

the poor tend to buy cheaper goods. they would only pay 10 percent of what the product costs.

the rich tend to buy more expensive products. they would pay 10 percent on the product they purchased.

it's fair.

whether uwant to believe it or not, the government needs some sort of revenue.

on top of that, we are 17 trillion dollars in debt.

Its not my debt. The federal government is free to default. The hell with the federal taxes. The only federal service we might need is federal courts and small nuclear only force standing army, for which states can just pay small yearly amounts - that's all.

[No Free Beer]

Its not my debt. The federal government is free to default. The hell with the federal taxes. The only federal service we might need is federal courts and small nuclear only force standing army, for which states can just pay small yearly amounts - that's all.

and what do you think happens to your money when the gov defaults?

[mport1]

a 5-10 percent flat consumption tax.

the poor tend to buy cheaper goods. they would only pay 10 percent of what the product costs.

the rich tend to buy more expensive products. they would pay 10 percent on the product they purchased.

it's fair.

whether uwant to believe it or not, the government needs some sort of revenue.

on top of that, we are 17 trillion dollars in debt.

Then they should get that revenue using voluntary means instead of through the theft of taxation. I'd prefer the Feds get no revenue and just go away.

It is not "our" debt. I had nothing to do with it, and I should not be held responsible for the debt accumulated by politicians. They have stolen my money and used it, along with my future earnings they plan to steal, as collateral for their debts.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd-SLRyuRq0&feature=plcp

[coffeewithchess]

What do you all think about this idea?

Put into consideration that we are 17 trillion dollars in debt.

Would you all consider this?

Income isn't the problem. It's the spending. Give them more revenue, and they will find more ways to waste...and always need MORE.

[AJ Antimony]

Obviously a consumption tax is better than an income tax. I once heard Peter Schiff say the consumption tax is the best type of tax because it forces savings and frugality. Obviously the best federal tax is zero, but if we have to have federal taxes, it seems consumption would be the most preferred.

[Galileo Galilei]

Let's restore the tax rates of 1811 under James Madison, when federal spending accounted for only 1% of the GDP, the lowest in US history. This even more amazing when most people knew the truce of 1783 was about to end.

[echebota]

and what do you think happens to your money when the gov defaults?

What mport1 sad.

About money... If you mean my savings - then if you don't save in fiat paper and fixed income debt paper, then it's not influenced too much by what is used as money in a long term. If you mean fiat paper money that is pushed on us by force that allows government scum to steal and kill, then this paper would take a hit and most likely would be deemed almost worthless, and hopefully we'll enter a new phase of more honest money. The sooner we put a stop to a fiat fraud - the better.

[angelatc]

What do you all think about this idea?

Put into consideration that we are 17 trillion dollars in debt.

Would you all consider this?

Sure! And the SCOTUS will be sure to make it clear that Congress can mandate how much we consume. What could go wrong?

[Simple]

and what do you think happens to your money when the gov defaults?

We bite the bullet and start over, and then we can return to growth just like Iceland did.

[luctor-et-emergo]

There is no way a sales tax will be 'enough' for politicians.
Here in the Netherlands, we used to have 19% sales tax, 6% on food.
Now they found that the deficit is too great, and there has to be 'austerity'.

Absolutely nothing is cut, maybe some proposed increases, but what is done,
taxes are raised, which one ? Sales tax.
Why ? Because tax on income will not get through as easily.
Increasing sales taxes, these politicians can agree on quite easily.

So starting this October, sales tax will be 21%, and 7% on food.
Tax on gasoline is already bad, a gallon of gas costs you around 8-9$ here when converted from gallon/L euro/$.

Spending is the problem, as long as politicians spend so much money, they will have to tax more.
You can think of all sorts of ways to provide the government with a steady stream of taxpayer money.
I have however been convinced that starving the beast is the only sound thing to do.

I'd like to say, sales tax is a more 'fair' tax, as it does not tax what someone already owns but merely what someone acquires. I am however still of the opinion that a tax like this would not solve the spending problem nor the power grabbing of various politicians.

[Kluge]

There is no way a sales tax will be 'enough' for politicians.
Here in the Netherlands, we used to have 19% sales tax, 6% on food.
Now they found that the deficit is too great, and there has to be 'austerity'.

Absolutely nothing is cut, maybe some proposed increases, but what is done,
taxes are raised, which one ? Sales tax.
Why ? Because tax on income will not get through as easily.
Increasing sales taxes, these politicians can agree on quite easily.

So starting this October, sales tax will be 21%, and 7% on food.
Tax on gasoline is already bad, a gallon of gas costs you around 8-9$ here when converted from gallon/L euro/$.

Spending is the problem, as long as politicians spend so much money, they will have to tax more.
You can think of all sorts of ways to provide the government with a steady stream of taxpayer money.
I have however been convinced that starving the beast is the only sound thing to do.

I'd like to say, sales tax is a more 'fair' tax, as it does not tax what someone already owns but merely what someone acquires. I am however still of the opinion that a tax like this would not solve the spending problem nor the power grabbing of various politicians.

You're right that a tax will not solve problems--but your post got me curious, is there not much of a black market in the Netherlands? Here in the states, high sales taxes often trigger that sort of activity.

[luctor-et-emergo]

You're right that a tax will not solve problems--but your post got me curious, is there not much of a black market in the Netherlands? Here in the states, high sales taxes often trigger that sort of activity.

Totally depends on how you define black market in this case, but I'd say, not much.

[PierzStyx]

Sure! And the SCOTUS will be sure to make it clear that Congress can mandate how much we consume. What could go wrong?

Funny you mention that. I just finished Brave New World.

[truelies]

[QUOTE=AJ Antimony;4537481]Obviously a consumption tax is better than an income tax. I once heard Peter Schiff say the consumption tax is the best type of tax because it forces savings and frugality..................................QUOTE]


and FORCING people to forego enjoying the fruits of their labour is 'good' because.............????

We work to live. We don't live to work.

[MikeStanart]

Yeah, lets give the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, an entity that is almost impossible to effect by grassroots; the ability to tax us!


Terrible idea, no matter how well intentioned.

[No Free Beer]

Income isn't the problem. It's the spending. Give them more revenue, and they will find more ways to waste...and always need MORE.

you would be eliminating the income tax. therefore, they would have less to spend.

but there would still be enough for defense purposes, roads, and other constitutional proceedings.

[mport1]

Let's just start by getting rid of the Federal government. They serve no useful purpose whatsoever. Then, the "revenue" they steal from us will not be an issue :)

Next we can focus on liberty at a more local level?

[Revolution9]

Tax recreational marijuana and get rid of the stasi TSA so tourists stop being manhandled and you get rid of the deficit and fill the tourism coffers in about two or three years.. Street violence goes down, the cops are not at war with 75% of their urban communities, money that powers all central banks now comes above ground and on the books. It is a win win situation. Just gotta get the old blowhards that insist it is the devil weed and the opposite enders, the big cartel dealers who don't want to see profit vanish...to just get the eff out of the way. Recreational marijuana is a great mom and pop business.

Rev9

[Liberty74]

I totally support abolishing all income taxes and replacing it with a 10% federal consumption tax. There is about a $2 trillion underground economy that could be tapped like those that deal drugs, get paid under the table, illegals, and those that travel here for vacation. A consumption tax puts everyone in the same boat, hence it does not necessarily discriminate like the 70,000 plus IRS pages. I would only support a 10% consumption tax under the rule that it would require a 2/3 votes in the house and senate to increase it. There are some negatives to such tax but the pros really do outweigh the cons especially when compared to our current KGB system.

166,000 IRS agents and tax accountants might need to look for a productive job :p

Edit Note: Ron Paul has stated on numerous occasions that he would support a national sales tax if it replace the current tax system.

[andrew1229649]

What happens when you add that 10% to the already state sales taxes? More like 17% here in SC then.........

[Brian4Liberty]

What do you all think about this idea?

Put into consideration that we are 17 trillion dollars in debt.

Would you all consider this?

Edit: Please, no anarchist opinions. I realize most of you don't believe in federal laws. Thank you.

A flat and simplified tax code is preferable to what we have today. The devil is in the details. What exemptions will there be? Will there be a consumption tax on automobiles? Houses? Stocks? Food? Drinks? Water/garbage? Electricity? Gasoline?

Predictably, the most powerful interests will be first in line for their exemption. So stocks will not be taxed. Next up would be housing, as the real estate and lending industry would benefit at the same time that they could say that it's for the "poor little people" who need to buy a house.

[Brian4Liberty]

I totally support abolishing all income taxes and replacing it with a 10% federal consumption tax. There is about a $2 trillion underground economy that could be tapped like those that deal drugs, get paid under the table, illegals, and those that travel here for vacation.
...

You mean that people in the "underground" economy would be taxed when or if they buy something in the government approved "legitimate" economy.

[Brian4Liberty]

Does a consumption tax apply to labor? If a person is hired to mow your lawn, is that a taxable event? Who pays it to the government?

[ctiger2]

All Income and property taxes are theft. I have no problem with voluntary taxation though (if we must have it to fund the govt). I'd be for a consumption tax on things we don't need to survive.

[No Free Beer]

A flat and simplified tax code is preferable to what we have today. The devil is in the details. What exemptions will there be? Will there be a consumption tax on automobiles? Houses? Stocks? Food? Drinks? Water/garbage? Electricity? Gasoline?

Predictably, the most powerful interests will be first in line for their exemption. So stocks will not be taxed. Next up would be housing, as the real estate and lending industry would benefit at the same time that they could say that it's for the "poor little people" who need to buy a house.

no exemptions. anything a person PURCHASES has a 10 percent tax.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How about zero Federal taxes? I mean, apportionment is still letter of the law, no? Of course, you would have to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment. The ideal solution though is to break all political bonds with the Potomac, as well as your State capitols, and county seats and actually live in a free-society, barring that though, apportionment would work for a bit until wealthy interests bought what they currently enjoy now - vast re-distributionist policies off the backs of those stolen from, we call tax payers.

[Slacker]

Is this a covert Gary Johnson thread?

[flynn]

You guys fail to think big. Let all those who in government and their offspring pay for the debt. The rest of us can implement a sound currency and a free banking system. All taxes now will be voluntary donations to military. NOBODY has the rights to tax.

[Demigod]

There is no way a sales tax will be 'enough' for politicians.
Here in the Netherlands, we used to have 19% sales tax, 6% on food.
Now they found that the deficit is too great, and there has to be 'austerity'.

Absolutely nothing is cut, maybe some proposed increases, but what is done,
taxes are raised, which one ? Sales tax.
Why ? Because tax on income will not get through as easily.
Increasing sales taxes, these politicians can agree on quite easily.

So starting this October, sales tax will be 21%, and 7% on food.
Tax on gasoline is already bad, a gallon of gas costs you around 8-9$ here when converted from gallon/L euro/$.

Spending is the problem, as long as politicians spend so much money, they will have to tax more.
You can think of all sorts of ways to provide the government with a steady stream of taxpayer money.
I have however been convinced that starving the beast is the only sound thing to do.

I'd like to say, sales tax is a more 'fair' tax, as it does not tax what someone already owns but merely what someone acquires. I am however still of the opinion that a tax like this would not solve the spending problem nor the power grabbing of various politicians.

Same in my country we used to have a 5% or 8% VAT( I don't remember because I did not care ) that was left from the socialistic system but then they raised it to 18% with lies how we should reform and be more EU like.In the near future they will have to raise it again to 21% because the government is spending us dry.On the other hand though the income tax was more or less reformed and now we have a flat 10% tax ( I think the second lowest in Europe after Montenegro ) the problem is we have more regulations that the USA and EU combined not to mention the government agents which every month on pay day fine everyone and everything to meet a designated quota.

In any case I think a 5-8% VAT tax should be enough for any government to fulfill its role in society.

[John F Kennedy III]

Don't most of us already pay 8-9% sales tax? Why do we need consumption tax on top of that? Income tax is about 40% of the federal revenue. I'm completely fine with pulling that rug out from under them and making them figure out how to live within their means and pay down the debt.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Wasn't there a penny plan for a 1% consumption tax and dissolving all others?

[No Free Beer]

How about zero Federal taxes? I mean, apportionment is still letter of the law, no? Of course, you would have to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment. The ideal solution though is to break all political bonds with the Potomac, as well as your State capitols, and county seats and actually live in a free-society, barring that though, apportionment would work for a bit until wealthy interests bought what they currently enjoy now - vast re-distributionist policies off the backs of those stolen from, we call tax payers.

I am sorry, but I said in the post that I didn't want any of the anarchists commenting bc I already know where you all stand.

[No Free Beer]

You guys fail to think big. Let all those who in government and their offspring pay for the debt. The rest of us can implement a sound currency and a free banking system. All taxes now will be voluntary donations to military. NOBODY has the rights to tax.

the constitution grants powers to tax. read it.

[matt0611]

Yes. Abolish all personal and business income taxes and put a retail consumption tax of 5%. That's my preferred tax plan. If I was running for President that would be my proposal.

Along with other changes (massively cutting government departments, spending, and regulations) this country's economy would take off like a rocket.

[Brett85]

Yeah, lets give the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, an entity that is almost impossible to effect by grassroots; the ability to tax us!


Terrible idea, no matter how well intentioned.

They already have the ability to tax us. This would simply change the type of tax from a direct tax to an indirect tax, which would be a vast improvement.

[Pericles]

You're right that a tax will not solve problems--but your post got me curious, is there not much of a black market in the Netherlands? Here in the states, high sales taxes often trigger that sort of activity.

When I was stationed in Germany, if you had some tradesman do some work for you, there were two prices - with a receipt and without. Guess which was lower by an amount equal to the VAT and a couple of percent?

[Root]

A big problem with sales taxes, is it uses the business collecting the tax and unpaid tax (unwilling) collectors. The business owner, must then take time/production away from profit earning once a month/quarter to calculate the tax obligation owed by all their customers. I'm sure there's a way to collect the tax without using the business owners labor to do so, but I'm not sure what that looks like in practice.

[DamianTV]

No Taxation Without Representation. We have No Representation, thus we should have No Taxation. Sure that sounds a little anarchist, but then again, our Founding Fathers were Terrorizers too!

[Brian4Liberty]

Does a consumption tax apply to labor? If a person is hired to mow your lawn, is that a taxable event? Who pays it to the government?


no exemptions. anything a person PURCHASES has a 10 percent tax.

Including labor? I am not familiar with all of the various proposals, but it seems like hiring a person to do something is a "purchase" of a service.

So who pays the government? The seller? In that case, it seems like a sales tax is very close to an income tax. If someone pays you, it it a taxable event, and you are responsible for reporting and paying the government.


A big problem with sales taxes, is it uses the business collecting the tax and unpaid tax (unwilling) collectors. The business owner, must then take time/production away from profit earning once a month/quarter to calculate the tax obligation owed by all their customers. I'm sure there's a way to collect the tax without using the business owners labor to do so, but I'm not sure what that looks like in practice.

Agree that it is a major pain and a drag on productivity to do tax related paperwork. One difference between an indivdual and a business is that businesses already must perform some amount of paperwork, even if it is just accounting. I would prefer to first eliminate 100% of the burden from the individual.

[jbauer]

Its fun to talk about getting rid of taxes, but lets face the fact that we have a Government that already thinks "they" create the wealth. How the heck are you gonna convince them to give up any power of taxation without some sort of systematic collapse?

[Zippyjuan]

Let's check some numbers. Total US personal consumption in 2011 was $10.76 trillion. http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/GDP_Components.htm That includes goods and services. To keep numbers the same, let's also look at the US budget for 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget That called for $3.8 trillion in spending. If we were to keep spending the same you would need a national sales tax rate of 35%- not five to ten percent. $4 a gallon of gas would go up to $5.40 a gallon. If you exclude services from taxes and only tax the sale of goods (from the same source above) which came to $3.6 trillion, your sales tax would be just over 100%. Now your $4 gas is over $8 a gallon.

Consider also that some 45% of all federal income tax filers do not owe any net taxes. Suddenly they would be hit with paying 35% more for everything they buy (or 100% depending on if services are excluded). In all likelyhood, the people here are mostly in that 45%. Thus for the majority of tax payers, replacing all taxes with a national sales tax would mean paying much higher taxes than they currently do. Those at the high end would see their taxes reduced. Lower income people also spend a higher precent of their income purchasing goods than the wealthy do so as a percent of income would be paying a signficanatly higher effective tax rate.

But let's ignore the size of government today. How much could you fund if you went with a ten percent tax rate on goods and services? You could collect $1.076 trillion in taxes (assuming consumption did not go down due to the higher taxes on goods and services which it likely would). That would cover Social Security and Medicare and nothing else. If you exclude services, a ten percent tax on goods would raise $360 billion which would cover about half of Social Security. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget A five percent sales tax on goods and not services would only cover the interest on the debt.