I understand a sales tax might be theoretically regressive, and "unfair" to the less advataged. But is it progressive and "fair" for me to pay nothing? I make less than $15,000 a year. It's adequate. I don't have a house of my own, a nice car, or any of the "finer" things, but I get by. When I see the federal government waste hundreds of billions of dollars on you-name-it, I get mad, but I shrug. Not MY money. But if it WAS, would it make a differece? And, would it be as easy for the "rich" (including most politicians)to dismiss universal health care, for instance, if WE were paying for it, and not THEM? How about all the wonderful, socially good things Europeans enjoy? Would we be enjoying those things too if we, the underclass, put in our fair share? Most STATE governments get THEIR money from sales taxes...why not the federal government? And let's not forget the REALLY rich, the one-percenters, usually ship their money overseas, along with the jobs. Would they do that if they knew the burdens of good governance were spread throughout the entire population?
Think about it.

I was actually thinking about this earlier today. One problem with this is that it could deter people from spending. Spending is what drives the economy. If the opposite is true, stagnant assets should be taxed pretty heavily, since it isn't contributing to the economy.

A sales rtax is the most regressive form of taxation. That is, it impacts those with the lowest income to the greatest degree. I am totally opposed.

i am absolutely opposed to that. the sales tax hits everyone with the same amount, but not to the same effect. a person who makes $7 an hour and a person whose income is in the hundreds of thousands are not affected equally by sales tax. income tax is a good idea, and capital gains should be taxes equitably too, on a scale that makes people pay their fair share. for sales tax alone to support the economy it would have to be such that it destroyed families. and by the way i don't WANT to destroy the irs once and for all. what a horrible idea.

g

I am more a fan of the progressive tax system, first suggested by Adam Smith in his book "The Welaht of nations" back in 1776. It only stands to reason that those who benefit most fromt eh way a society functions, should owe the most to keep that society going. In fact it is in their interest that the society kieep functioning and benefittign them, so they shoudl pay the most to insure that it does keep going.

In virtually every great economy, a "culture of greed" has undermined the system and in the end took down that economy, from ancient Rome onwards.

It would replace income tax. Social Security is more accurately a retirement fund. State and local taxes are earmarked for state and local needs. Highway taxes are for the highways, and so on. The problem with income tax is, a huge % of the population doesn't pay any. I'VE paid in very little because I haven't earned enough. But the POINT is, I should have paid in. Everybody should. Just in easily-digestible increments, with no need for the IRS looking over our shoulders.

I agree, if it did end the IRS and all other taxes. But, knowing how politicians work, my fear is that it would just become an additional tax to every other tax. What about Social Security taxes, which is about 15.3%?