NationStates Jolt Archive

What tax system do you think is the best? The poll will explain further.

Yup. Progressive tax is the only serious alternative.

A progressive tax that is easy to understand and doesn't leave room for loopholes, or what economists call the "imaginary tax."

Progressive and low taxation. So the rich pay a little bit more % but overall everyone pays only a small percentage.

A simple progressive system with no exceptions or writeoffs. There can be a separate system of incentives that give rebates.

Non progressive national sales tax. Income taxes punish achievement, and wind up being over complicated. Not to mention that most small businesses are affected by these complications, and forced to make decisions based on Tax Impact v. Profit. Down with the Income Tax, up with the FairTax.

To quote Plato: "Where there is an Income Tax, the just man shall pay more, and the unjust man less, on the same amount of income."

Progressive income tax and VAT. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket, as my maths teacher used to say.

A progressive tax that is easy to understand and doesn't leave room for loopholes, or what economists call the "imaginary tax."
Why would a progressive tax have more loopholes? All the loopholes are in the definition of taxable income rather than the calculation of the actual tax rate.

Progressive income tax and VAT. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket, as my maths teacher used to say.

VAT, or Value Added Tax, is the biggest scam in history. If you have an up front sales tax at the point of sale in a retail establishment, then you will know when taxes hike because it will be on the receipt. However, with a VAT, the Government can raise your taxes without your knowledge, and hide it as inflation.

Progressive income tax and VAT. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket, as my maths teacher used to say.

I like the idea of VAT. It's more complicated than a normal sales tax, but it doesn't put all of the burden on the retailer, which seems fair.

Why would a progressive tax have more loopholes? All the loopholes are in the definition of taxable income rather than the calculation of the actual tax rate.

Go look up the AMT, or Alternative Minimum Tax. It was passed because of a perceived Tax Hole where certain people where getting more than the government thought they deserved.

I like the idea of VAT. It's more complicated than a normal sales tax, but it doesn't put all of the burden on the retailer, which seems fair.
Well, either way, it's the same to the consumer.

I like the idea of VAT. It's more complicated than a normal sales tax, but it doesn't put all of the burden on the retailer, which seems fair.

That's where your wrong. Corporations and businesses do not pay taxes, they collect them. All the burden is on the individual.

Well, either way, it's the same to the consumer.

Awww, but that's where your wrong. Its easier to mess with a VAT, but it is harder to mess with the FairTax.

A progressive system which is simple and does not provide a disincentive to earn more.

Go look up the AMT, or Alternative Minimum Tax. It was passed because of a perceived Tax Hole where certain people where getting more than the government thought they deserved.
A tax hole created by the definition of taxable income, not the progressive tax system. You don't need AMT to have a progressive tax system. Other countries don't have AMT, and retain a progressive structure.

That's where your wrong. Corporations and businesses do not pay taxes, they collect them. All the burden is on the individual.

No, I'm pretty sure they pay taxes. Now, maybe they pass the costs on to the consumers, but don't they do that with a sales tax anyway?

A tax hole created by the definition of taxable income, not the progressive tax system. You don't need AMT to have a progressive tax system. Other countries don't have AMT, and retain a progressive structure.

Maybe not, and they are luckier for it. But the best system is to remove the Income Tax and switch over to a Sales Tax.

Are you aware that you pay on average $2,000 more because of the Shadow Economy?

And are you aware that with a Sales Tax we would begin to tax the Underground Economy, thus further lifting your tax burden?

Awww, but that's where your wrong. Its easier to mess with a VAT, but it is harder to mess with the FairTax.
It's the same to the consumer. Under a 10% VAT you pay the same amount as under a 10% sales tax.

And are you aware that with a Sales Tax we would begin to tax the Underground Economy, thus further lifting your tax burden?
So with a sales tax all the crack dealers are going to start paying 5% for every fix they sell? I'm not clear how a sales tax would tax the underground, please explain.

No, I'm pretty sure they pay taxes. Now, maybe they pass the costs on to the consumers, but don't they do that with a sales tax anyway?

Listen, the Corporation does not pay taxes. They pass the burden off to us in price hikes and collect the money that they have to pay. But they are not Paying the Taxes, they are collecting them.

And yes, the Sales Tax puts the Retail Store in position of a Tax Collector, just like it is today. However, they will be responsible for the entire tax collection of the US. And the best part is, that with all the taxes being forced on the Corps removed, then that will remove a 23% hike on goods from taxes that will be levied at the point of sale, thus keeping the price of goods the same.

Maybe not, and they are luckier for it. But the best system is to remove the Income Tax and switch over to a Sales Tax.

Are you aware that you pay on average $2,000 more because of the Shadow Economy?

And are you aware that with a Sales Tax we would begin to tax the Underground Economy, thus further lifting your tax burden?
That's a completely different issue. I was talking about why a progressive income tax would not necessarily have more loopholes than any other kind of income tax. Nothing to do with the fairtax.

It's the same to the consumer. Under a 10% VAT you pay the same amount as under a 10% sales tax.

The cost may be the same, but it is easier to increase the VAT because the costs are hidden in the production of the item.

So with a sales tax all the crack dealers are going to start paying 5% for every fix they sell? I'm not clear how a sales tax would tax the underground, please explain.

Okay. Common question on this, and I will be happy to explain.

Though the illegal activites themselves will not be taxed, criminals buy things. They shop in stores, buy cars, buy gas, buy or rent homes, go to the doctor, go to the dentist, etc.

Under the Income Tax, there is no way for us to actually tax these criminals. But, if they do any normal, legal activity, than the 23% tax will be levied.

Go to the Grocery Store? Taxed
Go to the Doctor's Office? Taxed
Buy a new Home? Taxed
Buy a car? Taxed

Therefore, they will not be able to avoid this taxation. It is believed that the Underground Economy represents Trillions of dollars, and the Shadow Economy, legal activites payed under the table in cash, represents tens of billions of dollars, all of it untaxed under the current income tax.

And then you have the Offshore Economy. Without an Income Tax, there will be no Tax Evasion or Offshore Accounts, and that money will stay in the US.

The cost may be the same, but it is easier to increase the VAT because the costs are hidden in the production of the item.
No it isn't. "Government increases VAT by 5%" is just as obvious a newspaper headline as "Government increases Sales Tax by 5%."

No it isn't. "Government increases VAT by 5%" is just as obvious a newspaper headline as "Government increases Sales Tax by 5%."

How many people actually read the newspaper anymore? Not to mention that tax laws change, in some counties, the sales tax changes every month or every week even. Not to mention that tax hikes, especially small ones, are almost never mentioned on the news. The only time you ever notice the tax changes is when the Democrats get annoyed because the Republicans are trying to re-duce taxes or vice-versa.

The FairTax on the other hand, is printed right on the Receipt when you buy something. One glance at the FairTax rate will tell you whether or not it has been raised or lowered.

How many people actually read the newspaper anymore? Not to mention that tax laws change, in some counties, the sales tax changes every month or every week even. Not to mention that tax hikes, especially small ones, are almost never mentioned on the news. The only time you ever notice the tax changes is when the Democrats get annoyed because the Republicans are trying to re-duce taxes or vice-versa.
This may well be due to the way in which you impose your taxes. In the UK, our tax rates are all set annually in the Budget, which is very public and scrutinised in all the news. It's a big thing. If you change your tax rates on an ad-hoc basis or very frequently, then the problem might be the way you levy taxes rather than the tax itself. The rate of VAT is printed on a receipt here in the same way I remember sales taxes being printed on a receipt in the US, and is just as obvious or 'in'obvious.

The FairTax on the other hand, is printed right on the Receipt when you buy something. One glance at the FairTax rate will tell you whether or not it has been raised or lowered.
As is VAT in most stores. Even if it wasn't, considering that the fairtax replaces every tax and would thus become the only national tax, raising it would be a pretty big deal deal, and enough to be seized upon by the media.

This may well be due to the way in which you impose your taxes. In the UK, our tax rates are all set annually in the Budget, which is very public and scrutinised in all the news. It's a big thing. If you change your tax rates on an ad-hoc basis or very frequently, then the problem might be the way you levy taxes rather than the tax itself. The rate of VAT is printed on a receipt here in the same way I remember sales taxes being printed on a receipt in the US, and is just as obvious or 'in'obvious.

Then you are very lucky. Because the citizenry here in the states are so focused on whether or not Britney Spears is gonna get custody of her children that most couldn't tell you what the Budget is. Not to mention that with the sheer amount of Pork in the budgets, it takes until the next budget comes out to wade through it all.

As for the VAT though, you have to remember that the VAT is added at all points along the production line until it gets to the retail store. There fore, a 1% increase with a VAT will mean more money is sent to the government than a 1% increase with a FairTax at the point of sale for the item.

And remember, that the Corporations just collect the taxes and send them on to the Government, meaning that that difference is passed on to you, in price increases.

Also, I doubt that there is a monthly Pre-Bate based on family size and poverty level with a VAT. There is with the FairTax.

Thoreau said that the best government is that which governs not at all. In the same line, the best tax is that which taxes not at all.

I support the Fair Tax, Fair Tax FTW!

Then you are very lucky. Because the citizenry here in the states are so focused on whether or not Britney Spears is gonna get custody of her children that most couldn't tell you what the Budget is. Not to mention that with the sheer amount of Pork in the budgets, it takes until the next budget comes out to wade through it all.
As is the UK, I assure you that, but the budget is still a big deal, perhaps it's the only time taxes are changed.

As for the VAT though, you have to remember that the VAT is added at all points along the production line until it gets to the retail store. There fore, a 1% increase with a VAT will mean more money is sent to the government than a 1% increase with a FairTax at the point of sale for the item.
That simply isn't true.

Example

Consider the manufacture and sale of any item, which in this case we will call a widget.

Without any sales tax

* A widget manufacturer spends $1 on raw materials and uses them to make a widget.
* The widget is sold wholesale to a widget retailer for $1.20, making a profit of $0.20.
* The widget retailer then sells the widget to a widget consumer for $1.50, making a profit of $0.30

With a North American (Canadian Provincial and U.S. State) sales tax

With a 10% sales tax:

* The manufacturer pays $1.00 for the raw materials, certifying it is not a final consumer.
* The manufacturer charges the retailer $1.20, checking that the retailer is not a consumer, leaving the same profit of $0.20.
* The retailer charges the consumer $1.65 ($1.50 + 10%) and pays the government $0.15, leaving the same profit of $0.30.

So the consumer has paid 10% ($0.15) extra, compared to the no taxation scheme, and the government has collected this amount in taxation. The retailers have not lost anything directly to the tax, but they do have the extra paperwork to do so that they correctly pass on to the government the sales tax they collect. Suppliers and manufacturers have the administrative burden of supplying correct certifications, and checking that their customers (retailers) aren't consumers.

With a value added tax

With a 10% VAT:

* The manufacturer pays $1.10 ($1 + 10%) for the raw materials, and the seller of the raw materials pays the government $0.10.
* The manufacturer charges the retailer $1.32 ($1.20 + $1.20x10%) and pays the government $0.02 ($0.12 minus $0.10), leaving the same profit of $0.20.
* The retailer charges the consumer $1.65 ($1.50 + $1.50x10%) and pays the government $0.03 ($0.15 minus $0.12), leaving the same profit of $0.30.

So the consumer has paid 10% ($0.15) extra, compared to the no taxation scheme, and the government has collected this amount in taxation. The businesses have not lost anything directly to the tax, but they do have the extra paperwork to do so that they correctly pass on to the government the difference between what they collect in VAT (output VAT, an 11th of their income) and what they spend in VAT (input VAT, an 11th of their expenditure).

Note that in each case the VAT paid is equal to 10% of the profit, or 'value added'.

The advantage of the VAT system over the sales tax system is that businesses cannot hide consumption (such as wasted materials) by certifying it is not a consumer.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT

And remember, that the Corporations just collect the taxes and send them on to the Government, meaning that that difference is passed on to you, in price increases.
Yep. That's how VAT works.

Also, I doubt that there is a monthly Pre-Bate based on family size and poverty level with a VAT. There is with the FairTax.
No, but I'm comparing a Sales Tax to VAT. There's no reason why a VAT could be used with the prebate in a fairtax scheme.

the idea that you can have a best tax system is rather idiotic considering it depends on environment how well they apply

though for the UK progressive tax with VAT because it works and has done since the time of Napoleon (not that I'm a stubborn fossil or anything I just don't see a better system out there)

The cost may be the same, but it is easier to increase the VAT because the costs are hidden in the production of the item.

no actually when such tax is increased you rather notice the industry collapse for instance as candy becomes unaffordable to children

that is if you happen to miss the tax increases being announced as they would be

Though the illegal activites themselves will not be taxed, criminals buy things. They shop in stores, buy cars, buy gas, buy or rent homes, go to the doctor, go to the dentist, etc.

ah yes the days of purchasing smuggled goods because its worth avoiding the tax

didn't the US have a revolution over such tax on tea

Thoreau said that the best government is that which governs not at all. In the same line, the best tax is that which taxes not at all.

Anarchist! *catches bomb*

Listen, the Corporation does not pay taxes. They pass the burden off to us in price hikes and collect the money that they have to pay. But they are not Paying the Taxes, they are collecting them.

pish! corporations avoid if at all possible the raising of prices (unless its paying for the label but yeah) because it damages the total sale of units that will be made not forgetting competitiveness

corporations simply have a fall in profits (hardly since inflation never keeps up) whenever a VAT increase is made any other course of action will only do more harm

then that will remove a 23% hike on goods from taxes that will be levied at the point of sale, thus keeping the price of goods the same.

and so Microsoft rules the world!

I'm not sure I read that right

As is the UK, I assure you that, but the budget is still a big deal, perhaps it's the only time taxes are changed.


That simply isn't true.


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT


Yep. That's how VAT works.


No, but I'm comparing a Sales Tax to VAT. There's no reason why a VAT could be used with the prebate in a fairtax scheme.

Okay, but the VAT is still put into place at every level of the production. Thus, you have a way to raise money all along the path, causing small hikes all along the line. Thus, you can have smaller VAT's and still get large amounts of funding because the taxes are hidden. Though the point of sale VAT Rate may be on the receipt, there is no way to guarantee that the price is not higher some where else down the line. Why? Because it is hidden in the costs. To quote Milton Friedman, "The VAT is the most efficient way to raise revenue for the government." It is possible to hide the cost of a VAT and still gain massive amounts of funding while hiding it.

Why? Because you can hide it in the costs of production. Though the budget may be analyzed every year, that is no guarantee that people will do anything about it.

the idea that you can have a best tax system is rather idiotic considering it depends on environment how well they apply

though for the UK progressive tax with VAT because it works and has done since the time of Napoleon (not that I'm a stubborn fossil or anything I just don't see a better system out there)



no actually when such tax is increased you rather notice the industry collapse for instance as candy becomes unaffordable to children

that is if you happen to miss the tax increases being announced as they would be



ah yes the days of purchasing smuggled goods because its worth avoiding the tax

didn't the US have a revolution over such tax on tea



Anarchist! *catches bomb*



pish! corporations avoid if at all possible the raising of prices (unless its paying for the label but yeah) because it damages the total sale of units that will be made not forgetting competitiveness

corporations simply have a fall in profits (hardly since inflation never keeps up) whenever a VAT increase is made any other course of action will only do more harm



and so Microsoft rules the world!

I'm not sure I read that right

Not necessarily, because the VAT increase doesn't need to be very big, it can be small, and cascade across, raising large amounts of revenue.

As for the Smuggling, two things on that you forgot.
1. The taxes where levied by a government across the sea in which we had almost no direct representation
2. The taxes in the FairTax is a 23% Inclusive Sales Tax. under the FairTax, you would eliminate the 23% worth of taxes already in the products. An item costing a dollar now would cost a dollar under the FairTax.

And on the Corp section, they have three options when taxes are increased
1. Take it in the chin and cheap out their Board and Stock Holders
2. Keep prices the same and fire workers to make up the difference
3. Raise prices on goods and pass the money on to you, the consumer

Non progressive national sales tax. Income taxes punish achievement, and wind up being over complicated. Not to mention that most small businesses are affected by these complications, and forced to make decisions based on Tax Impact v. Profit. Down with the Income Tax, up with the FairTax.

To quote Plato: "Where there is an Income Tax, the just man shall pay more, and the unjust man less, on the same amount of income."
Where as in the fairtax, the just man shall pay more and the unjust man less, especially when the unjust man has more income.

Sales tax punishes those who don't have enough money to invest and collect an appreciable amount of interest on.

Where as in the fairtax, the just man shall pay more and the unjust man less, especially when the unjust man has more income.

Sales tax punishes those who don't have enough money to invest and collect an appreciable amount of interest on.

And that's where your wrong. There is about a 23% increase already in the price of items, and by removing this, you will have a 30% drop. Thus, with a 23% inclusive tax, the funds remain the same.

Okay, but the VAT is still put into place at every level of the production. Thus, you have a way to raise money all along the path, causing small hikes all along the line. Thus, you can have smaller VAT's and still get large amounts of funding because the taxes are hidden.

Though the point of sale VAT Rate may be on the receipt, there is no way to guarantee that the price is not higher some where else down the line. Why? Because it is hidden in the costs. To quote Milton Friedman, "The VAT is the most efficient way to raise revenue for the government." It is possible to hide the cost of a VAT and still gain massive amounts of funding while hiding it.
I genuinely don't think you understand how VAT works. A VAT rate of 5% imposed at every level produces the same amount of tax revenue as a 5% sales tax imposed at point of sale. If you have something that costs £100 with no sales tax or VAT you will pay £105 in both a 5% sales tax and 5% VAT and the government will receive £5 in both a sales tax and VAT. I've already provided the maths, if you read it through. Therefore the VAT rate printed on the receipt shows the total increase in price all the way through production: when it says 17.5% in my receipts it means the government has increased the total cost by 17.5% and taken that for itself, just like under a sales tax.

Why? Because you can hide it in the costs of production. Though the budget may be analyzed every year, that is no guarantee that people will do anything about it.
That can be argued about any kind of tax, including a sales tax.

What tax system do you think is the best?

Whether the owner manager calls it "profit" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism) or the bureaucrat politician calls it "taxes," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism) blood-sucking parasitism is exactly that.

There is no "best" disease. The best cure, however, is to liberate those who labor from those who thieve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism). Anything else is to simply listen to the eternal babbling of parasites arguing over which set of chains is more fashionable.

I like the idea of keeping things as sales tax, but this wouldn't provide public services with enough funds. I strongly approve of a national healthcare service, and if my wages need to be taxed to keep that going then I'm quite happy to let them be taxed.

I would be entirely in favour of a 100% taxation rate if I could be convinced that I'd be given food, shelter, transport, clothing, communications services, education, healthcare and entertainment for free (given particular ethical constraints such as that the same be extended to everyone, that it be perfectly sustainable, that it not contribute to environmental damage and that resources aren't stolen from people not benefitting from the system), but I don't see this happening in the near future.

Flat tax in the 10-15% area for programs like internal and external security, infrastructure and economic regulation where appropriate.

Any government programs beyond that would be financed by an "opt-in" approach with people choosing to purchase access to public healthcare, welfare/unemployment insurance and so on by ticking the box on their tax return and paying the bill for that year (which could also be in "% of your income" form).

Importantly, if you have been a member of such a public program for a few years, you will be covered for it even if you don't pay for a period of time afterwards. That way people don't suddenly lose access just when they need it because they lose their job and can't pay.

Anarchist! *catches bomb*

Tsk tsk. Perpetuating harmful stereotypes, uh? :p

Not necessarily, because the VAT increase doesn't need to be very big, it can be small, and cascade across, raising large amounts of revenue.

and profit margins on individual items has been tiny since the age of mass production

The taxes in the FairTax is a 23% Inclusive Sales Tax. under the FairTax, you would eliminate the 23% worth of taxes already in the products. An item costing a dollar now would cost a dollar under the FairTax.

okay I just crashed, are you suggesting such a tax would be the same as VAT and be able to fund the whole country?

And on the Corp section, they have three options when taxes are increased
1. Take it in the chin and cheap out their Board and Stock Holders
2. Keep prices the same and fire workers to make up the difference
3. Raise prices on goods and pass the money on to you, the consumer

however 3 doesn't happen because as I explained when prices rise units sold fall (and this is bad because companies make profit on units sold)

nor does the 1 really seeing as how VAT increases never come close to out pacing growth so the wealthy still keep their happy little oligarchy happy

SNIP

living in a world without money would be grand and I hope with automation inevitable that we can do without the work as well :)

...would be financed by an "opt-in" approach with people choosing to purchase access to public healthcare, welfare/unemployment insurance and so on by ticking the box on their tax return and paying the bill for that year (which could also be in "% of your income" form).

Importantly, if you have been a member of such a public program for a few years, you will be covered for it even if you don't pay for a period of time afterwards. That way people don't suddenly lose access just when they need it because they lose their job and can't pay.


At least in the United States, this is pretty much exactly how various mutuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization), friendly societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_society), and other cooperative non-government social welfare organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) operated before they were effectively destroyed by the introduction of the New Deal. Simply combine the general principle of "opt-in" with a guarantee/insurance (as in your second paragraph above) but with a non-government and cooperative administration, and one has essentially arrived at my ideal.

I would add, however, that the reliance on a voluntary (and thus non-guaranteed) income meant that such cooperative non-government social welfare organizations were also motivated to take a strong stance against malingering and other abuses.

According to what I've read (David T. Beito, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 2000) the cooperative non-government social welfare organizations were so successful in providing quality medical care at very low prices that private medical insurance businesses and professional associations became some of the strongest supporters of FDR's New Deal. The new welfare state, and associated regulatory regime, would be perfect for eliminating the competition.

The key issue is political in nature; who owns and controls it? Argument over percentages is to miss the point entirely.

Tsk tsk. Perpetuating harmful stereotypes, uh? :p

The development of anarcho-pacifism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism) would have been unnecessary, if such were an entirely imaginary stereotype.

The development of anarcho-pacifism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism) would have been unnecessary, if such were an entirely imaginary stereotype.

I called it a stereotype, not one that was entirely imaginary.

The tax system under which I don't have to pay any taxes :)

And that's where your wrong. There is about a 23% increase already in the price of items, and by removing this, you will have a 30% drop. Thus, with a 23% inclusive tax, the funds remain the same.
I'm afraid that is absurd, and doesn't even address what I said.

I called it a stereotype, not one that was entirely imaginary.

Honestly, I'm not concerned with how imaginary a stereotype is or is not. I just wanted to post some Propaganda of the Wiki Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism).

A small sales tax and 2% tariff.

A small enough government that can be supported by the direct & indirect taxes being brought in as well as tarrifs. No income tax and no fair/sales tax. That's the taxing system I favor.

Also, at least in America, 100% of your Federal Income Taxes go to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest we incur for 'borrowing' our money from them. Every dollar that comes from the Federal Reserve is really $1+ interest. Your federal income taxes do not go towards services like, but not limited to, roads, infrastructure, military, education, welfare, health services, etc.

Poll Tax. Gives people the incentive to build and invest wealth rather than just hoard or frivolously spend their income. Tax Coupons should be given to the impoverished, and polls should be implemented on all government infrastructure, technology, and administration. If you can't afford it, don't use it. Furthermore, private enterprise will have a fiscal incentive to provide cheaper alternatives while charity will have a moral incentive to provide supportive alternatives.

A progressive tax that starts at 1% with an income of $25,000 and goes up 0.5% every $10,000. The cap would be at 60% ($1,500,000) and any income passed that point would just be taxed the highest rate possible.

VAT only, no income tax. That's if there is to be tax at all (which, unfortunately, there is).

What I don't get is people advocating a "progressive" tax, which punishes you for actually having money. Don't you guys get that in a flat-tax environment, rich people would pay more anyway?

That said, I do think there should be tax relief if you're on minimum wage or otherwise at the bottom end. 17.5% on goods is a heck of a lot when you're earning a pittance.

Poll Tax.

A tax, effectively on the right to vote?

You don't know what happened in the UK when Maggie Thatcher tried that, do you?

A tax, effectively on the right to vote?

You don't know what happened in the UK when Maggie Thatcher tried that, do you?
In all fairness, what happened was that people protested because the tax was much higher than expected, not so much because of the method of taxation itself, though I agree that it's even theoretically a really bad idea.

Fair Tax all the way, no question about it. Get to keep 100% of your hard-earned paycheck and pay 23% sales tax on stuff you buy, plus, get a prebate to offset the tax paid on food and everyday living stuff that you should not have to pay tax on.

A low flat tax, so prosperity and productivity IS NOT punished.

A 100% tax rate, so in effect a planned economy.

A simple progressive system with no exceptions or writeoffs.
you are only hurting families and the poor with that.

Regressive tax. A low percentage for the rich, and higher for the poor. It'll finally give people the motivation they need to succeed.

one that doesn't tax me.

Regressive tax. A low percentage for the rich, and higher for the poor. It'll finally give people the motivation they need to succeed.

You put far too much weight on 'incentive', all the greedy need for motivation not to be greedy is a gun to the head or a few years of hard labor to ennoble them.

In a land where "equal protection of the law" is enshrined in our Constitution, why do we have a progressive tax or anyone even supporting the idea? Rich people do not need to pay more to see a movie than a poor man. They do not need to pay more for a burger at Wendy's. So why should they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

Poor people probably cause more trouble than the rich if anything they should pay a higher percentage of taxes since they cause more social problems. However, I think that everyone should be taxed equally except for particularly meritorious or villainous people. Felons should be taxed higher than the average Joe. Veterans should get taxed less than the average Joe. Congressional Medal of Honor winners should be exempt from taxes as should the widows of those who fell in battle.

Ever win a Nobel Prize? You should get a tax break. Start a company that adds to the economy and employs people? You should get a tax break.