Very likely (and I find it interesting – in one of the negative senses of interesting – that Congress has been so reluctant to do that). But apparently this legislation specifically says they’re not going to do that.
– and yeah, that is a good point about tourism.
I may have read wrong, but I think the draft I looked at seemed to suggest that the federal sales tax would replace all state sales taxes.
Then the amount would have to go up by another 8% or so.
Which would mean a) that the 23% would also have to cover everything currently paid for by state sales taxes and b) that the states would lose control over all the things they’ve been paying for that way?
Would it really? I don’t know exactly where you travel to or how sales taxes work there- but in my experience you are going to pay various taxes on hotel rooms, sales tax on restaurant meals, sales tax on admission to attractions and so on.
This “fair tax” would cost more but I don’t know that it would be enough to affect tourism - the impact on lower income people in the US is mostly going to be due to items that are currently not taxable becoming taxable , not so much because the tax rate is so much higher than current sales tax rates.
Sections 101-103 repeal income taxes, payroll taxes and social security taxes. There’s no mention of repealing any state taxes ( income or other ) and I don’t think Congress actually has the authority to eliminate any state taxes. And assuming they had the authority, they couldn’t just repeal state sales taxes, because then states would just end up increasing real estate/personal property and income taxes. They’d have to eliminate all of them. Not gonna happen.
*For example, my state and city have a sales tax - rent is not subject to sales tax, groceries are not subject to sales tax, medication, clothing that costs less than $110 per item is not subject to sales tax.
Is there anywhere in the US where those taxes run anywhere near as high as 23%, though?
New York’s generally considered high tax, and sales taxes where I am run 8%, half of which is the county. I think there’s another percent or two on a hotel room.
Here in Ontario, our sales tax is 13%. Sales tax rates even in Europe are not as high as 30%, and many countries offer VAT rebates for durable goods taken out of Europe.
Combine that with the current 20% tipping standard and the strong US dollar, tourists will stay away like you wouldn’t believe. I spent 10 days driving the California coast this summer with my wife and kids. I could have has similar length trip in a lower cost European country like Ireland or Portugal for the same budget.
tofor speaks of a UBI offset that would make the salestax “progressive”. That sounds all well and good, but UBI has to be distributed equitably, which it simply will not. If a person has a run of bad luck, in our society it is not that difficult to just end up homeless. In that case, it is difficult to see how the stipend would not just dry right up, making the ascent out of misery all that much more of a slog.
Not a problem. Just make sure that you buy used bootstraps.
And I’m gong to claim that my steak is a used cow, and my beer is used barley, and thus not taxable.
“Fair” tax schemes have been around for forever. Most of us are old enough to remember Steve Forbes’ 1996 presidential campaign based on a Flat tax, which sounded almost exactly similar to the present idiocy. That plan was far more generous to the working classes than today’s plan for an oligarchy. It was superior in every way, in fact, except for the one tiny objection that it couldn’t have worked.
Nevertheless, the right has kept plugging away, trying to get around the stupendous obstacle that Americans hate the idea. How does one do that?
At the Heritage Foundation, we’ve done extensive polling on how Americans feel about tax reform. “Flat tax” as a concept does not poll very well. What polls off the charts and what Americans want overwhelmingly from tax policy is “fairness.”
That was back in 2015. I will grant that the author also knew that "Democrats will scream ‘tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.’” They indeed will and are, obviously, because such a plan is totally about tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. To the right, that’s a feature rather than a bug.
Flat taxes have been thoroughly debunked, about as thoroughly as a flat earth. Neither will ever be eradicated because they are belief systems rather than reality, and some people need belief systems that challenge reality.
“Follow the money” is always a good guiding principle, though. It works quite well here.
If there was the slightest possibility that the act would do that, the rich elites would never let their lapdogs even mention it.
Well then, maybe rich people are the problem that we need to fix.
Unfortunately, the rich elites get to determine both the problem and the solution.
A lot of the problem is that not everyone means the same thing by “fair”.
Why am I quite confident that exceptions for megayachts, supercars, rolexes, diamond bracelets and gold plated golf clubs will be somehow slipped into the legislation at the last minute?
Which is why it will not pass. That doesn’t mean it’s not a motivation for the proposal.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Certainly such things become more difficult without a home, but there are various ways for the homeless to get mail and bank accounts. I imagine hundreds of dollars a month would be enough motivation to make that happen.
That Flat Tax is an income tax, not a consumption tax. Therefore it is not “almost exactly similar” but rather “almost entirely different”.
Surprise, surprise, this Republican idea greatly favors the rich. The rich make far more than they spend, that’s how they are able to get so rich in the first place.
It’s almost exactly similar in the sense that it will massively increase taxes on the poor and middle class and massively reduce taxes on the very rich.
The elites only get to control events up to a point. Unfortunately, they sometimes fail to realize where that point is.
I’m sure there were plenty of elites being led to the guillotines saying “Okay, I get it now. You’re really upset. Can we go back to where we were five years ago? I promise this time I’ll negotiate with you in good faith.”
But the ad hominem fallacy only applies to irrelevancies. If you’re trying to determine if a home is secure, a discovery that the locks were installed by a known thief is not an ad hominem fallacy.