Even if you are able to stem the tide of adding other carve outs, Who defines food? How is compliance maintained between food and non-food items?
Even with minimal carve-outs of food and service industry, seems to me you continue to maintain unnecessary complexity, lobbying incentives, and compliance costs.
Most states already exempt food and labor, itâs already defined, weâre not reinventing the wheel here.
"The difficulty of defining groceries for tax purposes is often a source of humor in the dreary world of tax professionals. Wisconsinâs Department of Revenue published a rule, with 10 examples, for determining when an ice cream cake constituted taxable prepared food.[3] Iowa used to exempt pumpkins if sold for consumption but tax them if used for decorative or other non-food purposes,[4] asking way more of supermarket clerks than is reasonable. States also differ on whether soda and candy are treated as groceries for purposes of a tax exemption, and, inevitably, on how to define the terms. Frequently, the presence of flour as an ingredient is sufficient to declare an item not to be candy, meaning that some candy bars that include wafers are exempt from sales tax, while other candy bars are subject to tax. Meanwhile, some fruit juices and flavored sparkling waters are classified as sodas for tax purposes.[5]
âŚ
Exempting groceries from the sales tax base reduces economic efficiency without achieving its objective of enhancing tax progressivity.
The poorest decile of households experiences 9 percent more sales tax liability with a grocery tax exemption than they would if groceries were taxed and the general rate were reduced commensurately."
If income tax is a contract YOU SIGN you are held lible by yiur signature. However⌠You can sign it in blue ink, lower case and cross out anything you dont agree to. See what they say and have a good day
⌠OrâŚDonât sign the contract and buy/pay into their theft. We have always had choicesâŚjust not the education on Sovereign Rights in a Godly Land.
And yet, in each case mentioned, once they figured it out, the âproblemâ became non-existent.
Two things erroneous on this.
First, if you pay no tax you would still pay not tax with Fairtax as you are below the poverty line and therefore get a pre-bate each month to offset taxes.
Second, thing like the $100 cable bill already have hidden taxes in it that equate to about 22% in most industries so the $100 would likely go up but not by $23
According to what metric?
End all Federal taxes and either replace them with nothing, or if you insist, replace them with tariffs only, as the federal government was run for most of the countryâs existence. A national sales tax would apply to equally to American made products and foreign imports. Tariffs would prioritize the American economy and American made products. Think of tariffs as a national sales tax that exempts American productivity.
Correct, it did⌠now we have come off the gold standard and become a capitalist nation with way too many socialist underpinnings (medicare & social security) being the largest.
Agreed, wealthy people spend way more money and that is the only way to tax them. Their would have to be protections for buying things in any other country like tariffs if the buy items outside the US and have US citizenship they should be taxed on that.
It is the fairest way to tax if you think about it.
5% is the same for you and for me. If I can afford a $100 baseball bat, I pay 5% ($5). If you can afford a $400 baseball bat, you pay 5% ($25). If you are a company buying a $3,000,000 baseball bat, you pay 5% ($150,000).
There already are. Customs declarations and import taxes/tariffs.
Flat 6% tax to ALL on income! No tax on Tips, Soc Sec, OT, inheritance and Unrealized Capital gains. #Trump2024
With a federal sales tax there wouldnât be any other federal taxes that you mentioned, thatâs the point of it.
All the Funding needed is readily Available and in the hands of the Public for any and all Projects that WE deem are necessaryâŚ
These things should NEVER be gifted to Government, mainly because we now see what atrocities they impose upon us for things WE can build on our ownâŚ
They may be allowed, ALLOWED, to Maintenance Our Things, but they should never be allowed to get any credit for Building what WE Need or wantâŚ
Thatâs how it was Before Lincolns War, and we should have it that way again, if only to stop the Massive Grift Machine Called POLITICIANSâŚ
This is just a small reason to End the FED, but mainly, itâs NOT Our Constitutional Money, so they, the Owners of the Fed, get to say how much the Tax is at Each and Every exchange, and donât think for one second that they donât factor in Gifts, they factor Every Transaction, and Tax accordinglyâŚ
Everyones Fighting the TAX, and only a Small FEW are fighting those who Implement the TaxâŚ
So which would be Easier to get rid of???
The TAXES, or those who Directly Say what the Taxes will be???
I say we get rid of the Fed Res Banking Corporation, and along with it, Taxes will just go awayâŚ
Then you should go comment on that thread. 
Stock trades are taxed already, and at a different rate. Unless you mean taxing the sale of them, which would make sense given the topic here. Specifically, gains are already taxed, and long term gains are taxed at a lower rate than general income.
Raising that tax would primarily affect those who are well able to afford it, as thatâs solely disposable income being put into the stocks. However, that also might negatively impact the upwards mobility of middle class people, who are trying to get assets that will grow in value over time. I think the pros outweigh the cons though.
On a different note, I think somewhere along the lines, I did my numbers wrong. I think it has to do with only counting retail sales, like you said. See this graph:
(Edited because I was talking about property taxes cause I thought I was on a different thread)
Given that we already get 16.6% from consumption taxes, I think there are more taxable sales than just retail. However, 42.1% is coming from individual taxes, which I think is mostly income taxes? It might already include capital gains, the graph is kind of unhelpful in that sense. Anyway, there is a LOT of ground to cover there, and we would still have to more than triple our consumption taxes to cover that ground.
I think a more feasible place to start is to gradually phase out income taxes, starting at the lower brackets, and replacing them with other forms of taxation. Especially those that would generally increase social mobility, like capital gains taxes, rather than decrease them, like sales taxes.
I think youâre confusing plain phrasing of the basic facts with âincorrect.â Highly informed, detail-oriented people often do that. But in a general forum, like this, I think it helps to stay out of the weeds. But since you dragged me thereâŚ
Given apportionment and census requirements of direct taxes required by the Constitution, income taxes prior to the 16A were (correctly IMO) ruled unconstitutional. 16A âfixedâ that and the exceptions created allowed for the income tax.
Regardless, my only point was that if 16A is left on the books and a sales tax (a direct tax) is added, the government would obviously use both to tax even more. A sales tax, as a direct tax, would also face the same constitutional challenges as income tax did prior to 16A ratification
What some folks donât get quite yet is if there is NO income tax, all the goods and services we now purchase would not cost as much because those, like me, who sell such things would not be paying these other income and related taxes. What weâre now paying in those types of taxes is MORE than what we would pay than if we make a purchase with a National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) (aka Consumer Tax). (Wish there was time and space to go into more detail here.)
A NRST has been brought before Congress multiple times for over 20 years. The reason why we still donât have it is because our elected representatives in DC and their lobbyists would not be able to enrich themselves. Itâs simply not to their benefit under our present taxation system.
Therefor, our present no-term-limits system needs to be âamended.â Congress wonât do that either, but We the People can! Elsewhere on this site is a place where we can vote to have a Convention of States. Such a convention can and will, according to its charter, impose, amongst other policies that would limit the powers of our federal government, term limits.
When we get people into Congress that know theyâre there for a limited number of terms and have nothing to lose by abolishing the IRS and our egregious, bloated income tax system, they will then have more reason to vote for a NRST! Why? Because THEN it will benefit them personally to do so!
So, please vote for the NRST and the Convention of States!
