I guess I could deal with it. I hate the income tax. Though this would be a major pain in my ass, with my small business. I would have to deal with state taxes as well as federal sales tax.

---

VAT would help but you cant replace the income tax without having catastophic consequences to the infrastructure of the country.

Rich pay their share of taxes. When you hear of them putting money into "tax free" or "tax friendly" investments, they are given the tax break so that we (the county, locola govt. etc,) can use their money for our betterment.

Example; The M exhange here in Milwaukee.
The state, county, and City all paid for the M exchange (for those not from milwaukee, it was a massive two year improvement of the highway interchange right downtown Milwaukee.

Well, The cost was about 2 billion (guess). Since there wasnt enough cash flow to support it, they needed to borrow from someone. No banks, have that kind of cash to lend (at least not to one risk). So they borrow from the general public in the form of a muni bond issue.

Muni bonds are available for anyone to purchase, even you and me. As a reward for investing back into the economy, tyou get your returns state income tax free and sometimes federal, and sometimes completely tax free. .

Wiht out that incentive (flat tax, VAT) there would be a loss of available capital for growth. That would be bad.

---

So you think we can't make some investments at a lower tier of a VAT and still promote investors to buy into them?

If you give those that can afford to invest an avenue to retain their earnings, they will use it.. whether it is upfront or via income.

Personally, I think this type of setup is much more transparent and would close some of the loopholes that few with the resources exploit.

I need to research it more before I truly give an opinion upon it in depth.. but on the surface from the couple articles/opinions I have read about it... it seems logic and would promote less careless spending directly.

I wonder what effect it would have on cash flow at the federal level...

---

Will NEVER happen.
Think about it......how many times have you heard of the government ending ANY kind of tax????
Yup.....never.
Now....they MAY cut income tax by say, 10%. Then put this "sales tax" into affect. Then within a few years the income tax will be brought back up (they will blame need for the "cost of living" increase) so the income tax will be right where it is now (or higher).
Then they will have BOTH income tax AND spending tax.
THAT is how our government "works".

---

Too simple and expedient, and it has the potential to shrink government. Both are things our illustrious simpletons in Washington do not want. It will never happen!

---

agree it will never happen but it makes so much cents.
those with more income/ disposable or otherwise will pay more. those who don't pay less. you don't want to pay the tax, then don't buy the damn twinkie or cable tv, or whatever.

---

Agreed... and somehow we have to change this country into more of a saving and budget mode than a credit mode.. maybe paying a higher tax will help promote that.

---

That could be a way of getting a refund. If you save a certain amount of money for a specific period of time, Uncle S sends you a check back.

---

Sales and VAT taxes are not progressive, they act somewhat regressively! Do not think that rich people spend more, it is the reverse! A greater proportion of a lower income family's income is spent on consumption compared to a wealthy family, who may spend a lower proportion of their household income on consumption goods, where the rest of the money is invested, hoarded, wasted etc. Sales and VAT taxes do not work in isolation because it worsens the economic balance between the rich and the poor.

---

Proportion to what? Their income or their family size? I guarantee you they spend more in proportion to their family size. And that is what matters. I know from personal experience. Administering a flat rate sales tax (just for example's sake) of say 15% on everything (yes, consumables) is not only the most 'fair' but it'll promote either more spending by the rich (because.. you know.. 50% of their income is all of a sudden THEIRS), and will promote cautious spending of the lesser income housing. It would ultimately put the consumers and US citizens in control over how much taxes they want to pay. Obviously, they'd have to pay some taxes, but how much is what they decide. Not to mention, it would gain ground on prostitution/drug money/illegal business money that is currently being circulated. All of a sudden, anything an illegal immigrant buys in the country, they are paying taxes. Hell, in that case, open up the doors, let 'em all in!

The rich do spend less in proportion to their income. Funny how that works out. Maybe that has something to do with their wealth? As in, how they got it? Never should a government body 'punish' someone who is smart with their money. It's counter-productive when the punishment is bad enough. Taxing the nation to get out of debt is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick it up by the handle.

---