Currently uncooked food is exempt from sales taxes. This is because taxes on necessities at a flat rate is regressive to the poor because they pay a higher proportion of their income to necessities. However, this falls short for a number of reasons:
1. Other necessities like clothing and housing are not tax exempt.
2. Unnecessary expenditures like more exorbitant foods are also tax exempt.
Instead, we ought to tax those goods, but offset with a set amount to each person per month. This way there is effectively zero tax on necessities without giving a tax break on luxuries. It's a relatively minor change, yes, but this is a significant flaw in our tax system.
Kind of, but the amount would be so small that no one would call it an income.Are you proposing a UBI or some sort of credit for sales tax?
Currently uncooked food is exempt from sales taxes. This is because taxes on necessities at a flat rate is regressive to the poor because they pay a higher proportion of their income to necessities. However, this falls short for a number of reasons:
1. Other necessities like clothing and housing are not tax exempt.
2. Unnecessary expenditures like more exorbitant foods are also tax exempt.
Instead, we ought to tax those goods, but offset with a set amount to each person per month. This way there is effectively zero tax on necessities without giving a tax break on luxuries. It's a relatively minor change, yes, but this is a significant flaw in our tax system.
Kind of, but the amount would be so small that no one would call it an income.
If it was then it's eminently reasonable.Wasn't that a part of the FairTax scheme, to prebate what taxes on expenditures up the federal poverty line would be?
Instead, we ought to tax those goods, but offset with a set amount to each person per month.
Is there any exempt clothing?I can see myself supporting this proposal. It would eliminate debate over what food/clothing/housing should be exempt.
Is there any exempt clothing?
Sounds reasonable to me.Not that I am aware of but I haven't researched it tbh.
Would citizens in, let's say Minnesota, get a slightly larger dividend than Florida residents since they would have to pay more for cold weather clothing?
A flat sales tax without exemptions or rebate would be regressive because the poor spend more of their income, especially on necessities. I don't think anyone is in favor of a regressive tax.Sorry, I’m on my smaller device and can’t necessarily link up sources.
Here in Virginia, food is NOT exempt from sales tax, although “uncooked” items are taxed at a lower rate (2.5% food vs whatever the state + local add-on rate is for other things). There is no rebate and, if you purchase online and that retailer doesn’t collect the sales tax, you are obligated to declare it and PAY it with your state income tax return. (That’s a whole other issue that’s mostly gone away because most online businesses have become “aware”)
Before you go espousing your proposal, please understand each state may do it differently.
Personally, I’d prefer one “sales” tax rate to cover EVERYTHING. Same rate. You buy, you pay. And, yes, I understand “necessities” are, well, necessities but sales tax is a large portion of state and local revenue. It stays in our community and funds many of our needs.
A "flat tax rate" is the epitome of "equal" and that's where I tend to fall in most things. Whether it's "fair" or "right" is another whole story and I think, maybe, what you're trying to get at in this thread.A flat sales tax without exemptions or rebate would be regressive because the poor spend more of their income, especially on necessities. I don't think anyone is in favor of a regressive tax.
I can see myself supporting this proposal. It would eliminate debate over what food/clothing/housing should be exempt.
This is a very popular idea that goes nowhere because those big ag companies buy out politicians.I am not an overall supporter of this idea, but I will say its far better to just set an amount than to try and track purchases. That would be too complex and invasive.
However, at least for food, this would only work if food stopped being subsidized on the company end. Right now the reason a lot of crap food is cheaper than real food is because of those subsidies. It would be far better for the country to encourage cooking with real food at home and that starts with cost
It's not equal. A family who makes $30k and spends all of it on their necessities gets the full tax rate. A family who makes $1 million and spends only one tenth of it gets 10% of that tax rate.A "flat tax rate" is the epitome of "equal" and that's where I tend to fall in most things. Whether it's "fair" or "right" is another whole story and I think, maybe, what you're trying to get at in this thread.
Once you start to stray from tax-it-all, the arguments become what don't you tax. You should have been around when our state instituted the lower tax on food and then again when our locality voted for a "meals tax" (on top of a sales tax!). It almost became a "what is..is" with "food." Is ketchup food or a condiment? Is a loaf of bread "prepared" and should be taxed as such (when you could buy the ingredients at a lower or no-tax scheme and make it yourself)? That's the kind of silly stuff that turned friends into foes.
Wasn't that a part of the FairTax scheme, to prebate what taxes on expenditures up the federal poverty line would be?
Not that I am aware of but I haven't researched it tbh.
Would citizens in, let's say Minnesota, get a slightly larger dividend than Florida residents since they would have to pay more for cold weather clothing?
It's not equal. A family who makes $30k and spends all of it on their necessities gets the full tax rate. A family who makes $1 million and spends only one tenth of it gets 10% of that tax rate.
clothing is clothing.
This meaningless post does not address at all my question.
So the poor should be punished because they have to spend a higher percentage of their income to survive?yes because the more you spend the more tax you pay. that is just common logic.
No it's not. A winter coat in Minnesota is a necessity. In Florida it's frivolity.clothing is clothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?