...is that it takes an equal chunk away from everybody, which is also one of the biggest arguments in favor of it.
The anti side points out that everyone has to eat, and that to tax the foods one needs to live takes a big chunk of income away from people who need it the most. The same with medicines and basic health staples, like soap.
One way around that is to exempt certain classes of products from sales tax for everyone. Staple foods (list TBA, but certainly not including potato chips, cookies, soda, and similar "luxury foods"), certain over-the-counter medications and first aid products (all brands), basic personal hygiene products (all brands), and basic household cleaning products (all brands).
That way, the working poor would be able to economize in ways that wouldn't bring undue hardship and ill-health to their families, and the companies who produce the products on the list would still compete with each other. Wealthier families could afford to go for the glitzier products that would cost more: salon-quality shampoo, cartoon character adhesive bandages, etc. It might also encourage healthier eating.
I'm thinking there even might be room for a no-tax, no frills meal at the restaurant of your choice (not all the working poor have kitchens), that anyone could buy. But things like "Joyful Meals" with their special little junky toys, would be subject to sales tax.
Question: Would there be sales tax on stocks and bonds and real estate, and so forth? Would there be sales tax on services, or only on commodities?
Curiously--
Mary Anne
Current Events » in reply to re: Taking on the IRS
One of the biggest arguments against a sales tax
The whole thread (42 posts)
- Librarians can rest a little easier...
- Goldberg on this subject
- Fair and balanced reporting... (not from
- Such unreasonable behavior by those wicked fascists. (n/t)
- Damocles got a lot of rest while that sword was suspended over his head, too.
- Then I guess we could repeal that section, right?