25% national sales tax would pay for universal health care, balance the budget and exempt most Americans from the income tax

[Marilyn. 340]

I have to say, paying sales tax on food does seem to be nonsensical. I guess I don't understand your tax system at all. It seems reasonable to me to zero rate food. I can understand taxing eating in a restaurant of course. In the UK children's clothing and shoes are also zero rated.

Why? What's so special about food?

It depends how one views things, of course. Personally, I do think that taxes should have at least some proportionality to one's income. Food is an essential item, one can't live without it. Taxing food therefore means that those on a lower income are necessarily paying a greater % of their income out again in taxes. That does not seem reasonable to me.

Maybe the poor people could plant a garden and can or freeze some of their home grown food to save money. This tax would force people to live a little different. What is wrong with a 12 year old weeding a garden or a welfare mom hoeing the corn. I grew up poor according to my mother. I was picking strawberrys when I was 10 years old for 10cents a quart. Give people something to do instead of pumping out more babies. Want to save money on the food budget raise it yourself.

kind of hard to do if you live in an apartment

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wrong. Further, Section 9, of the same article prohibits an income tax.

...

The only controversy about the issue is in your mind. Without the Sixteenth Amendment, an Income tax, (a kind of Excise tax) would be limited to wages from labor only. You won't be able to tax them rich folks and big corporations on profits, rents, dividends, and such.

Bill, go back and read your statement I highlighted in red. You made the claim that Section 9, which you pasted in reply makes it clear that income tax is prohibited, which is not true.

see below...

In 1895 the United States Supreme Court, in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held a tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. The power to tax real and personal property, or that such was a direct tax, was not denied by the Constitution.^[10]Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

....

There's a world of difference between impractical and unconstitutional. What had been unconstitutional was the taxation but how it the tax was applied. A huge difference.

Are you making a point here, or do you just have a hair stuck somewhere?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wrong. Further, Section 9, of the same article prohibits an income tax.

...

The only controversy about the issue is in your mind. Without the Sixteenth Amendment, an Income tax, (a kind of Excise tax) would be limited to wages from labor only. You won't be able to tax them rich folks and big corporations on profits, rents, dividends, and such.

Bill, go back and read your statement I highlighted in red. You made the claim that Section 9, which you pasted in reply makes it clear that income tax is prohibited, which is not true.

see below...

In 1895 the United States Supreme Court, in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held a tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. The power to tax real and personal property, or that such was a direct tax, was not denied by the Constitution.^[10]Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

....

There's a world of difference between impractical and unconstitutional. What had been unconstitutional was the taxation but how it the tax was applied. A huge difference.

Are you making a point here, or do you just have a hair stuck somewhere?

Bill, buddy....ol' pal. Feel free to believe that Article 1, Sec. 9 makes taxing income unconstitutional without the 16th Amendment.

But above and beyond....those who are upset with paying taxes - have long been trying to argue over the constitutionality of taxation. Just like the whole teabaggers and secessionists...it really amounts to sour grapes over the newly elected President and his policies. Taxation without representation my #######.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wrong. Further, Section 9, of the same article prohibits an income tax.

...

The only controversy about the issue is in your mind. Without the Sixteenth Amendment, an Income tax, (a kind of Excise tax) would be limited to wages from labor only. You won't be able to tax them rich folks and big corporations on profits, rents, dividends, and such.

Bill, go back and read your statement I highlighted in red. You made the claim that Section 9, which you pasted in reply makes it clear that income tax is prohibited, which is not true.

see below...

In 1895 the United States Supreme Court, in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held a tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. The power to tax real and personal property, or that such was a direct tax, was not denied by the Constitution.^[10]Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

....

There's a world of difference between impractical and unconstitutional. What had been unconstitutional was the taxation but how it the tax was applied. A huge difference.

Are you making a point here, or do you just have a hair stuck somewhere?

Bill, buddy....ol' pal. Feel free to believe that Article 1, Sec. 9 makes taxing income unconstitutional without the 16th Amendment.

But above and beyond....those who are upset with paying taxes - have long been trying to argue over the constitutionality of taxation. Just like the whole teabaggers and secessionists...it really amounts to sour grapes over the newly elected President and his policies. Taxation without representation my #######.

Dude, if you listen to the movement, they were pissed off with the Bushies and now they are pissed off with the Obamites. Government spending has gotten out of hand, and the country is now all but officially bankrupt. You liberals can take it personal, but it's not. Lots of blame to go around.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dude, if you listen to the movement, they were pissed off with the Bushies and now they are pissed off with the Obamites. Government spending has gotten out of hand, and the country is now all but officially bankrupt. You liberals can take it personal, but it's not. Lots of blame to go around.

There were no rallies until after Bush left office and Obama was sworn in. Go figure.

[Danno 1,228]

Dude, if you listen to the movement, they were pissed off with the Bushies and now they are pissed off with the Obamites. Government spending has gotten out of hand, and the country is now all but officially bankrupt. You liberals can take it personal, but it's not. Lots of blame to go around.

There were no rallies until after Bush left office and Obama was sworn in. Go figure.

I think this had more to do with the country realizing the Market drop was not temp and then realizing all the money handed out did noting (or so it seemed).

About that Time Obama was in office and he was behind even crazier schemes, it was a building pressure obama came in office about the time it was growing and then he

a. added to it.

B. Inspired little confidence in this regard.

c. liberals are always more suspect with it comes to the economy and defense.

[Texanadian 10]

Well, we Americans aren't paying any tax on gasoline!

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/up..._Map_4_2009.pdf

So much for Californians saying they pay less tax on gasoline.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, we Americans aren't paying any tax on gasoline!

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/up..._Map_4_2009.pdf

So much for Californians saying they pay less tax on gasoline.

Who said that? We generally pay 20 cents or more per gallon than the national average.

[mawilson 2,133]

In 1895 the United States Supreme Court, in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held a tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. The power to tax real and personal property, or that such was a direct tax, was not denied by the Constitution.^[10]Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

....

There's a world of difference between impractical and unconstitutional. What had been unconstitutional was the taxation but how it the tax was applied. A huge difference.

Steven,

Are you on crack?

Read the paragraph you posted above.

[Heracles 417]

We have the GST in AUS. Goods and Services Tax. Similar to the VAT.

It is a flat federal 10% sales tax that was actually implemented by the right wing conservative party. Not only has it been successful but it has recouped billions lost in the black market and out of state payments, cash sales etc.

It effectively replaced all state sales taxes. The states now have money distributed accordingly to them. They actually receive more money due to less loopholes.

[Heracles 417]

Not this unconstitutional ####### again.

There probably isn't a single scholar abroad who does not laugh at the thought of deciding something on the basis of whether it is Constitutional or not. That is, rather than a logical discussion or bet yet, actually research on the matter.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Constellation

[Texanadian 10]

Well, we Americans aren't paying any tax on gasoline!

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/up..._Map_4_2009.pdf

So much for Californians saying they pay less tax on gasoline.

Who said that? We generally pay 20 cents or more per gallon than the national average.

Right here

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, we Americans aren't paying any tax on gasoline!

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/up..._Map_4_2009.pdf

So much for Californians saying they pay less tax on gasoline.

Who said that? We generally pay 20 cents or more per gallon than the national average.

Right here

That's Steve for ya. He confuses fact with reality on a constant basis.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[mawilson 2,133]

Not this unconstitutional ####### again.

There probably isn't a single scholar abroad who does not laugh at the thought of deciding something on the basis of whether it is Constitutional or not. That is, rather than a logical discussion or bet yet, actually research on the matter.

Look, man, it's very simple.

The Constitution is a document that explictly lists what the Federal Government is allowed to do.

Anything more than that is an abuse of power.

Does the Constitution allow the President and Congress to nationalize and run a private company?

Guarantee auto warranties? Disregard bankruptcy law? Allow judges to rewrite mortgages?

Hell NO!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

With all due respect, it is a bit hard to 'provide for the common defense' among other things we expect from the Federal government, without some sort of tax...

The thread started out as an idea to add a flat 25% national sales tax. That works for the wealthy, but effectively cuts 25% of the spendable budgets of the overwhelming majority of US Citizens. Otherwise, it is a great plan!

The Constitutional arguments seem beside the point...