A Taxation/Constitutional question.

[ishtat]

Can anybody answer the question: Would it be constitutionally allowable for a US Federal government to introduce a sales tax, for example, in the form of a Value added tax (VAT)?

Sales taxes such as VAT are generally the province of the separate states but is there any legal impediment to the Feds acting similarly.

I do not want to know whether a Federal Sales tax would be either a good or a bad thing, just whether it might be legally possible. Thanks.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Can anybody answer the question: Would it be constitutionally allowable for a US Federal government to introduce a sales tax, for example, in the form of a Value added tax (VAT)?

Sales taxes such as VAT are generally the province of the separate states but is there any legal impediment to the Feds acting similarly.

I do not want to know whether a Federal Sales tax would be either a good or a bad thing, just whether it might be legally possible. Thanks.

"The Fair Tax." It used to be HR-24. It is, in effect, a national sales tax provisional on the repeal of the 16th amendment (Income Tax). It needs to be revisited.

 

[ll74]

"The Fair Tax." It used to be HR-24. It is, in effect, a national sales tax provisional on the repeal of the 16th amendment (Income Tax). It needs to be revisited.

But if tax is theft, then how fair is any tax?

 

[JohnEngelman]

A value added tax is a sales tax, which would be regressive. the income tax is intentionally progressive. When it was much more progressive the national debt was not a problem.

 

[Venefica]

I do not know US taxes but the taxation subject of a sales tax and income tax is completely different. Sales tax taxes the turnover of a deal, income tax the income (earnings minus expenses) from an income source.

 

[Rebel5soul]

A value added tax is a sales tax, which would be regressive. the income tax is intentionally progressive. When it was much more progressive the national debt was not a problem.

A reflection of your economic ignorance.

 

[LLCox]

Super Bowl players money taxed. Sam Darnold taxed until he lost money playing in SB. Is this a great country or what.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...r-bowl-winnings/ar-AA1W0qoH?ocid=BingNewsSerp

 

[JohnEngelman]

A reflection of your economic ignorance.

I am always willing to learn. Please reduce my economic ignorance by explaining how what I wrote in comment # 4 is not true.

 

[HisArpy]

Here's the problem with all of these "alternative" tax ideas.

NONE of them, not a single one, would prevent the government from just raising the tax at any time the government wants to do so.

So, you think the "fair tax" at whatever rate is ok. Right up until the government decides it needs a bit more money to pay for some pork. After that, what do you do? You certainly can't complain because you voted to be fucked, without the benefit of even a dollop of lube, that way.

So, let's just get real and stop the nonsense with all of the other tax methods. None of them will solve the problem and all of them will only lead to more tax misery for everyone. Yes, that includes you.

The ONLY real solution is a Constitutional Amendment fixing the income tax at a specific rate, with no deductions or credits regardless of class or income level, and prohibiting ANY other form of taxation regardless of purpose or need. The second clause of the Amendment requires a balanced budget to be sent to the President BEFORE any other bills or laws can be filed, debated, or passed into law, with the Congress. This would include temporary stop gap bills intended to fund the government while there is no budget. I would also include a clause that such bills are prohibited under the Constitution as they are not a "budget" as required by the Constitution.

If you want to get super serious, include in the Amendment that the Government cannot spend more than it raises in revenue except under specific and limited circumstances (like war or disaster).

To put that simply; the tax rate would be permanently fixed into the Constitution (hopefully around 5% max), no other form of tax is allowable, and Congress is required to submit a balanced budget before they can even discuss any other business within their chambers, and they are not allowed to avoid their duties in regards to the budget by passing unconstitutional Continuing Resolutions.

The problem is that such an amendment prevents pork and limits what the government can do to seize money from the people.

And those things are why it will never happen.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Taxation is theft, plain and simple. People should be getting the government to remove taxes, not come up with new ones.

It never fails to amaze me on how people screech about mega wealthy businesses and corporations that get wealthy via consensual transactions with customers, but then turn around arguing how the government should take more money from people by force.

 

[Rebel5soul]

I am always willing to learn. Please reduce my economic ignorance by explaining how what I wrote in comment # 4 is not true.

The Fair Tax

It address the concerns of those cry, "but it's regressive." It's fully fleshed out.

 

[HisArpy]

Taxation is theft, plain and simple. People should be getting the government to remove taxes, not come up with new ones.

It never fails to amaze me on how people screech about mega wealthy businesses and corporations that get wealthy via consensual transactions with customers, but then turn around arguing how the government should take more money from people by force.

People only know what they've been taught.

I would like to see more States get rid of property taxes. The idea that I have to pay the government every year to own property violates not only my Fee Simple Title, but it's also nonsensical to think that paying the bank 3x the purchase price over 30 years AND paying the State an amount equal to the purchase price over those same 30 years, with no end to the State's "variable rate mortgage" on the property regardless of how long you own the property is anything other than outright theft. At least with the bank you can eventually pay it off. Not so much with the government tax lein.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Here's the problem with all of these "alternative" tax ideas.

NONE of them, not a single one, would prevent the government from just raising the tax at any time the government wants to do so.

So, you think the "fair tax" at whatever rate is ok. Right up until the government decides it needs a bit more money to pay for some pork. After that, what do you do? You certainly can't complain because you voted to be fucked, without the benefit of even a dollop of lube, that way.

So, let's just get real and stop the nonsense with all of the other tax methods. None of them will solve the problem and all of them will only lead to more tax misery for everyone. Yes, that includes you.

The ONLY real solution is a Constitutional Amendment fixing the income tax at a specific rate, with no deductions or credits regardless of class or income level, and prohibiting ANY other form of taxation regardless of purpose or need. The second clause of the Amendment requires a balanced budget to be sent to the President BEFORE any other bills or laws can be filed, debated, or passed into law, with the Congress. This would include temporary stop gap bills intended to fund the government while there is no budget. I would also include a clause that such bills are prohibited under the Constitution as they are not a "budget" as required by the Constitution.

If you want to get super serious, include in the Amendment that the Government cannot spend more than it raises in revenue except under specific and limited circumstances (like war or disaster).

To put that simply; the tax rate would be permanently fixed into the Constitution (hopefully around 5% max), no other form of tax is allowable, and Congress is required to submit a balanced budget before they can even discuss any other business within their chambers, and they are not allowed to avoid their duties in regards to the budget by passing unconstitutional Continuing Resolutions.

The problem is that such an amendment prevents pork and limits what the government can do to seize money from the people.

And those things are why it will never happen.

There will be taxes, period. Make them transparent as possible and as voluntary as possible.

 

[HisArpy]

There will be taxes, period. Make them transparent as possible and as voluntary as possible.

Taxes are never voluntary and never will be. The best solution is to make them permanently fixed in a low amount and give no exceptions, deductions, or perks to ANYONE.

That way you always know you're going to be paying $x in tax and nothing more because that amount cannot be increased.

 

[Venefica]

A fixed tax rate does not prevent an increase of taxation. Income taxes are a multiplication: Tax Base x Tax Rate.

A fixed tax rate can be circumvented by increasing the tax base.

To those who think that taxation is theft. How shall be police, schools, infrastructrure, military etc be paid?

 

[TastySuckToy]

To those who think that taxation is theft. How shall be police, schools, infrastructrure, military etc be paid?

Make contribution 100% voluntary and see how long the narrative of taxation not being theft holds up.

 

[Venefica]

Voluntary?

LOL

 

[Rebel5soul]

Taxes are never voluntary and never will be. The best solution is to make them permanently fixed in a low amount and give no exceptions, deductions, or perks to ANYONE.

That way you always know you're going to be paying $x in tax and nothing more because that amount cannot be increased.

We tried that, a two tiered flat tax that lasted until the next congressional session.

The legitimate functions of government have to be funded.

 

[RobDownSouth]

"The Fair Tax." It used to be HR-24. It is, in effect, a national sales tax provisional on the repeal of the 16th amendment (Income Tax). It needs to be revisited.

LOL....we haven't heard much about the so-called "fair tax" lately, have we?
That used to be your faithful situation Indian companion Dances With Falsehood's favorite shibboleth.

Support for the so-called "fair tax" evaporated when economist found that in order to replace the federal income tax, the so-called "fair tax" would need to be 40% tax-exclusive. This tax would apply to all medical procedures (making it radioactive to aging boomers such as yourself) and also on rent. Not a lot of support from renters to have to pay an additional 40% per month in rent to assuage your ideological purity.

 

[HisArpy]

We tried that, a two tiered flat tax that lasted until the next congressional session.

The legitimate functions of government have to be funded.

So all you're really doing is just changing the name of the current system to one you like better.

That's not a solution.

 

[Rebel5soul]

So all you're really doing is just changing the name of the current system to one you like better.

That's not a solution.

I provided the link, I expect you, of all people, to at least research it before rambling on in ignorance.

 

[SebastianHolt]

Can anybody answer the question: Would it be constitutionally allowable for a US Federal government to introduce a sales tax, for example, in the form of a Value added tax (VAT)?

Sales taxes such as VAT are generally the province of the separate states but is there any legal impediment to the Feds acting similarly.

I do not want to know whether a Federal Sales tax would be either a good or a bad thing, just whether it might be legally possible. Thanks.

government doesn't have a revenue problem, government has a spending problem

 

[Wilson23]

Here's the problem with all of these "alternative" tax ideas.

NONE of them, not a single one, would prevent the government from just raising the tax at any time the government wants to do so.

So, you think the "fair tax" at whatever rate is ok. Right up until the government decides it needs a bit more money to pay for some pork. After that, what do you do? You certainly can't complain because you voted to be fucked, without the benefit of even a dollop of lube, that way.

So, let's just get real and stop the nonsense with all of the other tax methods. None of them will solve the problem and all of them will only lead to more tax misery for everyone. Yes, that includes you.

The ONLY real solution is a Constitutional Amendment fixing the income tax at a specific rate, with no deductions or credits regardless of class or income level, and prohibiting ANY other form of taxation regardless of purpose or need. The second clause of the Amendment requires a balanced budget to be sent to the President BEFORE any other bills or laws can be filed, debated, or passed into law, with the Congress. This would include temporary stop gap bills intended to fund the government while there is no budget. I would also include a clause that such bills are prohibited under the Constitution as they are not a "budget" as required by the Constitution.

If you want to get super serious, include in the Amendment that the Government cannot spend more than it raises in revenue except under specific and limited circumstances (like war or disaster).

To put that simply; the tax rate would be permanently fixed into the Constitution (hopefully around 5% max), no other form of tax is allowable, and Congress is required to submit a balanced budget before they can even discuss any other business within their chambers, and they are not allowed to avoid their duties in regards to the budget by passing unconstitutional Continuing Resolutions.

The problem is that such an amendment prevents pork and limits what the government can do to seize money from the people.

And those things are why it will never happen.

It will never happen because no government of a modern industrialized country can get by with such limited resources.

 

[Wilson23]

government doesn't have a revenue problem, government has a spending problem

Nobody can seem to find anything worth cutting -- not even DOGE could.

 

[Sir_Timo_Volodok]

I do not want to know whether a Federal Sales tax would be either a good or a bad thing, just whether it might be legally possible. Thanks.

Yes, it would be legally possible. It's an indirect tax, similar to excise taxes, and those have been legal since the ratification of the Constitution. The only requirement would be that it be uniform throughout the United States. You couldn't constitutionally assess a 10% VAT in New York and a 5% one in South Carolina.