Would you support a five percent National Sales Tax if

[Winterblues]

medicine and unprepared food were excluded and all revenues from it went to Single Payer National health Care?

[NightWatcher]

1. Nope, the money could come from somewhere else

legalize and tax marijuana, or end the war and fund healthcare instead of death and occupation

[winyanstaz]

35. exactly...

We could balance the national budget by doing both those things..AND pay for healthcare.

[jgraz]

2. Sure, right after we restore the pre-Reagan income tax brackets

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. That's a good start

Going back to the Eisenhower era tax brackets would be even better. With absolutely no loopholes. And 100% estate tax, with a reasonable limit so not to exclude a legitmate small business from staying in the family.

Or in other words, it's time to eliminate the Rockefeller/Bush/Hilton/Rothschild inheritance billionaire types, by whatever means necessary.

And I do mean peaceful means..... at least for now, despite all they have done to the rest of us.

[jgraz]

42. Yep. Good luck getting it through the current Congress

We have a lot of housecleaning to do if we even want to approach what you're proposing.

[rurallib]

3. Considering that there is more than enough money spent on HC premiums

currently to more than fund single payer first dollar coverage, I am not sure why that would be necessary.

[DCKit]

25. It's not necessary. The VAT is only being suggested to line the pockets of Ins. co. CEOs...

and maintain the current status quo.

Too many in Congress will do anything to keep their real constituents in the clover.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. yes

if it was ironclad that is where it were going.

[dipsydoodle]

5. You missed out

children's clothing.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. No: Highly Regressive

As it is, the wealthiest Americans pay federal taxes at a far lower rate than does the Middle Class. This would make the situation worse.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Yep.

The poorest Americans spend most of their income; anything spent (i.e. most of their income) is subject to an additional 5% tax. The wealthiest Americans put large portions of their money in savings, the stock market, etc - which would be exempt from sales tax. That makes their rate of taxation far lower (a very small portion of their income would be subject to the supplemental 5% tax).

[paulsby]

8. rubbish

the op said that food, etc. would be EXCLUDED. so everything spent would NOT be subjectr to an additional 5% tax

[kiva]

12. I think the point is that, as someone said above, that lower

income people spend virtually all of their income, and much of that would fall under this tax. Check out your spending and you may be surprised to discover how much of it goes for cleaning products, personal care items, health products that aren't traditionally considered 'medicine' (vitamins, OTC medication), and (for parents) baby products. You can, to a degree, control these expenses but you cannot eliminate them entirely. Add to that clothes, transportation, and entertainment (and probably other things I'm forgetting) and it's evident that a sales tax would have more of an impact on lower income folks than the wealthy.

[zipplewrath]

13. Nit picking

Unprepared food and medicine are small portions of folks total costs. Soap, gas, cigarettes, rent, clothes, transportation, alcohol... Rent's a big one. Probably the #2 is one that would be exempt. Interest on loans. They'd at least get a break there.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Run the numbers anyway you want

the poor still spend a larger portion of their income on items that will be taxed (even if you exclude the items proposed to be excluded) than the rich do - so they are taxed at a higher rate than the wealthy.

Even if some wealthy individuals spend all of their income (rather than saving it) - they have the ability to choose not to to buy that second home, or go on that vacation, or buy a luxury car. Individuals who need every penny to survive do not have that choice. A sales tax is inherently regressive - even when you exclude money spent on selected necessities.

[Oregone]

16. Both systems suck, but in this hypothetical, what is worse for the poor?

Status quo: A (poor to middle class) person does not have access to quality health care and will lose their homes, assets or life in case of a major illness

Contrasted hypothetical: A poor person has the top quality single-payer health care, but also pays a 5% sales tax (which would be less than a private health care premium under the status quo).

If you are purely concerned about the poor and only have 2 options to choose from, the second seems preferable. Although, in reality, there is more than two choices.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Yes, there are more than two choices.

>>If you are purely concerned about the poor and only have 2 options to choose from, the second seems preferable. Although, in reality, there is more than two choices.<<

Yes, there are more than two choices. In my mind, it would be preferable to fund health care for the poor/chronically ill by taxing individuals with higher incomes for health insurance provided by their employer. I have long been an advocate at work for fully funded health insurance for the lower paid staff and partially (or not at all) subsidized health insurance for those making more money (who can more easily afford the premiums) - and I fall into the latter category. I see no reason to take a different position as far as taxes.

I am lucky enough to have a job that pays well enough that (at least for now) I could manage to pay the outrageous premiums charged by the insurance companies; others I work with would go without if our employment based insurance disappeared. I am willing to subsidize their access to health care - whether that subsidy is direct through re-allocation of employer resources, or less directly through taxation.

I cannot support a plan that is funded by requiring poorer families to pay a proportionally larger share of their income than it requires of richer families to pay - there are other alternatives.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. It's a false dilemma.

As you noted, there are other choices. Some low income people have access to public health care now at little if any cost through Medicaid, state health plans for children, and public health clinics. Any additional sales taxes represent a cost that is not borne by them at the moment.

There's also little reason to think that retaining the status quo is in the best interests of the state. We will have health care access reform within a few years -- the only debate is about the form it will take.

[armyowalgreens]

41. So poor people only need food?

Wow that's eye opening...

[DireStrike]

48. The "etc." is the problem

If you define it narrowly it will still be regressive.
If you define it broadly it will not bring in enough revenue.

[Johonny]

50. I agree

[BonnieJW]

9. yes

[zipplewrath]

10. No

I mean, as a hypothetical no. It's very regressive. Of course I suppose enough balance could be created to make it "worth it" including decreased payroll taxes, and a lowering of both the lowest income tax brackets and an increase in earned income tax credits.

[Lasher]

11. No need to cave in to one of the wingnuts' favorite ideas.

We'll get lots more revenue when Junior's tax cuts for the wealthy elite expire. The inheritance tax, for example, will sunset in 2011 to a $1 million exclusion and a 55% top rate. That is, if Congressional Democrats can manage to summon only enough courage to block the certain GOP move to keep that gravy train going.

[Oregone]

15. Its probably easier to ask: What is the lesser of two "evils".

Private Health Insurance vs 5% Sales Tax.

Most would probably say the Insurance, although, to implement single-payer, you wouldn't need the other evil at all. Just tax capital gains as income and close some loopholes. There is no reason you cannot progressively fund SPHC.

[spanone]

17. we already suffer under an almost 10 % sales tax here in tennessee...even on food. no thanks

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. No. Not only no, but fuck no.

I live in a state which relies primarily upon sales and property taxes.

Bill Gates chooses to live here because gets a comparatively free ride.

[jody]

19. Yes if it is accompanied by a 25% sales tax on all imported goods. n/t

[TahitiNut]

21. Start with a sales tax on the sale or exchange of corporate stock ... and then we'll talk.

The working poor are taxed when they buy shoes but the wealthy can buy an entire shoe company without paying tax. That's bullshit.

[XemaSab]

23. It would certainly be a lower percent of my income

than what I'm paying now for healthcare, provided there was a prescription drug benefit.

[Better Believe It]

24. No It will mainly hurt working class and lower income people

[Oregone]

28. More than the status quo?

[Better Believe It]

33. Yes. A lot more

[Oregone]

36. A regressive 5% sales tax hurts more than death or losing all assets from illness?

(Of course, some do not have many assets, but those are the ones that get death when they cannot afford operations).

Standard annual premiums for poor people that do qualify for coverage may be far more than what they may pay in 5% sales tax. Do you care to elaborate?

[Better Believe It]

51. You make it sound like a reactionary sale tax on working people is the only way we can fund ....

Medicare for All, which is of course total nonsense. Now rich people might like your regressive sales tax, but I don't.

Do you also favor a flat income tax which is more regressive than the current income tax?

Sounds like you're trying to put us between a rock and a hard place with your "option".

[Oregone]

53. This isn't *my* dilemma -- I didn't ask the question

I'm just choosing to consider the question instead of completely avoid it. I think the current system hurts the middle class and poor far more than a regressive sales tax would (just calculate what you currently pay in premiums, if you are even insured, vs what you would pay in sales tax, and contrast that with what you get in return in both situations).

Of course, in reality, there are more than two options. The OP obviously was presenting a dilemma consisting of choosing the worse of two "evils" (its a question that on the surface, acknowledges that both choices are bad). Few people had the courage to play the game in the first place and even take on the question.

I dislike sales tax. I hate flat tax as well. That doesn't mean I cannot come into a question like this and answer it.

I currently live with 12% sales tax (a lot of which funds single-payer health care) so it is actually a very real question for me. I could choose to live in the USA and get fucked with health care, or live where I get sales tax & universal health care + a few tax benefits. I find the later to hurt me far less, even though it isn't ideal whatsoever.

[Chemical Bill]

26. No regressive taxes. n/t

[ThomWV]

27. Remove the cap on Social Security earning and kill two birds with one stone

Pay for health care and make the Social Security system solvent forever.

[cascadiance]

45. Payroll tax already funds medicare along with social security...

so it IS logical to do it that way!

[anonymous171]

29. Fuck no. Tax the upper class parasites, not the lower and middle class consumers. nt

[Xithras]

30. Hell no. 5% is WAAAY too high.

US retail sales occur at a rate of between $300 billion and $350 billion per month, or $3.9 trillion per year, NOT counting food sales. A federal sales tax of 0.4% on all of those sales would generate about $160 billion a year in revenue, which is more than the "worst case scenario" single payer budget number waved around by some Republicans. Most estimates put the realistic cost at $75-$100 billion a year, allowing an even lower tax rate.

A 5% national sales tax, on top of the taxes charged by the states, would kill our economy and would easily make us the most heavily taxed nation on Earth once you added them all up (European nations charge a VAT, but they don't have to deal with states levying sales and income taxes on top of the national taxes).

If a national sales tax were to fly, it would have to be VERY small. Luckily, it can be.

[Vinca]

32. Throw in clothing purchases under $100 and I would agree with it

IF the taxes collected were ALL used for healthcare and in a "lock box." Everyone should be issued their health card which would cover everything - no deductibles, no co-pays, no exceptions.

[taught_me_patience]

34. Absolutely YES

If the average cost of health insurance is $400/mo, then you would have to spend $8000/mo (single person) before the tax is more expensive. Almost nobody spends that much on discretionary items... therefore it is a good deal for most Americans.

[fascisthunter]

37. how about repealing the tax cuts for the useless Parasites at the top

is that too much to ask? Then we'll talk about a national sales tax. What BS this is.... once agin, the average American has to pay the bill, because the douchebags in Washington are to far up the asses of the elite.

[armyowalgreens]

38. I want a progressive tax.

So no, I would not support a regressive sales tax.

[Ron Green]

39. 40% top marginal income tax, 10% state income tax

That's fair enough for the biggest earners: Half for you, half for the nation that lets you enjoy it.

[cascadiance]

44. How about going back to between 70-90% top marginal tax rate like it USED TO BE!

... back when America could have families living reasonably well off of a single wage earner's middle class salary from a high school education in the 60's...

[Ron Green]

47. Works for me, but I think it'll be a hard sell. Keeping less than half of "your own money"

(I know, it's not really worked for in most cases) is not as compelling a plan as 50-50.

That said, I'd support 70-90% above $3 million.

[Rosco T.]

40. add clothing and housing to it and yes... n/m

[cascadiance]

43. No, remove the cap on payroll tax, and lower the rates...

... so that it generates more revenue and gives folk under $250k a tax break, and stops being a REGRESSIVE tax...

Then it can do more than just fund social security and medicare. The medicare it funds can be expanded to be single payer health care...

And of course, I also agree we need to go back to pre-Reagan top marginal income tax rates before this happens too!

[DireStrike]

46. Fraid not

It's still regressive and the rich still aren't paying their fair share. I'll pay more when they pay more.

The American people are entitled to health care, and the lower class cannot afford to pay for it, no matter what arcane scheme you use to leverage the debt onto their backs.

[question everything]

49. No. Sales tax is regressive.

Just have a 5% increase at all income taxes and use this for SS and National health care.

[LWolf]

52. No need to.

Just send HR 676 to the executive office for signature.

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. Yes

Health insurance for a family is $700 a month from my employer. And that's a lot less than many people pay. I can't imagine a tax that would be that high every month. You would have to spend $14,000 every month to pay $700 in taxes for health care.

Yes. This is a great idea.

[Fla_Democrat]

55. In theory yes, in practice, hell no

I'm sure cases exist where government bodies actually followed the law when it came to using revenue meant for a project only for that project. But, damn if I can think of one. :shrug:

Pardon me for a second, need to check my 'Florida Lotto' ticket. It's for education.... when you play, we all win. :eyes:

[ContinentalOp]

56. Absolutely not.

It's regressive as many others have already pointed out. But more importantly, if Obama and the Democratic Congress pass a VAT, say hello to another Republican majority for DECADES to come. People will not like this one bit.

[western mass]

57. Red herring....We don't need to raise taxes.

As a nation, we're already spending enough $ on health care to support a national health system. It's just that that $ is being diverted and pocketed by a parasitic health insurance industry.

And sales tax is a regressive tax, I would never support one.