|
> You wrote: "A sales tax is inherently REGRESSIVE
I did indeed
> Now, is that sarcasm? Or do you really think that?
This is one of those rare occassions where I'm actually serious. Let me tell you why.
> I propose not taxing those things a person needs to survive
See, you're halfway there already. You comprehend that flat-taxing survival necessities is cruel to those who are trying to make ends meet. Now take that to the next step and understand why it is. Let's say Ben, who makes $10000/year, and Bob, who makes $100000/year, are in the market for used cars. For simplicity, I'll set the sales tax at 10%. Ben and Bob both look at a $1000 car, which is $1100 after sales tax. That extra $100 each would pay is a full 1% of Ben's annual salary, but only 0.1% of Bob's.
For every similar purchase Ben and Bob make that is taxed, the tax hits Ben ten times harder than it hits Bob. In fact, the richer you are, the less the tax matters! Sure, Bob will probably spend more on the taxed goods than Ben, but he can purchase 10X more stuff than Ben before his tax burden equals Ben's.
A sales tax is regressive for the same reason a flat tax is regressive, but moreso because it directly attacks purchasing power at the point of sale. Conversely, it rewards those who save their money or spend their money elsewhere. And for that reason, it's an attack on commerce.
> Secondly: you're saying that the practical reality of Oregon > governmental structure is so wack that we'd never be able to pass it
Well, that's the lay of the land. We ought to consider practical reality when positing solutions.
> Personally i don't think we should let any tax laws or > constitutional amendments to be passed by the voters.
Considering the quality of the recent bunch of tax laws and constitutional ammendments that Siezemore and Mabon have pushed onto the ballots, you make a good point. On the other hand, the intitiative process is one of the few methods available by which citizens can be directly involved in our government. Restricting ballot initiatives to statutory alteration, and requiring all constitutional ammendments to be affirmed by both houses of legislature as well as by citizen referendum would be a good start.
Not to seem repetitive, but I don't think that would fly either.
|