Republican lunacy transcends geography.

you've got a point, but not completely. palin, bachmann, king, walker, and brownback all hail from north of the mason-dixon line, and all are idiots for the ages.

Not certain this has anything to do with an IQ level. This is a social/moral issue. Those in power wish to keep all they "earn," placing ever more on the backs of the lower classes. After all, by their logic, if you aren't wealthy, you just didn't work hard enough.

He is suggesting a totally regressive tax in one of the poorest states in the country.

The New 'Smarter' motto for the GOP:

"Making the poor poorer and the rich richer"

Not really a substantive policy change but a much clearer message.

no, this depraved and hypocritical fiscal immorality has everything to do with low IQ, and a total disdain for the working classes and the poor. The conservatives use the facade of "religion" as an excuse for their allegiance towards their corporate handlers always trying to sneak in a tax loophole or exemption for the wealthy. Narcissist's aren't intellectually aware or truth-seekers, and prefer to ostracize those who grew up from hard times.

I was disappointed to see such a bigoted post following a Rachel Maddow blog. Its not okay to to propagate stereotypes as truth. It would at least be worth looking at the plan before condemning it. Louisiana enjoys a huge tourism industry ranging from Bourbon Street to gambling, which draw people from out of state. Could it be possible that the low income wage earners would actually not be hit that badly as this taxation would be subsidized by out of staters? I don't know the answer, but it is worth exploring.

From Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, p. 304: "[Lincoln] was 'an illiterate partisan,' claimed the influential Richmond Enquirer, 'possessed only of his inveterate hatred of slavery and his openly avowed predilection for negro equality.'"

This is the Southern intellectual heritage. 'Nuff said.

Which is why I am saving my pennies to move away from here. Of East Indian heritage, I am ashamed of Bobby Jindal. This State only regresses and soon we won't even have to be thankful for Mississippi for saving us from being at the bottom of everything that makes a State great and the top of everything that makes a State rotten. I'm outa here. It will take me a bit of time to save enough, but every move Jindal makes makes me that much more determined.

Hey, hey... easy now on folks in Louisiana. We aren't all on his side, and most of us (quite a few Republicans included) hate him now for one reason or another.

All kidding aside, this has also been presented in Florida. The premise is to entice businesses in to these states. I get that.

What I see that Bobby doesn't (or doesn't admit to seeing) is that these big-business out of state corporations are going to come, set up shop, make big money, and spend it elsewhere. We're hardly going to see a percentage of the money these corporations stand to make in this.

That being said, please do not diminish the southern states as rednecks and derelicts. The poor in the south are not poor because they are dumb and lack the capacity for intelligent thought. Down here, there is a centuries-old ongoing systemic problem with the way the institutions within these states are run.

Good Ol' Boy politics.

Please, please, for the love of God, realize that politics in the south most definitely is considered a parlor game or lawn sport played between a very small few with really big wallets and really big chess pieces.

It isn't IQ, it's a stubborn commitment to short-sightedness. I've never heard of any political party that proposes such nonsensical ideas that, if implemented, will damage the polity they represent so irreversibly.

I don't know, folks. It seems to me that this is more a case of politics-makes-strange-bedfellows than a generalization about IQ of the party as a whole.

I see some rather crafty political operatives (not necessarily officeholders, but people who influence) using the less-well-endowed thinkers to get their numbers up. As in Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition. His job was to deliver the Moral Majority, and he did a pretty good job of it till he was revealed in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

I also think the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, via the Tea Party, have convinced several million shallow thinkers that it's the Tax and Spend Democrats that have ruined this country, that Republicans are the true American heroes for standing up against the President on the debt ceiling and the Second Amendment and that tax rates may only move in one direction, which is down.

And worst of all, the GOP has demonized intellectuals as elitists who are just trying to fool them, going so far as to link intellectuals with Satan. The drill is: PLUG YOUR EARS AND DON'T LISTEN TO ANYTHING THEY SAY! Makes it kind of hard to reason with them, at least the ones I know.

Aww, you haven't been to Bakersfield then! Bakersfield is a hyper-religious, socially conservative beacon in the California Central Valley. I lived there almost 10 years before fleeing to Europe for 3 years.

Biscuit79: In short, no, it could not be possible that low-income workers will not be hit as hard as it sounds like they will. Unless the entire population of China flocks to New Orleans within a single year, there is no way tourism is going to bring in enough revenue to take the burden off the poor. Also, sales tax is an extremely unstable revenue source. My home state, Tennessee, relies heavily on sales tax revenue, and what ends up happening is that if, say, car sales are particularly bad one year, the state has a budget crisis. It's ridiculous.

@ Formerly apolitical

Thanks for the lead in.

This idea is totally stupid and immoral. It is the wealth's fondest dream to be able to invest pre-tax dollars to make more money faster.

However, consider this there are at least 2 very different tax systems possible.

1st -- is ours = a income plus sales taxes, system. This is good, but it has 1 big drawback. Namely that in a recession revenues go down. It would be better if they went up. Is there something that goes up in a recession that we could tax?

2nd -- a property tax plus other such taxes, system. In a recession revenues do not do down and the gov. is guaranteed to get its money. If a guy can't pay the tax on some real estate the gov. takes it and sells it to get the money. I'm not saying I like this system, but I do love the fact that gov. revenue does not fall in a recession.

What Jindal is proposing is music to the ears of the Koch Coalition. Jindal is proposing that the rich won't have to pay any tax in Louisiana. This is what the T.E.A party was all about. Tax Enough Already has the goal of N.T.F.T.R. (No Taxes for the Rich). This is the most important wedge in the Koch-Rove strategy for winning in 2014 -- giving money to the Kochs.

The strategy is working: the Kochs' combined net worth in 2010 was a mere $44 billion, in 2011, a modest increase to $50 billion, in 2012, a significant increase to $62 billion.

Bobby Jindal runs for reelection in 2014. Do you think he will be well-bribed. I mean, his campaign will be well-funded?

This is why Republican states:

1. Dominate welfare recipients
2. Take in more than they receive in taxes
3. Have lower average education

West Texas eastward through Louisiana and Mississippi, on through Alabama and into northern Florida up into Georgia, then northward through the Carolinas, turning northwest in southeastern Virginia up into West Virginia, then dropping southwest into Kentucky to the western edge, down into Tennessee, then straight west through Arkansas into western Oklahoma and back down to west Texas. There.

Bible-belt. Original rust belt. Bourbon-belt. Extra-large belt. Whole lotta people.

CSA. SEC. Several families. Many relatives. Cousins galore. Sunburned napes. Pick-up trucks. Gun owners everywhere. Cousins. Overly opinionated. Politically untrustworthy. Speed traps. More cousins. Lotta people... some not too smart.

Bobby Jindal. Right at home.

I had to link to your NewsVine page to read what's on your avatar, GLB. That's a good one. ("Science is not a Liberal Conspiracy")

And as to your post, even if it's not practical, that's an interesting suggestion. :-)

Well, the obvious problem with this idea, already mentioned, is that the big losers in this plan are the 98%. The top income-earners would get the huge break when they don't spend all their income from year to year, but instead hold onto it as investment or savings.

However, think about what an all-sales-tax program would do. Anyone living close to the economic edge would abstain from all possible discretionary spending, and even moderate income-earners would think long and hard before making non-essential purchases. Talk about a sales-prevention strategy, when what our sluggish economy needs is stimulation!

Even Robme had a democratic legislature which kept his insanity in check! Bobby Jindal leads one of the poorer states in the nation that suck in way more $$, than they contribute to the Federal purse strings. As for that "sales tax" let's just see how many businesses are hurt because tourists refuse to pay for the "trinkets" being sold or choose to vacation in another state....

@Zora, good points all, but want to be clear that what I specifically meant was that Romney made the steady claim that he technically never raised taxes in MA, when what he actually did was astronomically raise fees on everything in sight. So, even though his constituents' taxes didn't go up, their cost of living significantly increased through Romney's fee-for-thee scheme.

You must not live in Louisiana. I do, and it scares the crap out of me. It will hurt retail & restaurants (and retail/restaurant jobs), tourism (and tourism jobs), and be horrible for those on fixed incomes and workers who live from paycheck-to-paycheck (those same retail & restaurant workers). Here's a link to a good local column:
http://cenlamar.com/2013/01/10/bobby-jindal-proposes-nations-highest-sales-tax-rate-to-subsidize-corporations-and-wealthy-patrons/

I guess my statement was based on the belief that this will never actually pass into law once people start to really discuss it, which might be too optimistic as I am not from LA and don't know the local politics. I certainly hope for the sake of you and yours that I'm right about that!

He won a second term, despite me & mine voting for someone else.

BTW, I did read that link. Interesting stuff.

@wlstarn--

Surprised to see you here! It's WSLevy! Don't tell my mother!

@wlstarn: its called pull up and move out...

Once they have no wage slaves to do the dirty work, their house of cards collapses. They will have ghost towns, and a nationally well known "this is what Republicans do" sign...

More and more Red states will do so, and soon enough the SMART people (Democrats) will be congregated in the Blue states (of which we will have enough people voting smart, to control legislature, both state and federal!)
And to top it all off, come redistricting time, they will have lost 80-90% of their population, and be 2 and 3 vote states!

@wlstarn , if those numbers on that web site you cited are accurate, that size of a sales tax would be almost the same as sales taxes in Canada (current HST is i think 13% last i remember), at least in Ontario (that one town being higher than Ontario). not so sure Bobby Jindal wants to be associated with Canada on that one. But maybe i just gave someone an idea for a campaign ad, which i'll let them freely use if they wish.

Here in Norway, for just one example, an average household pays at least 40% income tax + 25% sales tax. Sales tax is higher on some items, lower (14%) on groceries.

I don't know why it doesn't seem as bad as it sounds, except that health care is, of course, paid for out of income taxes (with the exceptions of visual and dental).

it usually means low tax on food and basic clothing but high taxes on booze, cigarettes, hookers and blow. you know, sin-tax.

Florida is very good at levying taxes on people who don't vote there. Without an income tax they get along with the level of government they apparently want. Of course they are also about dead last in education and many other indices of a decent society. But so is Louisiana so it might work for them too.

In Florida, income taxes are prohibited in the state constitution. This is an outdated legacy from the 1920s land boom era. Longterm residents of Florida know that not only are sales taxes regressive, but that sales tax revenue just tanks during recessions, as people cut back on discretionary spending. Florida has had to make draconian cuts in its budget because of this. We could use a state income tax, if only because provides a more reliable revenue stream. But no legislator wants to be The Guy Who Raised Your Taxes. So instead, we muddle on with our sales tax, assorted fees, and (I am not making this up) over 100 specialty license plates.

The last time I looked, the so-called blue states don't have a stellar performance in education, either. After retirement, I moved from NY to SC to escape the high taxes, which also include taxes on property. Is what you call a "decent" living a "welfare" living?

Tom, where exactly did you look? Clearly not here: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?loct=2&by=v&order=a&ind=7247&dtm=14341&tf=868

Gee, look at all those blue states at the top! And South Carolina comes in at...40th! Woohoo! At least it's not in the bottom 10.

I'm sure if you looked up other standards of "decent" living, like median household income, rates of children living in poverty, etc., you'd find that your beloved SC ranks well below New York and other blue states on those, too.

Let's see, when I took my Sats, I scored 670. Look at these scores.http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/state-state-sat-and-act-scores. All states are pathetic, but all we do is spend more money.

And you're all going bankrupt to support your "decent" level of living.

Tom I am not getting the response in your post. All the states suck at education on the basis of how they scored on the SATs and ACTs?
First this assumes that the SATs or ACTs are accurate measurements of intelligence and/or education. There are plenty of experts out there who actually study this (unlike laymen like you and I) who would disagree with that assessment.
Secondly your score was based on an older model of calculation that is no longer used. The way the SAT and ACT is scored today is entirely different than it was even so much as 10 years ago. I do not know why you'd suddenly assume that your scores translated directly across or would even be relevant today.
Thirdly we'd have to see how all the other nations of the world stacked up to the SAT/ACT scores for us to even come to a conclusion about the relevancy of these states. Otherwise your argument would be that the majority of schools range within 100 points on the SATs of each other and within 5 points on the ACTs (which pretty much tells us nothing).
Fourthly even if we assume something is relevant about SAT/ACT scoring to this conversation you do realize that all the bottom states (those scoring 19 or less) were red with the exception of Michigan while all the top states (those scoring a 23.0 or higher) were all blue. You're proving exactly what with this statement then?

And what is the relevancy of bringing up spending? And why be so snide about people living off welfare? You've already stated that you're living off social security so you do realize you'd be the welfare queen you're harassing, yeah? I mean not a damn thing about your post made any sense.

cartoon, tell tom that i scored in the mid 1400's on my SAT's. if he was taking them when i was (before dirt, after rocks), which it sounds like, his scores would barely get him out of high school much less into a decent college back then.

Re: #12

Questions about your items:

1 - How much would this save?

2 - Correct - every one would get taxed. And everyone would pay the same percent. Those who spend more pay more $$ but the percent is the same.

3 - Paychecks will indeed go up. Rich people don't get paychecks (really?) and so don't pay state income tax (really?) please explain.

4 - Sales tax is indeed straight forward - but the poor will end up paying more.

5 - Where will the money come for assistance programs? Oh - right - from increasing the sales tax.

6 & 7 - How about we just make the tax code more simple and transparent?

You also don't take into account the negative effect on state population. When faced with over burdensome taxes people will leave. This tax unlike most will force the poor to leave or starve. This will have sweeping effects to everything from revenue to schools to tourism. Tourism will be hit hugely by this sales tax. No one will go to LA if the sales tax is 15-25% in fact many will go to other southern states. Colleges will also see drops in attendance as students will not be able to afford the cost of living in LA. Overall this will kill the state treasury.

It's not just a question of "who's rich, who's poor" but also "who's single, who's married, who's a parent?"

In NJ, most food and clothes are not taxed, so a family with a lot of children might still have to pay more for food and clothes than a family with 2 kids or a DINK or SINK household or someone who lives alone, but they're not going to get hit with all that extra sales tax on top of it, for stuff that family needs to LIVE. Especially since, as we all know, Republicans luuuuuuv families, hate abortion and want to make having kids as attractive as possible, right? And if you're on SNAP, there's no reason for that federal money to then go to a state tax, so rather than exempt people on assistance from paying food tax, screw it, no sales tax on food. On other purchases, the state sales tax is 7%.

But who knows what Bobert is thinking? If all Louisiana companies start paying zero taxes, he might be considering hitting things like food and clothes, which will wind up coming across as a penalty to people who have larger families (to say nothing of people who take in foster kids). Large families with low incomes will resort or either getting less of what they need, or of a lesser quality - 80% beef instead of leaner beef, cheaper clothes that wear out faster - meaning more costs down the road.

It risks being extremely shortsighted and setting up an even more drastic contrast in income inequality, as corporations flock to the state for the money saved on taxes, but unless they turn around and pay people who live in the state really good wages, far too many more people will hover around or sink below the poverty level.

WHOSE paychecks will go up? Not retail workers, who will probably have their hours cut further.
BTW, food and clothing ARE taxed in Louisiana.

This is for maphi:

Questions about your items:

1 - How much would this save?

Quite a bit. It would also put some people out of work (accountants, tax pros) but let's face it, these are basically jobs subsidized by the government; they are needed to alleviate a government-created hardship. (doing tax returns).

2 - Correct - every one would get taxed. And everyone would pay the same percent. Those who spend more pay more $$ but the percent is the same.

Correct. What could be fairer? Again, this doesn't affect the assistance side. Scaled tax brackets are a kind of income-side assistance. Move it where it belongs -- in the hands of people who are dedicated to this task.

3 - Paychecks will indeed go up. Rich people don't get paychecks (really?) and so don't pay state income tax (really?) please explain.

Many rich people get wages, but a higher percent of their income is "gains." Jindal didn't say anything about gains tax. unless he meant to lump it under "income tax."

4 - Sales tax is indeed straight forward - but the poor will end up paying more.

It's mixed. They pay more at the restaurant, but they have exactly equivalent more paycheck money to pay for it. For takeout, groceries, pharms, etc that are traditionally sales tax free, they have more money period. Though it might be a little slow in coming, goods and services should become cheaper, or price rises slower, because corporate profit tax will be lower. For those without a paycheck, those on assistance will have to get more. However, criminals and traditional tax evaders pay tax.

5 - Where will the money come for assistance programs? Oh - right - from increasing the sales tax.

Correct, in a way. It comes from the coffers, however that money is produced. But that's up to the assistance side to decide. This isn't a program aimed at fleecing the poor. Really, check your smell test when someone says that.

6 & 7 - How about we just make the tax code more simple and transparent?

That's certainly worked in the past, right? That's what this does, but it does it by throwing the tax code out, getting it out of the hands of special interests and backroom deals. It's not that the LA legislature can't complicate the sales tax code, but there's a lot of push-back on that from business. Cashiers and customers can't be filling out tax returns at the cash register at Wal-Mart.

As I said, there's a reason this is way it's done in the developed world.

Chris

Chris, are you living on planet Earth? Oh, wait, I'll bet you're a rich guy and own shares in big corporations, maybe oil companies.

This is a horrendous idea that only a Foxpublican could support. Anyone who actually cares about other people or who actually is a human being isn't going to support an idea that will kill commerce and further break an already broken, illiterate state mostly dependent on the federal government to save its sorry ass.

To wistern:

WHOSE paychecks will go up? Not retail workers, who will probably have their hours cut further. BTW, food and clothing ARE taxed in Louisiana.

wistern, I hope you're not making things up to fit your beliefs. We've had enough of that for a while. As of July 1, 2002, Louisiana does not tax food for home consumption according to their website. They also do not tax medical.

This is for Old Vermontah:

Chris, are you living on planet Earth? Oh, wait, I'll bet you're a rich guy and own shares in big corporations, maybe oil companies.

Nice try. Actually, I'm single, self-employed, lower-middle-class, and live in a beat up old house in a rust-belt state. I get taxed at a higher rate than just about anybody I know, and I get less for it. But I don't mind paying taxes, because I depend on our government incentivized and regulated infrastructure to even drive my car to the grocery store. What I DO mind is spending two weeks of every year doing my income taxes when I could be working.

Oh yeah, I was born on Planet Earth. Have my birth certificate here somewhere ... ;-)

Income taxes are the least regressive (or punishing to people with low incomes). They are typically fair and can be designed to allow for very real biases that the economy has and to reward such things as owning a home, etc.

Sales taxes, fees, disproportionately impact the poor where a given fee or amount represents a larger proportion of their income than to a rich person. (you get that, right). If I have to pay a 20% sales tax on an item with an income of 20K, that represents a much bigger burden to me than to a person making 200K)

Sorry -- you might resent doing your taxes, but our country and economy are better off with income taxes rather than sales taxes and fees.

As I said, there's a reason this is way it's done in the developed world.

Zero rate Income Tax? Which world? Sure isnt this one.

Oh yeah, I was born on Planet Earth. Have my birth certificate here somewhere ... ;-)

Might want to check on its earthly validity.

Jindal's "plan" shifts the taxation burden from the "Haves" to the "Have Nots", its that simple, and no amount of word smithery will ever change that. Jindal has lost his mind even trying to sound serious on this one.

All this does is shift the burdon of taxation down the income ladder, surprise surprise.

Its asinine.

1) It eliminates a bureaucracy (income tax) and folds it into another (sales tax).

....Income tax isn't a bureaucracy. Income tax is one means of taxation as collected by the state Department of Revenue, but it's only one. You wouldn't be getting rid of the Department of Revenue simply because you got rid of the income tax. But why would this matter? Getting rid of one bloated agency by combining it with another bloated agency doesn't suddenly make one efficient agency. There's another possibility: now you've taken 2 agencies that were working moderately well and combined them to create one over burdened, under staffed, over bloated agency that can't do anything well.

Ever purchase one of those printers that's supposed to be a fax machine, a copier, a scanner, and a printer all rolled into one? Typically it does one or two of those jobs well, but it doesn't do them as well as a machine specifically designed to do one job. I am not at all sure where you get the idea that condensing from 1 to 2 leads to something better.

2) Everybody gets taxed, rich and poor, based on spending. Who spends more, rich or poor? There will be rich people who pay MORE tax.

But when we're talking about how something effects a person the question isn't how many total dollars are going to get spent, but what is the effect that spending will have on the individual. If I live paycheck to paycheck then I spend nearly all or all of my paycheck. I save very little if anything. Thus as a percentage of what I am earning I spend nearly or at 100%. Compare this then to someone who is wealthy. They right now spend no more than 50% of what they make when combining all taxes (sales, property, income, etc.) which leaves them with 50% to spend on whatever they want. While it might increase how much taxation they have to spend as a net total it won't put them anywhere near on par with that of their lower income rivals. The income tax was a means of addressing this issue by making the wealthier (who, as a percentage of income, spend less) pay a larger sum into the economy. The trade off then was that poorer people wouldn't have to pay income tax and they'd be stuck, instead, with the progressive payroll tax and a flat sales tax. Thus you'd be evening it out. You'd also have to keep in mind that the claim you're making here is a cost/benefit analysis. What is the average income tax paid (as a percent of income) and what would this offset be by the sales tax? Can you even guarantee that they'd be paying more money into the system? I'm going to guess that the answer is no so I don't know why you thought this would be a selling point.

3) Paychecks will go up. Rich people don't necessarily get paychecks since their income isn't considered "wages."

Er I'm assuming you may have misspoke here? Payroll taxes are not income taxes. They do tax the income a person makes, but they aren't filed the same way as income tax. So on what evidence or by what logic are you arguing that paychecks will go up? You'd still be required to pay the exact same payroll tax unless this bill is also going to eliminate payroll taxes? And even if that were the case it would still be misleading to say that paychecks are going up. If I make 600$ every 2 weeks I am working I only take about 450 of that home. If suddenly those taxes are removed at the state level that might put me up to 500$ or so that isn't getting taken out. Did my paycheck go up? No. But I am not having as much taken from my pay as before.

Should also add that this is another cost benefit analysis. If my paycheck is going up how much is it going to be offset by now having to spend more money for the things I buy? Let's say I get 80$ back from each paycheck, but the state sales tax now goes up to 13% on all sales from where it was before at 7%. That now means I'm spending 86% more than what I was before. Is the cost payout really all that much better?

4) There is less room to "hide" money, and for legislatures to play favorites. Sales tax is pretty straight-forward. Te infrastructure is already in place.

This isn't true at all. All you have to do is spend your income through investments and other means or use transfers to keep your money from getting taxed. This actually provides more loopholes, not less, for people to keep their money from being taxed. You are correct that once a person spends their money they will be hit with the sales tax, but you are incorrect that this somehow leads no room for money to keep from being spent. I also do not understand your statement about the infrastructure already being there. Infrastructure is already there for both income taxes and sales taxes and people are already getting taxed at both ends. If this was already true then why doesn't it take place now under the current system?

7) Finally, the amount of money we spend on government is out in the open, not hidden behind all these "taxes" that people don't see, such as corporate tax. People pay this tax, not corporations (despite what you might think about corporations being people).

....this is the opposite of what happens. People pay less attention to the taxes they spend purchasing products than they do to the taxes they pay when they pay their income taxes. Hence why it's income taxes that create an insurgency against taxation (using your words), but it's not sales taxes that do this. We can already see what the total income tax is that companies pay. We won't see what they pay when they use sales taxes. This allows for more hiding of taxes, not less. Let's look at it this way: please tell me how much President Obama or Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney paid in sales taxes through their 2012 campaign? You have no idea now do you? How much sales tax did Wells Fargo pay this year? GE? Microsoft? You have no idea. But you can look up what Obama and Romney paid in income tax and you can look up what these corporations paid in income taxes. This argument just doesn't make sense.

Though it might be a little slow in coming, goods and services should become cheaper, or price rises slower, because corporate profit tax will be lower.

Again this is a cost-benefit analysis claim. I would definitely like to see where you're getting these numbers. Because, again, if prices are increasing 85% for a 10$ reduction in the cost you really aren't winning out.

Mama may have, and Papa may have, God Bless the Child who got his own, who got his own...

... never could resist a song cue...

Where else in the USA, but Louisiana, would you expect to find Voodoo Economics?...

"Savings is good and leads to investment."
So, I should save my money instead of buying food and paying the utility bill? I can't save and pay for necessities, and the way prices are going up, I may soon not be able to afford food & heat.

Thanks. All those CAPITAL LETTERS really make the LOGIC of your argument CLEAR.

They OUTLAWED the taxation of Income.

No they didn't. In fact it states expressly in the US Constitution that income is one of the many areas of taxation that the US Congress has the authority to tax.

By taxing Income which only derives from work you ipso facto decrease the incentive to work, leading to LESS INCOME

Provide evidence that proves this correct. What you will find is that there has never been a study done that conclusively proves that people will want to earn less if their income is taxed which is why wealthy people continue to exist despite the existence of income tax and why the wealthier continue to push to become more wealthy despite the possibility of the threat of higher taxation.

You are correct that at some level increasing or decreasing taxes can create an incentive for someone to change their behavior through economic engineering, but you are grossly exaggerating that extent and grossly narrowing this subject down in a way it was never intended.

They OUTLAWED the taxation of Income.

No they didn't. In fact it states expressly in the US Constitution that income is one of the many areas of taxation that the US Congress has the authority to tax.

However, if you tax Purchases you are Ipso Facto encouraging MORE savings

Again on a microeconomic scale there is some truth to this statement, but you are grossly exaggerating that extent and pushing it to a level that no one else intended. Increasing sales tax will not encourage people to save more than it already encourages people to save. Remember sales tax and income both already exist in the state of Louisiana and you aren't suddenly seeing poor people there stop being poor from saving more nor are you suddenly seeing wealthy people stop being wealthy from paying more. It doesn't happen this way on a macroeconomic scale to the extent that you're talking about.

Those who SPEND more will be taxed more and invariably those who spend MORE are the RICH; those who spend less will be taxed less and they will be incentivized to WORK MORE because now WORK, and thus INCOME, will NOT be taxed.

Those who spend more as a percentage of income are the poor, not the wealthy. The existence or non-existence of sales tax doesn't stop the poor from spending almost all or all of their income. If it did then why do poor people still exist in Louisiana? You're taking something that was meant to be applied in a specific way such as towards programs like installing solar panels on your roof for a discount and are now overblowing it and treating it as black and white.

You want to know how you know that this isn't the way things work on a major scale? Just ask yourself when was the last time you purposely stopped working because you were afraid you'd go over the taxation limit for the income bracket you wanted to belong to and instead would be pushed into a higher bracket you didn't want to belong to? Of course this has never happened in your own life because no sane person on this planet would say to themselves welp I'm going to get taxed at a higher rate so I just will stop trying. People always say if I'm going to get taxed more than I better make more money to compensate for the tax. It actually has the opposite effect of what you're claiming and that's assuming that taxes effect personal behavior at all. For the most part I don't think people change their habits either way.

Correct, and that will persist fo a while.

However states are moving to what is known as "destination tax." Sales tax rate is not based on where you buy the product, but on where you live (your billing address). Washington State and California are already into this big-time, and there are a couple dozen others on board. It will soon be universal. States will collect sales tax for each other in order to cut down on cross-border tax shopping. You will give your zip to the cashier (or use the one built into the mag strip on your credit card).

I'm a programmer for an e-business, and believe me this is a large pain, but we all agree it's inevitable.

If what you say is true then the migration From LA will be huge drain on the coffers of LA.

so then chris - you propose that businesses in ONE state will ASK where the merchandise is bound for?

R I G H T --- now what's the penalty for telling the asker to go piss up a rope? THEY WOULD REFUSE TO SELL SOMETHING Yeah... again... RIGHT!

Oh, and as far as the western states of California and Washington DOING THIS NOW? Time warp? I have seen NO evidence of it and I travel the west EXTENSIVELY. Let's at least try to be ACCURATE.

This is news to the people who live on the west coast. People move to Vancouver or near by specifically so that they can hop the border to benefit from the no sales tax in Oregon state and the no income tax in Washington state. I've met so many people who live in Vancouver and the surrounding area who work in downtown Portland who moved out of Portland the second they heard that Washington state doesn't have income tax so they could take advantage of the benefit of both. As a result both Portland and Vancouver are grossly underfunded and they have both resorted to hiking up prices on everything from gas taxes to homeowners taxes to fix the loss revenue.

sorry to burst your bubble - IF you work in Oregon, you will PAY the Oregon income tax. Been there, done that. There's this little thing called "WITHHOLDING"...

It can't happen until more of us in the south are paid decent wages. That's why the federal taxes from southern states are so low.

Louisiana specifically treats internet sales the same as catalog sales-- companies not based in the state or delivering the goods in their own trucks are exempt from collecting sales tax.

If all state revenue will be coming from increased sales taxes, people will start doing as much as possible online. This will end most big box and mall stores in Louisiana in addition to the electronics and media retailers that have already been sinking. Retail jobs will go away, but crappy warehouse gigs will be available.

The days of zero tax on the Internet are rapidly waning. States are forming collusive pacts aimed at enforcing each other's tax rates. It's happening fast. Up to now, you are *supposed* to pay these "missing" sales taxes on your state tax return, but a lot of people don't, and it's a lot of missing revenue as far as the states are concerned. They just haven't had an effective way to fix it. Now it's happening

Maybe they hope we all look like Anne Hathaway.

more like ann COOTER...

Lack of "progressive" isn't regressive. This is the transference of "progressive" from income to assistance. People who subsist on wages feel nothing -- prices go up by the same amount as their paychecks.

People who buy something nice with the idea of getting the "tax writeoff" though will pay more. There is no more tax writeoff. Government will no longer subsidize the three-martini lunch.

Chris,

Income taxes are progressive in that the rates on higher incomes progressively increase. Sales taxes are regressive even though everyone pays the same rate because the total sales taxes paid by lower income people as a percentage of their income is higher than that of higher income people (ex. a person making $20,000 living paycheck to paycheck will spend all of their income. For the sake of simplicity, the sales tax rate is 10% and everything is taxable, so this person will actually spend $18,182 on goods and services ($20,000/1.1) and pay $1,818 in sales tax. As a percentage of income, that person pays 9.1%. A person making $1M who spends a total of $500,000 (including tax) on taxable purchases will pay $45,455 in sales tax for a 4.5% tax rate as a percentage of income. This is overly simplified, but that's why it is regressive. Of course it depends on how much the person who makes $1M spends but it's less likely he lives paycheck to paycheck and so will almost always have a lower rate as a percentage of income).

Also paychecks will not go up by the same amount as prices - that would be the case if they had a flat income tax and they found a way to make it truly revenue neutral. The $20K earner in the example above likely paid no income taxes, so his paycheck will not increase, meanwhile everything he buys will be more expensive. The $1M earner, who might have paid an average tax rate of 5% (don't know the LA rates) will see his take home pay increase but will most likely see the taxes on his purchases increase at a lower rate, depending on how much the sales tax rate is raised.

This is why it will only benefit the rich and corporations at the expense of the lower and middle classes.

Back to the revenue neutral part - how high do the sales taxes have to go up to make it revenue neutral?

Hi, Brewer, I understand the argument:

Sales taxes are regressive even though everyone pays the same rate because the total sales taxes paid by lower income people as a percentage of their income is higher than that of higher income people

There are two problem preconceptions:

1) That the proportion to income is the only fairness parameter, and not the amount of the tax.

2) That rich people spend the same proportional amount on non-tax items.

Regarding #1, I think rate and amount both need to come into play to judge fairness. If man #1 works 40 hours, and man #2 works 20 hours, should man #2 pay proportionally less tax? Why should man #1 subsidize man #2 because he (#1) works harder?

These are the kinds of conundrums you get into, and to (try to) solve them, we end up with 20,000 pages of tax code and all the collateral damage thereof.

Make it flat and simple, then deal with needs on the other side, case-by-case -- as we do now already -- rather than some broad generalization like the tax rate tables.

Re #2, a Big Mac will cost proportionally less at the drive-through Window for both rich and poor, but proportionally more favorable for the poor than the rich.

Also paychecks will not go up by the same amount as prices

Correct. It will vary, and lesser wages will likely take a small hit if Louisiana uses "progressive" tax tables. I have no answer to that except that the market will have to adjust it out over time. My advice to Jindal would be to do it over 5 years, whacking off 20% each year. Regardless, it's not a perfect a solution, but it is a better, more manageable solution.

Back to the revenue neutral part - how high do the sales taxes have to go up to make it revenue neutral?

Whatever it takes, of course. And people will finally get an idea of what their legislatures are really spending. For the US, the VAT would have to be at least 20%. For Louisiana I'm not sure, but 3% is probably in the right range.

Chris

Why do you claim that someone working 20 hours isn't working as hard as someone working 40 hours? What's this "subsidizing" you mention?

Could you please provide the section of the Louisiana legal code where it states that food ordered at a drive through is considered the same as food prepared at home? If true, it would be the first case of such a law I've ever heard f.

Otherwise, I'll just have to place you in with all the other teen-aged (mentally, morally and philosophically) Randians who are incapable of understanding the meaning of the first three words in the Constitution: "We, the People..."

the "flat tax" has as much chance of suck-cess as the FLAT EARTH.

"From each according to their ability to each according to their need..."

1) That the proportion to income is the only fairness parameter, and not the amount of the tax.

Yes the proportion of income is the only fairness parameter assuming everything else is equal. Someone who only works 20 hours a week, as per your example, is still making substantially less and is therefore having substantially less to live off of than someone who works 40 hours a week (assuming their wages are the same). Income tax helps to correct for this imbalance for the revenue code, sales tax does not. I do not know where you're getting that the taxation itself is a subsidy for the person who makes less income than the person who makes more. If your government needs 1000$ to pay all of it's bills, but only has one way of charging a person for those bills (just the sales tax alone) then it's entire income is dependent on the person who makes more money spending more of his/her income. In which case that proportion of income earned to money spent is the only basis for the judgement of taxation (and thus the only basis for fairness). The income tax is the only one that would equally balance this and make the person who earns less accountable (assuming that these people are both making taxable income). In which case you've just invalidated your own premise with the first contention.

2) That rich people spend the same proportional amount on non-tax items.

This is a pretty big assumption. Is the tax in Louisiana going to be offset by still allowing for these goods to be tax free or will the tax be offset by now including these goods? If it's the latter then your presupposition here has automatically been debunked. If it's the former then you're making the cost-benefit argument again and that all depends on whether or not the taxed goods being exchanged for the non-tax goods equals out to a positive for the individual. It will likely not since you're talking about a huge increase that has to happen. Again 80$ gained back from your paycheck that isn't being taken for payroll is great until you realize that you're paying 86% more for every product you're purchasing.

And people will finally get an idea of what their legislatures are really spending

....income tax has absolutely nothing to do with what your legislature is spending. This doesn't even make sense. You already can look up what your county is spending annually for each department. You already can look up the annual cost of your government. Why are you operating under the assumption that people are somehow in the dark about what their government is spending and then how are you making the leap between what the local government is spending and taxation? I think what you meant to say is that people can now see what their government is earning, but even this doesn't make sense because you can still learn that information today. And, as I addressed earlier, the income tax actually facilitates your knowledge of how much revenue is coming in versus that of the sales tax because it's a more steady amount.

For Louisiana I'm not sure, but 3% is probably in the right range.

.....So now you're proposing that the state sales tax would be lowered even though they are losing the income tax as a form of revenue??? This doesn't make sense. If they are losing the income tax revenue then they are going to have to increase the sales tax from the state to the proportionate amount that they are losing in order to stay revenue neutral. The only way they would be lowering the percentage would be if Louisiana has been continually running a surplus at the current rate of 4%. But since LA is running a deficit we already know that this is not true. Which means the state tax is going to go up by at least some percent. A figure earlier suggested as high as 13%, but it will likely rival that of current states like WA who don't have a state income tax. WA state has a 6.5% state wide sales tax and then in municipalities like King county it is 10%-11%.

Yes, it is awful, for the reasons given in the article. Don't you know how to read? Must everything be read to you by Rush Limbaugh?