The_Lillard_King
Westside
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 12,405
- Likes
- 310
- Points
- 83
I was intentionally avoiding the non-taxable aspect just because it gets complicated...while it's true that some things are usually exempted...whether it's progressive or regressive is determined on each individual's spending habits rather than broadly based on their financial standing...so it is unevenly applied...sometimes widely so.
Also, it is more regressive than the standard income tax. There is a minimum threshhold for taxation of income, there is no minimum threshhold for Sales tax. So the very poor that aren't subject to income tax will end up paying sales tax...so that aspect is definitely more regressive.
So in some cases if you factor in everything it might still be progressive, but much less so than income taxes.
I don't know if I want to see it, but I think sales tax is a very fair way to tax people. It promotes savings and taxes people hard who have the ability and buy a lot of luxury items. I think of vehicles alone and the amount of tax the "real wealthy" would get taxed alone on vehicles. (Of course I would make it complicated and have exempt items, with higher taxes on vehicles over 50K). But what better way to tax . .. the more you spend, the more you pay tax.
Plus think of all the tourist that come to Oregon that we could tax. That is millions of dollars in tax money we can get from people outside the state.