And at what amount does that line get drawn? Are vehicles included... how bout houses... ?

And the double-sized family pack ($110) gets taxed more than the regular pack ($60) of the same stuff?
And the $110 bag of driveway salt is taxed more than the $90 jar of caviar?

Nope, I don't think this one's gonna fly. :headshake

This sounds like it'll create more problems than it'll solve. In our own lives we make choices based on all the needs and information we have. Having a congresscritter or cube dwellar in Washington decide our needs really rubs folks the wrong way.

Ex: Right now under the present system we have the morgage deduction. For a minority of people at lower incomes it can get them into a house. For everyone else it creates an incentive to buy more house than they can really afford and creates an imbalance in peoples investing toward real estate.

It is the same basic flaw that that you see in a lot of government programs, the group is deciding what is of value to the individual. If you believe in government at any level you're supporting this idea. To me the key is the minimization of the coercion. Put Hillary's mandatory care up against Obama's health incentive plan and you go with Obama's. They are both bad ideas brought about as a response to earlier bad ideas, but Obama's appears to be less reliant on force.

We already have a progressive sales tax to a certain degree: why do you think basic necessities like food and toilet paper are not taxed?

Perhaps I have an unusual perspective on sales tax (I live in a state with an abnormally high sales tax and no income tax, which is how we deal with having so many illegal immigrants who don't pay income tax but who still buy things like everyone else, and it works really well for us) but I don't see anything inherently wrong with a progressive sales tax, depending on where the lines are drawn--it is no different than the progressive income tax system we already have. Now, if you disagree with all progressive tax schemes, okay; or if your main problem is the government's basic inability to draw reasonable guidelines without making a clusterfuck of the whole thing, sure--but doesn't that mean you should all be clamoring for a flat income tax too?

As a side note, I can't find a cite on this in either direction, but as far as I know there is no "sales tax" for the purchaser of a home. There can be a tax on the profit to the seller of the home, but there are exclusions that make that really only apply to investors who are not living in the house.

That's true, but there is a property tax on a house. You don't find property tax on something like a hammer, even though a hammer will usually last just as long.

Sure, but in theory property taxes wouldn't be affected by a progressive sales tax system, if one were to be implemented.

I don't know about yall, but I plan on writing in xoB. Nobody else is worth doodly-squat.

Love how the pics of Hillary are changing. A month ago everyone was all smiles an shit - now everyone is hedging. Interesting article too.