Deseret News | Sales tax unfair

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Sales tax unfair

Whether this tax is fair.. | 4:58 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I don't know, but I do know that what is fair should be the notion that all people, rich, poor and in between, should pay something for the government services they receive. True, no taxes are really fair for anyone entirely, but there should be no free lunches for anyone, even if it means that the poorest among us pay something - even a token amount. With this concept in mind, perhaps a reduced tax on food should become the norm among the poorer segment of our population. Just how this is accomplished...I'm sure someone can figure it out.

Fair? | 6:07 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Why is it fair that a rich man pays more in tax than a poor man? Also given that the poor man will most likely consume more government services?

I'm shocked that you can ignore the theft of money from the rich.

Your sense of morality is messed up...

In reality our government should be out of the charity business. They should do what they were founded to do and nothing more.

Anonymous | 7:03 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

If they want to tax food - TAX JUNK FOOD! It would do us all some good.

Comments continue below

wallofvoodoo | 7:28 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Why should a rich man be able to take advantage of government programs to make money & then not pay their way?

Tax energy | 7:48 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

In other articles, there's been discussion of how Utah gives tax reductions or eliminations for our mining and drilling for energy. Why is big industry given a break? Utah should do a "Sarah Palin" (for what she did in Alaska to the oil companies) and make the energy companies pay for pillaging our state's resources, much of which is sold outside the state.

Don't give me the "jobs" argument -- so much of our energy industry for mining and drilling is mechanized now, the jobs in these sectors have been falling since the 1970s. A tax on mining and drilling won't threaten jobs any more than automation already has!

Why does the GOP favor taxing citizens and not wealthy business?

RedShirt | 8:18 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

TO "Tax energy | 7:48 a.m. " the reason for taxing citizens rather than businesses is simple. If it wasn't for the citizens, where would the businesses get their revenue from? It also keeps the price of goods and services down.

For example, if a company sells a hamburger for $1, and the company profits by $0.10 for that hamburger, what do you think that company will do if taxes on their profit are 20%? Rather than cutting their profit margins, they will now charge an additional $0.02 for the same hamburger. So, now think of it this way. If a you are buying the latest bigscreen TV, and the price is $2000, and now the government is charging 20% on all profits, you can greatly increasethe cost of that TV because the store you buy it at pays 20%, the manufacturer of the TV pays 20%, the freight companies involved each pays 20%, the component manufacturers each pay 20%. So, your $2000 TV now costs $2200, thanks to taxing businesses.

Anonymous | 8:19 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

If the poor cant afford to pay taxes on bread then they should just 'eat cake'.

Its the conservative way.

Re: wallof voodoo | 8:24 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

What government programs are the rich taking advantage of? I've seen few rich people lining up for welfare, or walking out of the ER without paying. I don't see rich people using cash for clunkers or the first-time homebuyer tax credit.

Be honest: Are you really sure the rich are taking advantage of the government, or are you just bitter that you're not one of them?

Maybe if you could elaborate on this I could answer your question.

Anonymous | 8:36 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

It's not fair that I am forced to pay for the education of huge families that receive tax write=offs simply for the fact that they create these large families. Not fair at all.
No more exemptions for over two kids.

RedShirt | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

To "Anonymous | 8:36 a.m. " is it fair that the kids of those huge familes have to pay for your Social Security and Medicare when you are old?

Ultra Bob | 9:06 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The problem with taxes is that some people are able to avoid paying taxes and have no qualms about having other people pay their share of the cost of government.

Wealthy people and businesses threaten to move out of the state if taxes are raised on them.

The only tax source left is the less fortunate people, and the sales tax is fairly evenly spread on them.

Solution. Eliminate the unnecessary, unrepresentative, corrupt, business oriented, and unfair State governments. Might take a Constitutional amendment to do it.

Provide that all government costs, other than specific local services, be paid for by a Personal income tax on all incomes paid to individuals from U.S. sources. Such a tax would be on all income from American businesses without exemptions and without deductions.

Remove income tax from all businesses. Business would pay taxes only for local special services based on the use of those services. Individuals would also pay for local special services.

The only thing is, even if all business was private, those pesky conservatives would call this Socialism.

@Anony 8:36 | 9:23 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Move to a state that has low birth rates. Oh, they are less healthy and less prosperous than Utah. And they still have high taxes. Sorry Bud, just live with it and continue hating the Mormons.

Fair Tax | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

It is easy to tell the difference between a "fair tax" and an unfair tax. A fair tax is any tax that I don't have to pay, but benefit from. An unfair tax is everything else.

Poor shouldn't pay. | 1:47 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Why don't we have all products - from groceries, to cosmetics to automobiles to houses have a "tiered" price system. Your individual income would be investigated (perhaps all people should be required to bring in their income tax statement whenever they go shopping) and then you would pay the price according to your ability to pay. Those making less than $20,000 a year would get everything for free (including a nice house of course!) and those making over a million dollars could pay $100 (or perhaps $1000 - Hey, they've got the money!)for a gallon of milk. There could be intermediate prices for intermediate salaries. That would clearly be the most "fair" system of all.

@ Red Shirt | 2:23 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Who will pay the SS for that generation? And the generation after that?
With over 6 billion people on earth now, thousands starving and dying because of lack of medical care, should we just keep having large un-needed families just for the heck of it?
Any problems breathing lately? Notice that fresh water is not getting easier to come by? Notice the oceans being fished out? Building over all the farm land at will?
Get real.

RedShirt | 2:48 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

To "@ Red Shirt | 2:23 p.m. " welcome to the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. It was designed with the intent that most people would not collect it and under the assumption that large families would be the norm. At some point the age to collect SS will have to be raised or else there will be too many people collecting benefits for it to remain solvent.

So, what you are saying is that because there are .01% (at most, otherwise it would be millions) dying because of a lack of medical care and starvation, families should be smaller. That makes no sense. Actually, if you wanted to fix starvation and deaths due to medical care you could save most of those people simply by ending all conflicts in the world and getting people to raise crops again.

The air quality is actually improving, so no, no problems breathing. Fresh water can always be derived from sea water. More fish are being "farm" raised, and even some tasty fish are being raised in tanks now. I agree, we should cut back on the amount of farm land being turned into homes, but that will not change until cities allow_more_large_scale_development.

Anonymous | 4:03 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

RedShirt' You are not living in reality. According to you everything is just wonderfull on earth.
Reality says you are flat wrong.
How is the average quality of life now, compared to thirty or fourty years ago?
How will the quality of life be for the grandkids?
Dream on.

RedShirt | 4:32 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

TO "Anonymous | 4:03 p.m." the average quality of life now is better than it was 30 or 40 years ago. People live longer and many diseases and genetic disorders are manageable. The air is cleaner and information is more readily available.

If the government keeps spending, the quality of life for my grandkids will be lowered. If universal healthcare is enacted, again their quality of life may be lowered. (see the Frontline special "Sick around the world" at the PBS web site)

Yes for food tax. | 4:59 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Make all the full quivers pay their fair share.

Since when? | 6:47 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Fairness and taxes do not belong in the same sentence together, they are conflicting nouns!

Fair? | 8:11 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I demand YOU pay my way in life and if you complain, I will call you greedy and elect liberal politicians who will FORCE you to pay for my living expenses while I continue being lazy, irresponsible and demanding!

Reality! | 8:22 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

America's best days are behind us because no person will continue to invest, work hard or create jobs and wealth if they cannot keep it! It's easier to vote for Democrats!

Anonymous | 8:55 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I pay my SS and medicare.

Your kids pay nothing, take government resources and give you a tax break.

And you complain about paying taxes and fairness!

-Yes- for consumption tax.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.