[DustyMoment]

. . . with a 30 percent national retail sales tax (NRST) . . . . .

The article starts off with a lie (the NRST will top out at 23% - NOT 30%) and goes downhill from there.

Bartlett is the one who is dopey to me. He is doing the same thing that the "leave SS alone" crowd is doing.

Here's the problem - the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That is the classical example of what our government does and Bartlett appears to be one of the cheerleaders of this philosophy.

[RobFromGa]

Here's the problem - the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

My definition of insanity is to propose a radical new policy about how we fund our government, on the premise that the existing system sucks, and then put your fingers in your ears when anyone dares to ask how in the H-E-double toothpicks the dang new plan is going to be any better.

I for one, as a small business owner, do not think this plan will work as I have heard it described. If it will work for people like me, then it will also be abused terribly by people pretending to be small business owners, and there will be a huge beauracracy trying to figure out which is which-- which will mean compliance costs, audits, etc.

At least now, with the present flawed system, they are up front about the record-keeping required. And that scares most off the fraudulent types off.

[robertpaulsen]

If the NRST supporters insist on calling it a "sales" tax, then get used to the 30% number. When people hear "sales tax", they figure that it is a tax added to the retail price.

The 23% figure would more correctly be called the "retailer income tax on sales". If a retailer receives, as income, $100 in sales, then he is taxed $23. on that income. Yes?

But the way everyone figures "sales tax" is they look at the retail cost (above) of $77., then add a sales tax of $23. Sorry, but that looks like a sales tax rate of 30% to me.

[ConservativeLawStudent]

Rebuttal to Bruce Bartlett:

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/BartlettRebuttal.pdf

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/rebuttals.html

[Texas Patriot]

First let me say I like the NRST but, the first problem with it is with the fact that it is an inclusive tax. Simply meaning that the NRST on $100 would work out to $129 since $29 is 23% of $129. Not as you and I think in terms of a regular state sales tax which is exculsive in that the tax on $100 would be $23 and thus a total cost of $123.
they say 23% tax because it sounds better than 29% especially when you start adding another 10% for the state taxes.
Although they arent "LIEING" they are being deceiptive which ruins thier credibility this is the first(among many) things they need to fix with thier presentation if they don't want people to turn them off when they figure out the difference between inclusive and exclusive taxation rates

(it's early I might have gotten the terms reversed the numbers are still true)

[lewislynn]

The article starts off with a lie (the NRST will top out at 23% - NOT 30%) and goes downhill from there.

The NST is "23% of the gross payment" (including everything in a "gross payment).

An item with a cost of $100.00 before federal tax would cost $130.00 (gross payment) after federal tax.

$30.00 is 23% of $130.00 (gross payment).

and goes downhill from there.

Where is that law written?

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is not a lie. It IS 30%. Don't try the inclusive/exclusive deception here.

[jackbill]

Don't call names. Argue against his points, if you can.