Sales Tax Relief

And this is precisely why the NRST will never be supported by many people. It is immoral for the gov't to tax the milk out of children's bottles. Any system that taxes basic food and clothing is.

That's built into the plan via the FCA (a/k/a the "prebate") -- it is essentially a tax credit for "necessities" without telling people specifically what their "necessities" are. In practical terms, its the replacement for the personal exemptions and deductions from the income tax.

It's a far better idea than trying to write reams of rules to say that A, B, and C are tax-free "necessities", and D, E, and F are taxable "luxuries". After all, even a "necessity" becomes a "luxury" if you get enough of it...

This is more complex than it needs to be.

It doesn't seem to be a massive problem for states that have this type of thing today. Every grocery store in existence has no trouble telling taxable items from those exempt.

So why re-invent the wheel, when there is already a workable and straightforward model?

"What I was soliciting was a comment or two on how does this reduction in sales tax translate into any public support for the Fair Tax?"

And that is the answer I gave...no withholding. This joke of a social engineering reduction in sales tax would mean nothing if people actually got to keep all the money that they make.

They throw a few crumbs and the people get excited...probably the same people who are excited by a tax "refund" Politicians love it when the masses grovel.

You are being disingenuous regarding the cost of items under the fair tax...surely you know about embedded taxes and their effect on cost...explains why you don't want to debate it.

If the politicians were really sticking their dampened finger into the wind (btw:no reason for them to do that..they get to decide what you pay and when you pay it. Meaning: They have the power because of a tax code that is purposefully obscure to the point that the sheople could never understand it) then said politician would figure out that the income tax is a 20,000 page social engineering hammer over the peoples' heads and they would do away with it.

Vanya Cohen: When there's a single thief, it's robbery. When there are a thousand thieves, it's taxation.

This is more complex than it needs to be.

A sales tax rebate need only cover a fixed dollar amount based on a measure of goods and services necessary to sustain life and nothing more. That measure already exists and has existed for decades now in the form of the Bureau of Census & HHS poverty threshold statistic, (a basket goods sufficient sustain a healthy diet time three). Multiply that measure by the sales tax rate and it becomes the sales tax rebate for necessity level spending.

That is what the FairTax national retail sales tax implements its rebate paid to all legal residents. Simple, straight forward and does not define what any specific necessity for individual case and is equally applied regardless of income, wealth or expenditure of the household.

A check or electronic deposit of a defined amount based on household size is more complex than a taxcode defining what specific items are necessity and what are not? LOL, you have a weird sense of complex. A sales tax rebate need only cover a fixed dollar amount based on a measure of goods and services necessary to sustain life and nothing more. That measure already exists and has existed for decades now in the form of the Bureau of Census & HHS poverty threshold statistic, (a basket goods sufficient sustain a healthy diet time three). Multiply that measure by the sales tax rate and it becomes the sales tax rebate for necessity level spending.

I thought the idea was to eliminate needless buereacracy and the need to have the gov't keep tabs on everyone. If you simply don't charge the tax on food and clothing, there is no need to define households and have everyone file a form in order to qualify for a "rebate" on money that never should have been taxed in the first place.

You really think the gov't should decide how much "necessity" you deserve? You don't see this as a tool for winnowing the rebate down?

What about people who share custody or are part time caregivers? Do we refund the "weekend with the kids" dad 2/7ths of a share for each child, or is he just screwed if he wants to feed the kids while he has them? What about other situations where aunts and grandparents and other people help provide for children? Do they get a partial credit for that?

Isn't is a heck of a lot simpler to just not tax food in the first place (and I note again my state does this now with little controversy), instead of setting up elaborate schemes?

[Isn't it a heck of a lot simpler to just not tax food in the first place (and I note again my state does this now with little controversy), instead of setting up elaborate schemes?]

It only appears to be without controversy. The maker of every one of those hundreds of thousands of items on a store shelf had to lobby, file an application, appeal, etc. to finally get some government flunky to classify their product as non-taxable. Over and over again for each state with a sales tax and in some cases down to a county or even city level.

And is the end result fair ? Filet mignon, lobster, caviar, cakes and pastries are all tax-free in California grocery stores. Diet foods like Slim-Fast and Vitamins are taxable. Soft drinks are taxable and pure fruit juice isn't -- but for those drinks that contain less than 100% fruit juice, somebody had to decide what percentage qualifies as non-taxable.

It's absurd. And un-American. If you insist on people being untaxed on the "necessities" of life, then at least let THEM decide what is a "necessity." That is what the FairTax FCA does -- let's PEOPLE decide.

I thought the idea was to eliminate needless buereacracy and the need to have the gov't keep tabs on everyone.

Just what kind of bureaucracy is needed to to figure out what it costs to maintain a standard healthy diet and multiply that by three?

If you simply don't charge the tax on food and clothing,

As this article demonstrates, what is food and clothing to not be taxed? Everytime you let a legislator and a lobbiest in the act you end up with a socially engineered tax to discourage, or encourage one kind of spending or another, just look at most state sales taxes, there are endless exceptions to the rule where one thing or another is taxed or exempt based on some arbitrary designation as meeting a definition of food or not, medicine or not, etc.

there is no need to define households and

LOL, defining a household is simple, the FairTax bill simply allows persons of a household to designate a person or more to recieve the check/s at a mailing address chosen by those in the household.

have everyone file a form in order to qualify for a "rebate"

Just count the adults and children and update once a year if you want to receive the rebate. If you have no desire to receive said rebate don't send the information to your state tax administration as it is totally voluntary whether you do so or not.

on money that never should have been taxed in the first place.

And there of course is your problem, leaving it to lobbiests and legislators to figure out what should not have been taxed in the first place, and not up to the individual by his/her personal election in how they spend their money. One man's luxury is often another's necessity. Why would you leave it to government to decide which it is for you.

You really think the gov't should decide how much "necessity" you deserve? You don't see this as a tool for winnowing the rebate down?

What does deserve have to do with it, the amount necessary to purchase a healthy diet is well characterised for different sized households. Take that number in any given year update for CPI and multiply it by three and the tax rate you have the amount of rebate to be returned annually. Straight forward, it is already being done so does not require creation of a "new bureaucracy" and in fact requires very little bureaucracy at all.

Isn't is a heck of a lot simpler to just not tax food in the first place (and I note again my state does this now with little controversy), instead of setting up elaborate schemes?

No because one man's food is another's poison as the saying goes. Who gets to decide what my food (untaxed) is vs poison to be taxed. Sorry with the propensity of folks running around suggesting taxes be laid on all manner of things not good for you is much more intrusive and problematic than providing a well defined rebate and allowing the individual to retain control through his own decision making processes in how they may spend or save as they will. It certainly make more sense and less intrusion into people's liberty to final decisions of necessity to the individual rather than governement whether by device of politician or of fiat of a bureaucrat.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.