Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Discusses National Sales Tax
FOX ^ | Dec 1, 2004

Posted on 12/01/2004 8:25:22 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

...President Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (search) have both said the idea of a national sales tax deserves a serious look. For many, the idea of a world without the Internal Revenue Service is very seductive.

"We spend about $400 billion a year complying with the tax code. We spend $200 billion a year just filling out IRS paperwork," said Rep. John Linder (search) , R-Ga., who has proposed a bill that would create a national sales tax.

Proponents have spent millions on research and have concluded that a national sales tax can replace the income tax, payroll tax, estate tax and corporate tax. Advocates say the new tax would lower the cost of manufacturing and job creation and attract foreign investments, among other things.

"If we were to get rid of the sales or the income tax and the payroll tax and all compliance costs, we would be so ferociously competitive in a world economy that corporate America would not be competed with unless foreign corporations started building their plants in America," Linder said.

Proponents seek a 23-cent national sales tax on all retail goods, everything from groceries to clothes, cars to electronics. Everyone would pay the same rate, which critics argue is part of the problem.

"If you consume $40,000 a year and you make $50,000 a year, would you feel it is fair if a guy who made a half a million dollars a year but spent $40,000 a year paid the same tax you do? I think you wouldn't feel it's fair," said Buck Chapoton, former assistant treasury secretary.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: fairtax; irs; taax; tax; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 621-635 next last
To: DTaggart
"It's obviously 23 cents on the dollar. You really think that if you bought a 40 million dollar gulfstream jet, the government would only want 23 cents? How old are you?"

My own post made the point that the 23 cent figure was ridiculous and was probably an error or misstatement; nonetheless, that is what the story said.
61 posted on 12/01/2004 8:57:46 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

NRST = Black Market Creation Act.
30% sales tax, yes, people are honest and patriotic enough to pony that much up every chance they make a purchase.

Every mall store in America would close its front doors and do all its sales beside the delivery trucks in the parking lots.


62 posted on 12/01/2004 8:58:07 AM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

This idea hs been around for a long time. I first heard about it in 1998, and have been talking about it to anyone who would listen. Go to www.fairtax.org and read everything they have. This is a good idea.


63 posted on 12/01/2004 9:00:04 AM PST by concretebob (Power perceived, is power achieved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

you are correct- this is already taking place in canada.


64 posted on 12/01/2004 9:00:06 AM PST by Mr. K ((this space for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
Yes goods would cost more, but you would also have more money because the income tax would be eliminated. A national sales tax has other advantages:

1. Eliminating the IRS (and the IRS's budget)
2. Encourage savings by taxing consumption instead of income
3. Eliminate double a triple taxations

This should be a no-brainer. The US in not in competition with Europe, the US is in competition with China and India. If we don't get onboard with sound fiscal policies those two countries will be looking at the US as a backwater the same we look at Europe as a backwater.
There are absolutely benefits to a consumption tax. But this myth that we will take home our entire paycheck and everything will cost the same (net of taxes) needs to die so we have reasonable discussions about the real merits of the different tax plans.
65 posted on 12/01/2004 9:00:29 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

Those who want the current system to stay a)already have theirs and only view it selfishly, b)don't earn SH*T today, c)are involved in enterprises deemed illegal by government and avoid the system altogher, d)avoid the system other ways.

What did I miss?

Oh, yes - those that profit from this Federal slave trade...known as Progressive Income Taxation.

Of course, why not have all earnings sent to the Feds and allow them to give us individuals back as much as they believe we all need?

From each according...to each according.


66 posted on 12/01/2004 9:00:39 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

"Check the current percentage of taxation on your take-home pay. Bet its right around 30%. Now, add in the time it takes to fill out and file your return. Ain't you got better things to do with your time? Now, to simplfy things, manufacturers and producers would pay no tax on materials to produce or manufacture goods. Builders would pay no tax on building materials. The consumer would pay the tax at time of purchase. First purchase only. Resale of goods by purchaser would be exempt."

Ok, so say that we all pay around 30% income right now. That would be decreased to 23%, and the government would not collect any corporate taxes. I don't think it adds up. Sure we would pay less... but then how would we fund our military?


67 posted on 12/01/2004 9:01:01 AM PST by DTaggart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
"NRST = Black Market Creation Act."

You have a point. We might see a level of organized criminal activity that we haven't seen since the days of prohibition.
68 posted on 12/01/2004 9:01:03 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Go take a look at Canada- they HATE IT WITH A PASSION

They have it WITH an INCOME TAX!!

69 posted on 12/01/2004 9:01:48 AM PST by painter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

No New Taxes! Right now we have income taxes, estate taxes, payroll taxes and capital gain taxes on the federal books. The proposal is to add another kind of tax- sales tax- and make the others dormant. It'll only be a matter of time before those dormant taxes start rising again in the name of "making the rich pay their fair share". Then where would we be?

Besides, I would rather the government's income be based on production, not consumption. I want our nation to be a nation of producers, not consumers.


70 posted on 12/01/2004 9:01:59 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Money is nothing without consumption. You might as well have Monopoly money. Unless you spend it, it's worthless. I don't see how we would be any freer holding a bunch of worthless paper because we don't want to the government to tax it over them taking it before you spend it. If you don't want the government to take it now, reduce your income (I'm sure your employer will be willing). You would be just as well off as if under a NRST you had earned it and didn't spend it.

Understood, but its a matter of principal. Under the given model, I could choose to purchase a cheaper pair of shoes, live a more modest lifestyle, and subsequently pay much less in taxes than if I were to choose to have a flat screen TV, Mercedez-Benz, and pay much more in taxes.

With the current tax method, it doesn't matter how I choose to live my life, the government's going to take whatever it wants from me before the money I earn even reaches my hands.

One theory is clearly more just than the other
71 posted on 12/01/2004 9:02:06 AM PST by mike182d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

CPA or Tax Attorney? IRS maybe?


72 posted on 12/01/2004 9:02:49 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Jay777

>>>>2. How will I not be taxed again on the money I have saved?

Under the proposed NRST, you're not taxed until you purchase something, so logically your savings couldn't be taxed 'again'.

To make sure your scenario *doesn't* happen is to repeal the 16th amendment and establish the NRST at the same time.


73 posted on 12/01/2004 9:03:17 AM PST by hsrazorback1 (To get what you had, do what you did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

I like economic freedom over the govt. telling me how much to pay. And the FairTax is NOT regressive.


74 posted on 12/01/2004 9:04:13 AM PST by rwfromkansas ("War is an ugly thing, but...the...feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse." --J.S. Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"If you consume $40,000 a year and you make $50,000 a year, would you feel it is fair if a guy who made a half a million dollars a year but spent $40,000 a year paid the same tax you do?

LOL

As usual, this moron's (non) logic is pathetic.

Someone who makes .5 million a year would only spend $40,000??

Get real!

75 posted on 12/01/2004 9:05:00 AM PST by kstewskis (Political correctness is intellectual terrorism.......M Gibson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

Ok, why would current sales tax be eliminated? Current sales taxes are state issued..I know California would not eliminate them. If you think the government would not start including 'other' items such as housing....Of course you would bring home your whole wage but this spend (pay tax) and then ask for reimbursement. how would that impact the really poor among us. What hidden taxes, its the consumer that pays. As a retailer, the last purchase pays the sales tax, I am exempt the whole road (unless I am not reselling the item). If you are talking about corporate taxes, would corporations really be exempt or would all purchases be taxed the whole trip from manufacturing to consumption?


76 posted on 12/01/2004 9:05:03 AM PST by roylene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet

It's HR 25.


77 posted on 12/01/2004 9:06:43 AM PST by mombrown1 (Trust in God and our President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; DTaggart
The 23% rate IS A LIE!!

It is a 'tax inclusive' rate- which NO ONE can calculate in their heads.

If you spend $100 and think the tax rate is 23% you would expect to pay $123, right? WRONG!! With the 'tax inclusive' rate you would pay closer to $130. (A 30% rate in the way most normal people think- i.e. not govt. deceptive liars) That is because they figure the 'tax inclusive' rate as the percentage of price INCLUDING the tax.

It would be much easier to quote the %30 rate, and not even have to explain what 'tax inclusive' means, but that rate would not fly with the voters. I am surprised they have the nerve to even quote 23% (even though it is a deceptive term)

78 posted on 12/01/2004 9:06:56 AM PST by Mr. K ((this space for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mike182d
"With the current tax method, it doesn't matter how I choose to live my life, the government's going to take whatever it wants from me before the money I earn even reaches my hands."

You are exactly right. That is why the national sales tax will never pass. Why would Uncle Sam wait for you to make purchases to collect his loot when he can take it right out of your check before you even see it?

79 posted on 12/01/2004 9:08:10 AM PST by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter

I thought Brit's guest said the repealment of the 16th Amendment wasn't necessary, but was probably advisable. The 16th Amendment gives the gov the power to collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, but it is just a statute that actually gives force to the amdendment. They could repeal the statute easily and leave the amendment in place--simply not use it. However, the guest thought folks would be worried that the gov would do both a sales tax and an income tax, so he thought the amendment should be done away with to prevent a mere simple majority in Congress from working its ill. Also, an amendment would add legitimacy to the national sales tax/no income tax idea, since it is such a revolutionary concept, and probably more than a simple majority of Congress should be involved in the process.


80 posted on 12/01/2004 9:08:58 AM PST by Cyclopean Squid (The 80s belonged to the Gipper, the Aughts belong to Dubya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 621-635 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson