National Retail Sales Tax - You gotta be kidding!

GOPNATION.COM ^ | January 31, 2005 | Steve Pudlo

[RockinRight]

The NRST is a hell of a lot more fair than the income tax.

[kevkrom]

This guy lost me at the "pony up another 40% or so" line. How someone can be so misinformed about the topic they're writing about and expect to be taken seriously is beyond comprehension.

[AppyPappy]

Exactly, the writer failed to remember that he wouldn't be paying $10k to the government every year in income tax. It makes that $6,000 tax on a car a bit easier to accept.

[Conspiracy Guy]

You've got that right. The author is an idiot.

[mike182d]

Who's gonna police the collectors to make sure they collect the right taxes from the right goods?

Its called the "Department of Revenue" and they've being doing it for quite some time now.

[T.Smith]

It is clear from the article that the writer has not read, or at least understood, the Fair Tax Plan.

[Sam the Sham]

Absolutely right.

This would shift the tax burden to those living paycheck to paycheck.

[mike182d]

The only problem with the fair tax is that I don't see the federal government seriously considering this option. With federal income tax, the projected income of the federal government is fairly predictable and relatively fixed while an income based upon consumer spending may vary.

[Gabz]

I can actually see both sides of this.

Sales taxes are regressive....and hurt those with lesser incomes far more than those higher up the economic scale.

[itsamelman]

Just because I have 500 dollars, doesn't mean that I have 700.

You might if you didn't work for the government until May every year.

Taxing productivity makes no sense to me.

[Military family member]

This article is full of more logical fallacies than I care to begin to address, but I will point out the biggest.

The overall theme of this piece is not why the NRST is wrong, but that is has already become law and here are the consequences.

The author needs to go back to English Comp. 101 and start from scratch. The use of rhetorical questions does not mean you have mastered the art of rhetoric.

[kevkrom]

With federal income tax, the projected income of the federal government is fairly predictable and relatively fixed while an income based upon consumer spending may vary.

Actually, it's the opposite -- consumer spending is more predicatble than income.

[Paul C. Jesup]

The NRST would be no more voluntary that the current system.

NRST is voluntary in that you can choose not to spend your money and choose to save it instead. The current Income Tax structed not only prevents this, but punishes you for trying to save your money.

By the way, food, clothing and medicine are excluded from the NRST that is being preposed.

[Judith Anne]

I agree--those were pretty lame arguments the writer put forth. Shows he is arguing against a fiction he concocted in his own mind.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPROVE of the NRST, and I support its implementation NOW!

[lewislynn]

The NRST is a hell of a lot more fair than the income tax.

How do you know?

[RockinRight]

Perhaps...but don't most of the Fair Tax plans state that items like food and necessities are untaxed, therefore leveling the playing field?

[rdb3]

I'm cool to the NRST. A flat tax would be much better. Ten or 15 percent across the board and that's that.

[jim_g_goldwing]

bump

[kevkrom]

Sales taxes are regressive....and hurt those with lesser incomes far more than those higher up the economic scale.

That's why the NRST includes what is called the Family Consumption Allowance, which is essentially the personal exemption/standard deduction of the income tax translated into sales tax terms. Everyone is eligible for it, and it actually makes the tax progressive, rather than regressive, based on the level of consumption.