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

Skip to comments.

National Retail Sales Tax - You gotta be kidding!
GOPNATION.COM ^ | January 31, 2005 | Steve Pudlo

Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,060 ... 1,261-1,278 next last
To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I know.
We'll just have to steal some of their material then.
Hopefully they'll be flattered that we thought it worthy of thefticating.


1,021 posted on 02/01/2005 12:49:56 PM PST by Darksheare (Trolls beware, the icy hands of the forum wraith are behind you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1017 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Indubitdibiddley!
1,022 posted on 02/01/2005 12:51:44 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham (Proud American chauvinist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1021 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

"Liberty is a great thing, but it's not free.

I'm willing to pay."

Small wealth now or blood later....I would be willing to forfiet the wealth already stolen from me for the avoidance of the blood.


1,023 posted on 02/01/2005 12:56:06 PM PST by CSM ("I just started shooting," said Gloria Doster, 56. "I was trying to blow his brains out ....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reasonable explanation of how prices can stay the same with the 30% sales tax while we are taking home what use to be withheld from our paychecks and getting $500 a month from the government. They don't call it the FairytaleTax for nothing.

What is the national average ratio of taxes paid to gross receipts?

1,024 posted on 02/01/2005 12:57:16 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1019 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

"I still say that something simpler is a moral imperative just so those of us who are attempting to follow the law don't have to regularly worry that we have violated it."

The FairTax is by far the simplest viable proposal out there. If simplicity is the goal, then the FairTax wins that hands down.


1,025 posted on 02/01/2005 12:57:58 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

"Maybe I am wrong but I thought the worker at the Chinese sofa factory made slightly less per hour than the factory worker in the US."

That is correct, however the total labor difference in the price of the sofa is very small. Many times offset by the logistics cost.


1,026 posted on 02/01/2005 1:07:40 PM PST by CSM ("I just started shooting," said Gloria Doster, 56. "I was trying to blow his brains out ....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 976 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

"With no income tax and only sales tax, say buh-bye to all of them to one degree or another."

Incorrect. First of all, less than 50% of taxpayers itemize, so for a majority of taxpayers, the home mortgage interest deduction is of no benefit. Secondly, interest rates would drop to non-taxable levels, so a rate drop of 25 - 30% is expected. That is a greater benefit to homeowners (even those who DO itemize) than the tax deduction. Third, the purpose of the home mortgage deduction is so that the interest on your home mortgage payments would be made before - tax. With the FairTax, EVERYTHING would be made before tax. Fourth, don't you suppose young workers would find it easier to save up for that first house if Uncle were not taking a huge chunk out of every paycheck?

The home housing market will do extremely well under the FairTax.


1,027 posted on 02/01/2005 1:16:42 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

"Look at the whole picture. You have only touched on a piece of it. Keep in mind, the government will need the same money it always needed, except they will get it in a different way. Do not think your tax will go down."

I AM looking at the big picture. Consider this - although you make a valid point in that the propsal is revenue neutral, that does not consider the enormous savings in compliance costs. Those are costs that are borne either directly or indirectly by every taxpayer. These are in the hundreds of billions of $$$. They are a drag on our economy and a waste of resources.

If all the FairTax did was to save hundreds of billions in compliance costs, that alone would justify its passage. Fortunately, it does much more.


1,028 posted on 02/01/2005 1:21:41 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"How much of what we purchase on a daily/weekly basis is imported?"

Based on the trade deficit, a lot. The most recent figures that I have seen indicate that it is now up to $600 billion per year and rising fast.

That is one of the biggest benefits of the FairTax - it would favorably impact the trade deficit.


1,029 posted on 02/01/2005 1:25:07 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

what is your agenda? your real motivation? you get fired up, rabid against the fair tax but give no clear reasons why

you have made it clear that you hate the fair tax but don't say why....what are you not saying?


1,030 posted on 02/01/2005 1:25:28 PM PST by socialismisinsidious ("A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies]

To: All

The hypotheticals were fun, but I would really like to move on. Please don't respond to my posts any more.

We shall see what we shall see - if this ever happens.

For the record, I am for it for reasons I have not even articulated here (nor will I). I also do not think it will happen, again for reasons I have not even articulated here.

It'll be fun to watch, but it is getting boring to discuss.


1,031 posted on 02/01/2005 1:25:35 PM PST by RobRoy (I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1028 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Indeed they should.
But they won't, because they have a statist quo agenda.

1,015 jones





Freudian slip on the malapropism there?

kevkrom






No 'slip' at all.
It's pretty obvious that some here support our Statist form of income taxation, -- the 'status quo'.

They support our current Statism. -- the 'statist quo'.



1,032 posted on 02/01/2005 1:28:45 PM PST by jonestown ( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

No, your the one trying to say I'm mislead.
--- I'm not "misled", and never have been. The Fair Tax idea is sound, even though the written proposal is flawed in some specifics.

Catch 22. Zealotry blinds those who myopically focus on nitpicking details.


1,033 posted on 02/01/2005 1:35:58 PM PST by jonestown ( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
The final item price would be $103.85, of which combined federal and state taxes would be $26.85.

When I went to school the $103.85 would be "the gross payment"...

So using your new math, which part of your calculation would you describe as "the gross payment"?

1,034 posted on 02/01/2005 1:41:59 PM PST by lewislynn (The meaning of life can be described in one word...Grandchildren)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 952 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious
what is your agenda? your real motivation? you get fired up, rabid against the fair tax but give no clear reasons why

you have made it clear that you hate the fair tax but don't say why....what are you not saying?
Basically, IMO, it a bad plan being sold with lies and half-truths. There are much better plans.

I'm not "not saying" anything.
1,035 posted on 02/01/2005 1:45:20 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
When I went to school the $103.85 would be "the gross payment"...

Maybe where you went to school that's true, but by the statuatory language in HR25/SB25, the gross payment for federal tax purposes is $100, because the state sales taxes are not included.

Again, this is why it is actually easier to implement the NRST using tax-exclusive rates, although the tax-inclusive rate is used for internal Congresional use.

You love using the "gross payments" line, but you also love to ignore the definitions. Let me refresh your memory a little bit:

(5) GROSS PAYMENTS- The term `gross payments' means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title.

...

(14) Taxable property or service-

`(A) GENERAL RULE- The term `taxable property or service' means--

`(i) any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property) but excluding--

`(I) intangible property, and
`(II) used property, and
`(ii) any service (including any financial intermediation services as determined by section 801).

`(B) SERVICE- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `service'--

`(i) shall include any service performed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary by a taxable employer, and
`(ii) shall not include any service performed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary--

`(I) by an employer in the regular course of the employer's trade or business,
`(II) by an employer that is a not-for-profit organization (as defined in section 706),
`(III) by an employer that is a government enterprise (as defined in section 704), and
`(IV) by taxable employers to employees directly providing education and training.

Note that "this title" from subsection 5 is USC 26 (amended), and that the definition of "taxable property or services" does not include state or local sales taxes. Now, one might claim that this is either ambiguous or implicitly includes state/local sales taxes (unless one is a compelte and raving lunatic who claims that they are explicitly included), but then one only has to refer to:

`SECTION 1. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

`(a) IN GENERAL- Any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider the purposes of this subtitle (as set forth in subsection (b)) as the primary aid in statutory construction.

`(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this subtitle are as follows:

`(1) To raise revenue needed by the Federal Government in a manner consistent with the other purposes of this subtitle.

`(2) To tax all consumption of goods and services in the United States once, without exception, but only once.

`(3) To prevent double, multiple, or cascading taxation. ...

In other words, any ambiguity must be resolved to not include any cascading of taxes -- if the state/local sales tax were to be included in the "gross payments" definition, then this principle would be violated.

1,036 posted on 02/01/2005 1:58:02 PM PST by kevkrom (If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as Utopian planners wish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"The point is that the price of imports wil not be favorably affected."

"Great news if you're a protectionist, huh?"

Not really. Great news if you believe that our tax system should not create a handicap for US producers and a bias toward foreign producers.


1,037 posted on 02/01/2005 2:09:00 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
See my #1036 above and take this challenge: Find me two people who agree with your interpretation that the NRST would tax state/local sales taxes after they see all of the definitions and principles of interpreation.
1,038 posted on 02/01/2005 2:09:17 PM PST by kevkrom (If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as Utopian planners wish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

One of the penalties for fraudulent use of a tax exempt certificate is permanent loss of the certificate even for legitimate business purchases.

Will some people risk it? Sure. Enough to worry about it? No.

There is massive fraud and abuse now. There will always be cheaters. It will be tougher to cheat with the FairTax. The retailer will not be the one to check on the tax exempt claim. Those subject to audits will be reduced from 140 million to about 15 or 20 million. Cheaters will get scrutiny. Don't worry about.


1,039 posted on 02/01/2005 2:14:02 PM PST by Badray (This tag line under construction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 965 | View Replies]

To: Badray
"Those subject to audits will be reduced from 140 million to about 15 or 20 million."

Audits by who? Not the IRS. They're gone.

1,040 posted on 02/01/2005 2:18:34 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1039 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,060 ... 1,261-1,278 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