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 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,261-1,278 next last
To: robertpaulsen
You own a store that sells widgets. There happens to be a widget store across the street from you as well. Your both in fierce competition for consumers.
The NRST is passed and enacted. Prior to this you were paying the Widget suppliers [both foreign & domestic,] $10 per widget. Now the [domestic] widget supplier sells them for $7.

Do you lower your prices before your competition does? Do you lower your prices after he does? Or do neither of you lower your prices?
194 Phantom Lord


______________________________________


Excuse me, Mr. Phantom Lord, but I import my widgets from a Chinese company. (Actually, I import 75% of my products from overseas manufacturers. So do my competitors. Keeps the retail price low, doncha know.)

How much, again, will I pay for my $10 widget after the NRST?
270 paulsen






Most rational people would pay Seven dollars, buying their widgets from the domestic source.

- You? - With your attitude, who could tell?
353 jonestown






Nope. You'd pay $10. The NRST only benefits local manufacturing.
370 paulsen






Nope. You alone would pay $10, -- and your competition would pay $7, driving you out of business, while benefiting local manufacturing.

Everyone would win, except the local idiot paying $10 to the foreign widget maker.
441 posted on 01/31/2005 10:35:25 AM 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 370 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

Nope, just ugly ... and the pancake doesn't help.

I don't like the sales tax idea; I'm a Flat Tax person.


442 posted on 01/31/2005 10:35:29 AM PST by Tax-chick (Some people say that Life is the thing, but I prefer reading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; eastsider

eastsider asked: "How is corporate sales tax assessed?"

You replied: You've got me........and I hadn't even thought about that when I mentioned a farmer.

There is no tax on business. The tax will only be on goods and services at retail.

Gabz, the bill that we are referring to is HR 25 (and S 25) -- The FairTax. The total bill is about 130 pages. Compare that to the tax code today of about 50,000 pages. There have been other sales tax plans, but none compare to the FairTax in fairness, simplicity, visibility, and Constitutionality. The website www.fairtax.org has a great FAQ section that dispels all of the uncertainty and confusion that the author of this piece has stirred. I am of the opinion that the author is not an uninformed idiot but rather, a deliberate liar trying to stir uncertainty and confusion.


443 posted on 01/31/2005 10:36:38 AM PST by Badray (This tag line under construction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Letting the government hold your money interest free prevents you from getting interest on it, should you save it, or buying things you want, should you spend it.


444 posted on 01/31/2005 10:37:00 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (If only I used my evil genius for good !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

You want a concrete example, just look to your own comment earlier about Dr. Jorgensen. You quote basically a single section in a paper that has no founding or reference as gospel truth, and then use it to claim that the work of 7 independent economists and think tanks are therefore bogus.


445 posted on 01/31/2005 10:37:05 AM 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 439 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

The plan has merit and flesh, the article posted lacks same. The plan removes all the reason for and incentives behind all the cheating that happens in corporate and personal taxes. I fully back the Fair Tax approach.


446 posted on 01/31/2005 10:41:32 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (If only I used my evil genius for good !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

The plan needs to have some flesh on it before we can even debate it's merits. And merits we argue now all depend on how the plan is proposed, which it hasn't been yet.

The Fair Tax Plan(HR25) has been in legislative form before congress since 1997. Has gone through extensive research, debate, modification from public and Congressional input and now looks like the legislation sponsored by John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25), to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:

Text of legislation on Thomas ===> H.R.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information:

 

How much more flesh do you need on a bill introduced into both houses of Congress before you are willing to debate it?

447 posted on 01/31/2005 10:41:35 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
What I'm saying is that say you have $100K in a 401(k) or IRA today and retire tomorrow. You are gonna get wacked for income taxes on it. With the NRST you get all 100K
Until you spend it.

What some people don't realize is that once you stop earning wages, an income tax is basically a consumption tax. Your money is taxed when you take it out of savings and you only take money out of savings to consume it. So, basically, retired people have a consumption tax currently and at a much lower effective rate than the FairTax would offer them. And if they have any after-tax savings (eg. Roth IRA, equity in a home) they get taxed again when they spend them. Aren't they lucky!

The distrutional analysis of a NRST that I have seen confirm that older people are a big loser with a NRST.
448 posted on 01/31/2005 10:41:59 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I'm trying to stop the ad hominum attacks that come out during every NRST thread. Go back and read the first 50 posts and tell me it's not a problem.

I think tax reform is needed, and perhaps a fair tax could be made to work, but when its proponents do nothing but call people who disagree with them "idiots" and "morons" then the fair tax people have lost the argument even before there is a proper debate. If you think tax reform is important and not just another sporting event with winners and losers, then you need to help. Soon the debate will go national, and the side that best keeps their wits and sounds professional will prevail.

449 posted on 01/31/2005 10:42:12 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer; Conspiracy Guy
Good point.

Despite some of the misguided conclusions drawn by Eric Schlosser in "Reefer Madness", his essential premise, i.e. that there are literally billions of dollars flowing through the underground economy, is a valid one.

By lax enforcement of some laws and overly stringent, zealous pursuit of others, the federal government is losing billions in potential tax revenue.

Whether or not that is a good thing is another matter, altogether.

450 posted on 01/31/2005 10:42:30 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham (Beware the wrath of the Bolivarian Bucket-head Brigades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Flat tax requires same IRS structure that exists today. Fair Tax would eliminate a lot of it.


451 posted on 01/31/2005 10:43:52 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (If only I used my evil genius for good !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
You mean that large lobby of small business owners who are the backbone of AFFT?

You mean that unimpressive group of guys with a lot of ideological conviction, questionable tax ethics and very little sense?

Aye, 'tis one and the same.

Small timers, trying to play in the big leagues.

In reality, its all just a bunch of populist windbagging.

452 posted on 01/31/2005 10:44:56 AM PST by Le Seigneur De Porc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

then it is no good.


453 posted on 01/31/2005 10:45:17 AM PST by television is just wrong (Our sympathies are misguided with illegal aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
I think tax reform is needed, and perhaps a fair tax could be made to work, but when its proponents do nothing but call people who disagree with them "idiots" and "morons" then the fair tax people have lost the argument even before there is a proper debate. If you think tax reform is important and not just another sporting event with winners and losers, then you need to help. Soon the debate will go national, and the side that best keeps their wits and sounds professional will prevail.

Now, see -- that's a reasonable comment and not simply argumentative.

The article itself, however it not really worth discussing. It is full of factictual and logical errors that even the perennial anti-NRST folks would have to agree just looks silly. The author presents a lazy and sophomoric piece of work that relies on myth and conjecture rather than fact. It's much more efficient to start from scratch and actually discuss the NRST proposal than it is to bother refuting the author line-by-line.

454 posted on 01/31/2005 10:46:03 AM 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 449 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Yes indeed.


455 posted on 01/31/2005 10:46:06 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (If only I used my evil genius for good !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
What I'm saying is that say you have $100K in a 401(k) or IRA today and retire tomorrow. You are gonna get wacked for income taxes on it. With the NRST you get all 100K

So investment firms are not taxed for providing investment services like mutual funds?

456 posted on 01/31/2005 10:47:06 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

I'm against that plan. Too complex.


457 posted on 01/31/2005 10:47:35 AM PST by RobRoy (I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
You want a concrete example, just look to your own comment earlier about Dr. Jorgensen. You quote basically a single section in a paper that has no founding or reference as gospel truth,
You are looking for gospel truth from an economist?!? LOL! You're looking in the wrong place.

And the quote was the only part relevant to your post.


and then use it to claim that the work of 7 independent economists and think tanks are therefore bogus.
I've never been able to find any of these papers that make these claims (have you?), so, AFAIK, they are bogus.
458 posted on 01/31/2005 10:47:36 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
That's ridiculous. I don't want to spend it now, I want to spend it upon retirement. Without exempting savings on which I have already paid income taxes, the NRST should go nowhere.

To my knowledge, there is no such exemption in the FairTax. And I understand that issue. However, I disagree that it should go "nowhere". However, I think the FairTax would benefit if that issue were addressed. What would you recommend?

459 posted on 01/31/2005 10:47:44 AM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

This conversation has nothing to do with starbucks employees (who, if ever relied on me would have been out of jobs long ago.the stuff is vile) nor products made in China.

I'm already saving to buy the sofa (actually in my case the reality is a washing machine) that is how I do things....

Your point fails to include many of the points of this that have been brought up by others.........the current built in taxes on such a $500 sofa would be reduced, thus reducing the $500 price tag and so the eventual retail price of the sofa, including the NRST, wouldn't be much more, if at all, then it currently is.

By not having all the taxes withheld from my paycheck, and eliminating the hidden taxes on the price of the sofa, I'm going to be able to purchase it quicker than I now can.

I'm starting to see this as a win-win proposal all around.


460 posted on 01/31/2005 10:48:56 AM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 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