National Retail Sales Tax - You gotta be kidding!

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

[Gabz]

But I've never raised chickens.........just live near where they're being raised!!!! FOFL!

[Tax-chick]

We can request things online from anywhere in the county system.

[Gabz]

What??????????

[jonestown]

Paulsen claimed:

Now, let's say the government raises the NRST from 23% to 26% -- a whopping 13% tax increase! Your retail price goes from $100 to $103 to accomodate the tax.

Bull. -- A $100 'retail item' would then cost $126.00, tax included.

That 3% increase looks like a $3.00 increase [per hundred] to most rational people paulsen..
Why are you different?
409 jones

Your Nightmare opines:

Jonestown, you've been hoodwinked. The 23% rate is what's known as the "tax inclusive" rate. It's the percentage of the gross payment including tax that is paid in tax. The rate in sales tax terms is 29.87%.

A 23% tax on a $100 item would be 23 dollars. Play semantic/mathematical games with that fact as you like, but the tax remains at $23.

So a $100 item would have an additional $29.87 in taxes added to it for a total of $129.87. And $29.87 is 23% of $129.87 so these guys claim you are paying a 23% sales tax. Clever, huh?

No, not clever, that idea is idiotic. $23.00 is a 23% tax on the selling price of 100 dollars.
If the merchant charges $129.87, he is charging a 29.87% sales tax on a $100 sale.
Get some help on arithmetic, --- but don't ask paulsen.

[ArGee]

While I do belive that, overall, a sales tax has advantages we can not discount Robb's concern over the unintended consequence of reduced consumerism.

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.

Shalom.

[Gabz]

You're right!!!!!!!

but I sure do like eating them!

[Gabz]

All of the above.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Cool.

There's an online counterpart to the BPL system, as well.

In New York City, you need separate library cards in order to borrow materials from the Brooklyn/New York, Queens, and Bronx/Staten Island systems.

[kevkrom]

Good corrctions from both... they balance out -- evasion isn't necessary as it already exists and is not captured in GNP, and I forgot to include the FCA (and other credits, such as compensating states and companies for their tax collection efforts).

[Gabz]

"Page can not be found" is what I got going to your link.

But I'll find it, not to worry. I really appreciate the education I have been receiving today.

[kevkrom]

I suppose I could decide that my privacy was more important than the rebate?

True. No one is compelled to file for the rebate, but that could have a significant impact on your effective tax rate (even at spending of 10 times the poverty level, it would be a 10% cut in your effective tax rate to file for the FCA).

[Tax-chick]

That must be a nuisance! We have cards for Union County (where we live) and Mecklenburg County, which has much more stuff.

[Your Nightmare]

If retailer "A" maintains his price at the same level despite his costs being dramatically reduced, and retailer "B" lowers his, who do you think that the customer will buy from? Will not "A" have to drop his price to compete and stay in business?

Of course, no one's been able to demonstrate how a business's costs would be "dramatically reduced" by eliminated the income/payroll tax. For 2004, the FairTax base plus exports equaled $9,074 billion. Corporate income tax, the employer portion of payroll and unemployment equaled $573 billion. That's only 6.3% of the base and that's if the tax incidence of all those taxes are in prices, which is extremely unlikely. And an extremely generous $200 billion for tax compliance and you still only have 8.5%.

So maybe you can show me where the other >$1.5 trillion in costs savings is going to come from.

[Gabz]

That's hilarious!!!!!!!!!

[Conservative Goddess]

"...Remove the second hit and you will have more supporters....."

You're getting hit twice regardless......invisibly under the current system.......or visibly under the FairTax.

For those who've truly amassed a fortune, and want to pass it on to heirs...the FairTax removes the Estate and Gift Tax impact as well. NO MORE complicated estate planning. There's another benefit of the FairTax that often is not considered when after-tax savers are evaluating the FairTax. No More Minimum Distribution Rules from IRA's, 401(k)'s, etc....and no limit on inter vivos gifts.

[Badray]

Aw, shucks ma'am.

If you really knew me, you'd really love me. ;-)

Why? What'd I say? What'd I do?

[Final Authority]

Sales taxes make it easy to tax, ie, confiscate property because it is easy to incrementalize. Say the government, our representatives, get a sales tax passed that is earmarked for 3% or so for SS or drugs. What is to say that once the infrastructure is in place that next year they make 3.5% and so on and so forth until a system of taxation is in place like NYNY or Massachusetts where every tax is raised but because they raise several taxes no one tax seems too much, for the politicians that is. I say that the base of taxation should be reduced not increased like we have in NH. There is a reason why NH is prosperous and it is not because of excessive taxation.

[Gabz]

And I'm supposed to know who you are???????????

[OHelix]

I don't think it would "hurt" non-tax-deferred accounts. Their value should hold pretty much the same. However, it will allow any amounts saved in a tax-deferred account to be withdrawn without the taxation intended under our present system.

It took me a little time to wrap my mind around this, but the double tax argument in regards to after-tax savings is not a valid one. As CG & AG point out, the FairTax does add an additional VISIBLE tax, but it also removes the INVISIBLE taxes. It should be close to a wash. It's possible, it will be slightly more, or slightly less, but it should not change very much.

The non-tax-deferred holders were going to be taxed twice on that money under the existing system. The FairTax just makes it more visible. Don't let the visibility confuse you. The tax was there all along under our existing system, just in a different less visible form.

[ancient_geezer]

"Page can not be found" is what I got going to your link.

Try this page and go to the "Farm Bureau Fair Tax Analysis" link

http://www.fairtax.org/research.asp?pageid=21

for that matter check em all, loads of info there ;O)