Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
Why do you keep pushing this lie? The NRST does not tax taxes, and anyone who reads the bill will see that the definition of "gross payments" is the price of the item plus taxes imposed by the (amended) USC 26. State and local sales taxes are not included in that definition.
"Think about how much we import."
Indeed. And think about how much more we would produce if our tax system did not provide an advantage to foreign competitors of our own producers.
Why...the employers other expenses will also drop, particularly in the cost of purchases to do business, including but not limited to dealing with tax code compliance.You are assuming that these cost would be great enough for a 20% drop and you are assuming a business could have just added these costs to their prices. Prices aren't set by the business adding up all their costs plus whatever profit they want. Prices are set by the market equilibrium.
I'm sure. Probably as much as the pressure against Clinton's "largest in the history of the U.S." 1993 tax increase.
Yep, those politicians hate all that extra revenue.
My point was that the tax increase will appear to be smaller to the average consumer. There will be less presssure to keep the rate down.
Given that 4:1 relationship, an "apparent 1%" tax increase actually raises about $480 billion.
Not bad, huh?
I keep life as simple as I can.
If you paid $100 for an item, you paid $23. in tax. That means the item sold for $77. plus $23. tax.
Now, to me and everybody else on the planet (except those pushing for the NRST) that looks like a 30% (29.86%) sales tax. That is: $77. plus 30% sales tax (77 X .3 = 23) equals $100. purchase.
The NRST people look at the National Retail Sales Tax and treat it like a National Retail Income Tax. That is: The retailer had an "income" of $100 and paid a tax to the government of $23. The retailer paid a $23% income tax. Get it?
23% looks smaller than 30%, so they use that percentage.
Now, here's my opinion on this whole NRST debate. If the supporters have to result to this kind of subterfuge, what else aren't they telling me?
Lastly, we're told that retail prices will drop 20-30%, our paychecks will be about 25-30% larger (no withholding), AND we'll get a monthly check from the government of around $500. Uh huh.
In plain english, the Fair Tax rate would be 29.86% .. And be printed as such on a sales receipt. Correct?In plain english the FairTax rate is 29.87% and no, that is not what would be printed on a sales receipt. By law, the sales receipt would have 23% printed on it. Of course, the state sales tax printed on receipt will be the tax exclusive rate. That won't be too confusing, will it? /sarcasm
Lastly, we're told that retail prices will drop 20-30%, our paychecks will be about 25-30% larger (no withholding), AND we'll get a monthly check from the government of around $500. Uh huh.And, don't forget, it will make your teeth a brighter white, give your hair that special bounce, and "if a relaxing moment turns into the right moment, you'll be ready"!
The NRST will never happen for one very simple reason. Anyone who has significant after-tax investments (and there are many) won't be supportive of it. And most of the movers and shakers in this country have significant after-tax investments. This includes most non-retirement investments and Roth IRA's.
If I have $200,000 in such an investment and have already paid 25-30% in income tax on that money, there is no way I'll support a "voluntary" tax at the same level when I spend it. There is no easy way to switch from taxing my inflow to taxing my outflow without screwing me over bigtime. Essentially I'm put into a position where I'm paying over 50% in taxes on my earnings in my lifetime. This of course assumes that I would like to enjoy the fruit of my labor by spending it versus leaving it locked in a vault so I can "voluntarily" avoid paying taxes on it.
Add all the baby boomers and busters together who've already made these investments and you won't get the votes. Our energy is better spent on the flat tax.
No, the tax-inclusive rate is used so that it can be compared to current income and payroll tax rates, which are also tax-inclusive. There is no attempt at deception here.
Um... no. Per the law, the tax must be separately charged and stated, but the law does not say that the rate (in either inclusive or exclusive form) has to be there.
No, the tax-inclusive rate is used so that it can be compared to current income and payroll tax rates, which are also tax-inclusive. There is no attempt at deception here.Do you really believe this?
Yes I do. The fact that you don't merely shows that you are more interested in playing "gotcha" than actually dealing with the merits of the proposal.
hmm...By law, the sales receipt would have 23% printed on it.Um... no. Per the law, the tax must be separately charged and stated, but the law does not say that the rate (in either inclusive or exclusive form) has to be there.
`SEC. 510. TAX TO BE SEPARATELY STATED AND CHARGED.
`(a) In General- For each purchase of taxable property or services for which a tax is imposed by section 101, the seller shall charge the tax imposed by section 101 separately from the purchase. For purchase of taxable property or services for which a tax is imposed by section 101, the seller shall provide to the purchaser a receipt for each transaction that includes--
`(1) the property or services price exclusive of tax;
`(2) the amount of tax paid;
`(3) the property or service price inclusive of tax;
`(4) the tax rate (the amount of tax paid (per paragraph (2)) divided by the property or service price inclusive of tax (per paragraph (3));
`(5) the date that the good or service was sold;
`(6) the name of the vendor; and
`(7) the vendor registration number.
Yes I do.Grape or cherry?
For anyone on a "small income", their effective tax rate would be pretty darn small, once the FCA was factored in.
I am in awe of your superior wit and debating skills. </sarcasm>
Touche -- that's what I get for going from memory.
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.