The NRST is a hell of a lot more fair than the income tax.
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.
It is clear from the article that the writer has not read, or at least understood, the Fair Tax Plan.
Absolutely right.
This would shift the tax burden to those living paycheck to paycheck.
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.
You might if you didn't work for the government until May every year.
Taxing productivity makes no sense to me.
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.
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.
bump
Who's gonna police the collectors to make sure they collect the right taxes from the right goods?
Who does now?
I can understand the idea to a degree, but it would kill small businesses like mine to a degree. At least with the figures I have heard being provide to how much the tax would be.
One thing I like about a sales tax is that it does a better job of taxing the underground economy. Illegals et al still shop in regular stores.
Most of the points that he attacks are in fact not part of the Fair Tax proposal. I believe that the author should actually read the proposal before he writes about it.
The most egregious (and there are many to select from) are probably (1) the Fair Tax would not be optional; it would be voluntary only in the sense that can elect to buy or not to buy an item (2) sales taxes are collected in most states, and are far less expensive to collect than our current income tax regime (3) large purchases, including even new homes are not exempt from the Fair Tax (4) the Fair Tax as proposed is uniform, 30% for all purchases of new goods and for all services rendered to consumers.
I think this thread should be pulled. There is not enough correct content in this article to really discuss.
Since almost every state already has a retail sales tax (a fair tax), I suppose almost every state is sully.
47% of all households pay no income tax today. What's fair about that? A retail sales tax would make the freeloaders pay something.
this is only the half of it. When we get a NRST, they'll decide it isn't enough and therefore must keep the income tax in place. Consider: Last session of TX state legislators a law was passed--Fair Tax bill-- that allowed businesses with old equipment and personal property to use federal guidelines for depreciation of equipment for the purpose of reducing a personal property tax bill. We were nevertheless taxed at the old rate--a difference of 4,500 dollars. When we protested, The Tarrant Co Tax Appraisal District told us they couldn't AFFORD to reduce our taxes. "Are you saying you're going to break the law?" We asked. "Yes," was the answer. "If you don't like it you can always sue." Now who will be able to sue over 4,500 dollars? Certainly not thousands of small businesses who already have equiptment that is over thirty years old. Make no mistake, not only is government not your friend, they're (by their own addmission) crooks!