[WhiteGuy]

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


"GOPNATION"?

This guy wouldn't be on the "payroll" would he?

[Lloyd227]

I have as many questions regarding the implementation details as the next guy, but.....

Mr. Pudlo's logic is very seriously flawed.

[Conservative Goddess]

"...The NRST would, by definition be a highly regressive system that would hurt the middle class far more than the wealthy, and if it ain't complicated enough in the planning stage, just wait a few years...."

THE FAIR TAX IS MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM! Please see: http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ft-baird.html

"...The NRST proponents cheerfully remind me that "large purchases" such as major appliances and automobiles would be exempt from the NRST...."

FALSE. Everything is taxed so that there are NO LOOPHOLES to exploit....no reasons for lobbyists to troll the halls of Congress with Cash....looking for a Congress Critter or Senator to give them an exemption for their good or service.

"...Would there be exemptions for lower income people so that each person pays a tax burden more in line with their ability to pay? ..."

YES, that is the net effect of the "prebate" which will be given to EVERY holder of a valid Social Security Number.

"...Would certain people be able to carry a tax avoidance card to not have to pay taxes due to their economic status?...

NO. There is nothing in H.R. 25, The FairTax Act, which would give the government the right to track the purchases.

"...How would you protect the poor - who also need to buy things like dishes every now and again?..."

The Poor are protected in ALL that they purchase by the "prebate" portion of this bill.


"...And let us not forget that complication in that some things would be taxed while others would not be taxed...."

FALSE. Everything is taxed under the Fair Tax and poverty level expenditures are effectively made exempt through the "prebate" system.

"...The reasoning of the NRST crowd seems to be that if they can collect income taxes for the state, they can collect for the feds. No prob. What they overlook is the increased cost to these businesses, many of them barely breaking even, to collect the deferral taxes...."

FALSE. When the Fair Tax is enacted, these businesses will no longer have to comply with the mind-numbingly complex Internal Revenue Code. In it's place, they will need to comply with a simple sales tax. There will be a net savings to each and every retail business.

"...And nowhere would there be any addressing the real problem of federal taxation - the spending glut...."

Correct. H.R. 25 is a bill designed to change the way we generate revenue. Just as the Internal Revenue Code has nothing to do with the spending bills before Congress, neither will the FairTax impact the spending bills directly. What it will do, however, is make the full cost of government visible to all....in a clearly labeled "TAX" on each and every receipt for the purchase of new goods. Concomitant with the increased transparency and visibility, calls for more government programs should naturally decline.

"...The solution to the tax problem isn't a misnomer - a "fair tax" in name only, it will have to be a system in which everybody bears a share of the burden commensurate to their ability to pay, not their need to spend...."

FALSE. That statement sounds strangely like: "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."--A quote from the Communist Manifesto.

What we need is a system of taxation which encourages savings and investment over consumption. The FairTax rewards the frugal contributor to society and punishes the spendthrift. Stated differently, it seeks to tax NOT what you contribute to our society, but what you take from it.

The author of the article obviously has an agenda and took no time whatsoever to investigate the FairTax Act. DUE DILIGENCE was definitely lacking, but he provided an excellent opportunity to elucidate several facets of The FairTax Act. Thank You for posting this article and providing an excellent opportunity for rebuttal.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I'd be willing to accept the FairTax if it were offered at a much lower rate, say, 12.5 percent instead of 30 percent (yeah, I know, it's 23 percent inclusive). I read in a study of tax rates in various countries that the average sales tax rate that maximized revenue to the government was 12.5 percent (the rate that maximized economic growth was 4.6 percent). As we badly need government revenue, I'd be willing to accept 12.5 percent (for now).

Also, I would accept it if they got rid of the government "prebate"/welfare/dependency program.

[CSM]

"The NRST would be no more voluntary that the current system. What are you gonna do? Buy something and tell the cashier not to add the federal tax? Or not buy anything?"

No need for me to read further. The guy seems to forget the ability to buy used goods. In addition, he takes the attitude that the government is entitled to the tax revenue.......I think he is writing for the wrong organizaiton.

[numberonepal]

Steve needs to read the ENTIRE Fair Tax proposal. He obviously hasn't.

[Junior]

Maybe this guy should chat with Neal Boortz.

[TChris]

Support toothpaste isn't taxable.

[Mr. K]

if they impose a NRST it will create an underground and barter economy like that in Canada. When your local sales tax is now 9% and the govt adds on 32% (oh wait- its ONLY 23%,TAX-INCLUSIVE ha ha)

When you have to add 30% (or more) at the register you will think twice about working and buying things 'off the books'

[PjhCPA]

mark to me for later reading

[JesseHousman]

Would jimmy hatches be taxable?

[Sprite518]

"Steve Pudlo works in in Information Technology for a small college in Connecticut. He also teaches computer courses at various colleges in the area. His web site is "steven-e-pudlo.com". He is interested in history, motorcycles, politics and other subjects. He lives in Eastern Connecticut with his daughter, and his four cats."

That says it all. He is from New England and has 4 Cats.

Steve may be great with computers, but is a pathetic idiot when it comes to economics. It is quite obvious he has not read the fair tax or understands Supply Side Economics. This guy is a moron, and he calls himself a Conservative. LOL! I guess he "feels", that we can tax ourselves into prosperity. Why the GOP even has this on a web page is beyond me????

[cherry]

"First of all, I would propose to classify all monies coming into an individual as income. Investments, capital gains, interest, wages, compensation - anything coming IN will be classified as income. All incoming monies are income, all income is treated the same"

what a lot of working type people don't understand is that the millionaire set that live on their inherited investments do not pay social security taxes on that income and they actually pay little on their investment income, as in capital gains....at the very least, its a smaller percentage than what the money as a wage would require....

when people say that the "rich" pay most of the taxes in this country, the idea that most of the rich have their "incomes" protected is left out of the conversation....

[nygoose]

Get over it. It's not your money, it's ours.

[Remember_Salamis]

Can you say "riddled with errors"? first off, he missed the #1 feature of the FairTax, the Prebate that removes a sales tax's regressive nature. He also sair the people behind the fairtax want to exempt certain items.

[StoneColdTaxHater]

if we ever implement this (I am not holding my breath) it needs to cover everything except food, PERIOD. No gerrymandering coverage to give breaks to pet projects ot industries. In addition, the law should require a 75% majority to change the tax rate in any way, this ensures that they have to really NEED the change in order to enact it

[Pagey]

The "fair tax" is highly unfair.

IMO I don't think the word Fair should be used in the same sentence as Tax,what a complete fallacy that is. Here in California for example we pay 18 cents for city taxes and 18 cents for state taxes for Gasoline alone. There's a sticker at every ARCO Station gas pump that states this fact. In a better world, our elected officials, (who really should be addressed as "Official Spenders") should execute much better 'local and national' fiscal discipline.
But since they let the cat out of the bag in the 1930's: "...Most notable and tragic has been the perversion of the "general welfare" clause of the constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare of the United States'.

Since the 1930s, the courts have interpreted this phrase to mean that Congress may spend money for any purpose, whether an enumerated power of government or not, as long as legislators deem it to be in "the general welfare of the United States." That is, this innocent clause has become the equivalent of carte blanche spending authority for Congress. The fact that George W. Bush increased spending on such a level in his first dismays me a bit, but I can only imagine the hell the media would've thrust upon him had he actually made a "cut" in anything. It's a sad fact, but it's true.

[Chili Girl]

I'm in! that way all those folks who dont pay taxes because they work for cash (pimps, prostitutes, illegal aliens, drug dealers, gamblers, etc.) all have to pay tax. In the end it would cost us all much less than what we pay the IRS now! Let's do it!