Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
You are 100% right. 100%. Thank You
Why don't you take it up with the poster who said it?
>>The best argument for a sales tax is because it means the government would need to keep NO records on the individual taxpayer.
If it were changed to "minimal record" then I would not argue with it. But as it is written it is a lie.
The only tax collected is the NRST for which no tracking of an individual as a taxpayer is required. SS/Medicare taxes are repealed by the legislation thus even that link has been broken.
The choice is totally yours to make as to whether or not you supply sufficient infomation for sales tax rebate to be processed and sent to you.
The social security number exists for social security benefit calculation as the NRST does nothing to change the Social Security Act itself.
You are free to not provide any information if you chose not to receive the sales tax rebate. There is an explicit provision making the annual application for such totally voluntary and up to the citizen.
There is no record of you for even the sales tax rebate if you do choose not to receive it, same as there would be no record if the sales tax rebate did not exist.
The choice of receiving the rebate is solely up to you.
The NRST however is collected anonomously, regardless of any decisions you make about social security numbers or participation in the sales tax rebate program.
It's quite obvious that it has been awhile since I bought a DVD player but, had competition not entered the market, you'd be paying a much higher price.
Lets say you own a small video rental store and are competing with several Blockbusters, Hollywood Video and other mega chains in your town. Your scratching by but surviving. Will you in an attempt to earn more customers that are currently go to Blockbuster et al...
1) Raise your prices
2) Keep your prices the same
3) Lower your prices
In my town and ALL the surrounding towns around me there is a Home Depot and Lowes right next to eachother. They are constantly battling for market share. And invariably there is always an Ace Hardware just down the street.
Is Ace Hardware going to not lower prices and hope that Home Depot and Lowes don't either? Or are all 3 of them going to lower prices in an attempt to gain market share over the others.
The Invisible Hand is not a myth. It is as real as your hand.
As an every day example look at McDonalds and Burger King. When one comes out with some special offer such as 2 for $2, the other quickly follows suit. McDonalds introduce the Dollar menu a few years back. BK followed and Wendys came out with the 99 cent menu.
It would happen again.
What is YOUR the alternative to income tax, numbnutz..
You deride with out an alternative.. sounds like a democrat..
Give it up.. are you FOR the federal income tax.?. or not..
IF not spit it out.. libertariians (years ago) were for the basic dismanteling of the federal government for all practical purposes completely.. I'm down with that to a certain extent.. WHAT say ye?.. smartass.. carping just for carping sake is better left to democrats.. they are better at it.. due to 100+ years of failed systems, wars, and solutions..
OUT YOURSELF.. (shineing fingernails) I'm listening..
If your goal is a revolution, a sales tax is the way to go. I still think we have a great thing going in America, and I think we just need to work on what we have. Simply the code, reduce the size of government, and protect individual liberties. The havok I see a large sales tax creating is not the way to go. I am successful under the current system, so it makes no sense to me to scrap it completely.
First, the doctor doesn't pay the tax, he collects it from the buyer and remits it - and is paid for doing so (unlike today).
Prices will indeed be stable under the nrst. The reason is that business in competitive industries will remove unnecessary costs from prices befor the nrst is added. If the business is not competitive, they already charge whatever they want.
"The 23% sales tax rate turns 37%"
What 23%? I only pay, I believe, 7.25%.
If I were paying 23% or 37% -- depending on the basis on which the rate is being applied -- I would have known by now.
It will ratchet downward because the competitor wants to maximize his revenue. This is because the competitor knows that if he lowers his price incrementally (say 1%), he will sell more products (2% more products, for example). The end result is more revenue for the competitor. This is exactly the invisible hand that regulates prices. Of course, this whole scheme breaks down if there is a "trust" or agreement between the two companys...but that would be illegal. I am not a economist, mind you.
It may well be wasted effort. But that doesn't change the fact that, if you lay them all off, you risk a depression and re-assigning them to truly productive work takes at least a year, while prices have already gone up by say 30% and stayed there.
Again, this is contradicted by reality. Gas prices really do go down sometimes.
If you want a revolution, the quickest way is to end withholding and have every tax payer file quarterly and write a check for what they owe.
I am successful under the current system, so it makes no sense to me to scrap it completely
As has been pointed out in previous threads, the bulk of your desire to fight the fair tax is personal greed and fear.
Why not replace the income tax with the municipal property tax? If you own expensive property (real estate, cars, boats, etc.), you pay more in taxes. Owners, including landlords, would pay their taxes directly to the municipality. Landlords would pass-through their property taxes in rents they charge--just like today. The municipalities would collect the taxes and send the feds their share.
Only in an arcane way. Like the one is not related to the other. To the doctor they are the same.
And low-income people can decline to file their 1040EZ tax return and forfeit their EITC.
100 reduced by 30% is 70.
70 increased by 30% is 91.
100 reduced by 23% is 77.
77 increase by 30% is 100.
Be honest please.
No they are not. These are objections which spring to mind with minimal thought by anyone examining this issue. Anyone not a True Believer or not blinded by hatred of the IRS that is.
The TBs argument is torpedoed once one understands microeconomic theory and price formation but they don't have to worry much about that since few people other than economics majors grasp these subjects.
I did. Why don't you not defend it if you don't agree with it either?
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.