Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top 11 Secrets of a National Retail Sales Tax
Various | 6-10-05 | Always Right

Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right

1. The 23% sales tax rate turns 37%. A retailer who sells an item for $100 must charge his customer an additional $30 for federal sales tax. Most people familiar with state sales tax call this a 30% tax, since the tax is 30% of the seller's price. The Sales Tax folks call this a 23% tax, since $30 is 23% of the final price ($130 including tax), which they call the 'tax-inclusive' rate. Neither way is technically incorrect, it is just important to understand what is really being discussed. Remember this 30% tax-exclusive rate is only the federal portion of the tax, state sales tax will also be added in.  With the elimination of federal reporting, states will have to replace their personal and corporate income receipts, with a sales tax.  States collected nearly $500 Billion in 2003 through income tax and sales tax.  With Personal Consumption at $7.76 Trillion in 2003, that is 6.4% in tax inclusive terms, which will add another 6.8% to the tax-exclusive rate.  So if you buy $100 worth of goods, you will end of paying nearly $137 once State and Federal Sales tax.

2. Even 37% is not enough. One amazing fact when sales tax calculates their rate is that they assume 100% compliance.  Everyone will cheerfully report every sale.  There will be no under the table or black market sales.  Also, no one will try to buy goods overseas to avoid this tax.   This is pure fantasy.  No one could believe any tax system will have perfect compliance and zero avoidance.  The current income tax system has about a 15% tax-evasion rate. Conservatively, we could assume that the sales tax will have a similar tax evasion rate of 15% and a tax avoidance (like spending overseas) rate of 5%.  With these more realistic assumptions, the tax rate would have to be bumped up to 44% to be revenue neutral.   And these are very conservative assumption. Brookings Institute economist William Gale (National Retail Sales Tax, September, 2004) calculated that about a 60 percent sales tax would be required to be revenue neutral.

3. Fraudulent Calculations.   Besides using ridiculous assumptions like 100% compliance, the sales tax economists create  money out of thin air.  Their paid for economists routinely double-count savings of their plan.  The biggest one is being the $1.3 Trillion that individuals pay in taxes.  Under the 30% Sales Tax bill, that money would end up in the pocket of individuals, and the proponents correctly tell you that take home pay will go up.  But then the Sales Tax proponents go on to tell you that prices will go 25-33% to offset their 30% sales tax.  Well if individuals are pocketing 67% of the taxes that are eliminated, how are businesses going to reduce prices very much?  The sales tax eliminates about $650 Billion in taxes to businesses.  Considering Americans consumers spend $8 Trillion on goods and services, that only allows for businesses to lower their costs by 8%.  Once the 30% sales tax is added, the final end cost to the consumer will be 20% higher if the calculation were done honestly.  Even allowing for a reasonable amount of savings in compliance costs to businesses under the sales tax system, prices would still shoot up 18-19%.

4. Millions must file. The Sales Tax supporters would have you believe that only retailers need to file under the Sales Tax. That simply is not true. In order to offer the 'low' 30% rate, the Sales Tax must tax services too. 'In 1993, 12,778,000 taxpayers filed individual returns with business income or losses, and another 1,919,000 filed farm returns. In addition, in 1992 the IRS received returns for 17,292,286 non-farm sole proprietorship businesses, 1,484,752 partnerships, and 3,868,004 corporations-all of which probably produced goods or services on which the sales tax would be levied. Thus the supposed simplicity of the sales tax turns out to be a mirage.' (Brookings Institution Policy Brief #31-March 1998) Thus over 35 million filers will still be subjected to reporting and audits, most of these are individuals. This doesn't even consider the 100 million of people who will still have their wages reported to the SSA. Also, all households must register every year with the 'sales tax administering authority' in order to receive your monthly tax rebate.  Furthermore, individuals that buy things without sales tax, like overseas purchases, must submit monthly forms and payments to the government.  Hardly the zero tax filings for individuals as the sales tax supporters claim.

5. Tax Evasion will skyrocket. 20 countries have tried a national sales tax, and 20 have switched to a value-added tax. These countries have gone on record and have flat out stated a retail tax of more then 12% is unworkable. People will avoid it, especially with the internet which makes it very easy for the common citizen to purchase goods from foreign sources. The fact that businesses to business sales are not taxed, makes it very tempting to buy personal stuff under a business name. It will take a mighty powerful and intrusive taxing authority to audit all business expensive to make sure. The sales tax rates we are talking about have never been successfully implemented in the history of the world, but it hasn't been for a lack of trying.  "Many people would masquerade as businesses" to avoid the tax, says Robert Hall, an economist at the Hoover Institution. Gale reckons that evasion would be far higher than today 's estimated 15%.

6. Big Government gets Bigger. In the 20 countries where the national sales tax has been implemented, and in each case replaced by necessity by a Value-Added Tax, the amount of federal taxes quickly grew from about 20% of GDP, as currently in the US, to 40% and above of their GDP. Not a promising precedent.

7. Underground Economy still not taxed. The NRST advocates falsely claim that the underground economy now will be taxed. Nothing could be further then the truth. Sure, when the money re-enters the legal economy the money is taxed, but that is true today. But will the drug dealers and prostitutes remit sales tax for their goods and services under the NRST? Absolutely not, this portion of the economy is still invisible to the tax collector and therefore not taxed. According to Bruce Bartlett, 'thus whatever revenue is gained when drug dealers spend their ill-gotten gains will be lost because no tax was collected on their drug sales.' (Bruce R. Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy, Analysis, November 5, 1997).

8. Lower and Middle Income pay more. Steven Sheffrin of UC Davis in a 1996 CPS brief says that a revue-neutral consumption tax even with a generous personal exemption shifts the tax burden to the lower to middle income households. A 1992 Congressional Budget Office study of consumption based tax concluded the consumption tax would decrease the tax on the wealthiest 20% by five percent, while hitting all other groups with a higher tax burden. The poorest quintile being hit the hardest with a 20% increase in tax and the 20-40% income quintile being hit with 9.3% increase in their effective tax rate. This is because the poorest spend a much higher percentage of their income each year and in many cases are even forced to borrow to keep up with their expenses. These numbers are much worst today as the federal tax liability for the bottom 20% has been greatly reduced through expansion of the earned income tax credit.

9. Elderly assets are unfairly burdened.  While people currently working will get to keep more of their paycheck, people on fixed incomes will stay the same.   Elderly, who have already worked and saved under the income tax system, will now be faced with paying additional high consumption taxes. This group of especially hard hit people, will not have the opportunity to earn tax-free wages, so all their already taxed wealth will be taxed again when they spend it.  Come January 1, 2007, if someone's rent was $1000, they will owe an additional $300 in federal tax alone, and many without any additional source of income.

10.  Government Taxes Itself.  One amazing thing is under the Sale Tax is that government somehow raises money by taxing itself.  Whereas this is an interesting way to reduce government, it is typical of the smoke and mirrors the fraudulent analysis of the so-called fair taxers use.  Under the plan, the government is considered the consumer and most of it's purchases and employee salaries are taxable.  So if the state of Alabama pays its clerk $30,000 in salary, it would be liable to pay the federal sales tax of $9000.  The same applies to the federal government, but it pays itself.  An interesting way to raise revenue, but it more fraud on their part.  If government could truely tax itself, why not just put 100% sales tax on government and then no one else would have to pay taxes.

11. Auto and Housing Industry Hit Hard.  As the luxury taxes have proven in the past, adding a large sales tax on item deters people from buying.  In 1991, after the Democrats snuckered Bush Sr. into signing the Luxury Tax, Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales that year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000.  And that was only for a 10% tax!  With new homes and autos having to compete against existing homes and used cars, paying the additional 30% sales tax will be hard to swallow for most consumers. 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: fairtax; incometax; irs; nrst; salestax; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,241-1,246 next last
To: Always Right

You neglect to consider the cost of government being reduced by sending the tax agents packing - and the increased efficiency in the business world because of vastly lower tax compliance costs. You consider the costs but not the benefits of a NRST, which is dishonest.


281 posted on 06/10/2005 2:21:53 PM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: All
It is well established that prices can't drop dramatically with a NRST unless wage drop also. Even the authors of the FairTax agree with this.

Statement of Laurence J. Kotlikoff,

Professor of Economics, Boston University, and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research

Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means - Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform
April 11, 2000

This sentence and the one preceding it assume the price level will rise with the adoption of the Fair Tax. If the Federal Reserve used its monetary policy to maintain the consumer price level, the adoption of the Fair Tax would entail a decline in the level of producer prices and, thus, the nominal wages and capital income received by productive factors.

Response to William Gale

by Dan Mastromarco and David Burton
[authors of the FairTax]
Memorandum, March 16, 1998

Federal income and payroll taxes either are or are not incorporated into the prices of goods and services. If they are embedded in prices, their removal will reduce prices. If they are not, then their removal will not reduce prices but instead returns to labor and capital will go up. If returns to labor go up, people will see their after-tax wages increase and asset values will increase since the present discounted value of the new, higher returns will be higher.

The replacement sales tax could be incident on the factors of production or it could be incident on consumers through higher prices. It cannot be both. If it is incident on the factors of production, then wages and the return to capital will fall but sales tax inclusive prices will not be any higher, on average, than they are today. If the sales tax is fully incident on consumers, then prices will increase by the amount of the sales tax but returns to labor and capital will be higher.

Criticism of the Sales Tax for Residential Real Estate Isn't Built on a Solid Foundation

by Dan R. Mastromarco and David R. Burton
[authors of the FairTax]
Tax Notes, June 29, 1998, p. 1779

Footnote #13: The degree to which after-tax wages will increase is a function of the incidence of both the sales tax and the repealed taxes. If the income tax and payroll taxes are incident on income recipients and the sales tax is incident on consumers, then after-tax wages and returns will go up quite considerably as will tax inclusive prices. If the sales tax is incident on the factors of production, then after-tax wages and the after-tax return to capital will not go up to any considerable degree (at first) but producer prices will fall and retail prices, even including the sales tax, will remain roughly comparable. The real purchasing power of wages will undoubtedly increase considerably over time because of a larger capital stock (increasing productivity), microeconomic efficiencies caused by a more efficient allocation of scarce resources, and higher productivity from lower compliance costs.

The Price Level

Switching to an indirect tax such as a valued-added tax (VAT) or national sales tax will probably cause a one-time jump in the price level, with no permanent change in the inflation rate. By contrast, any consumption-based tax that levies taxes directly on households will probably have little or no effect on the price level.

A VAT or sales tax is likely to boost the price level because each one collects the tax on labor income from the firm or retailer. That treatment represents a change from the current income tax system, which collects tax on labor income directly from the worker. Because the cost of labor to the firm would include the new tax, real compensation paid to workers would initially have to fall to match the value of their so-called "marginal product" and keep them fully employed.

Real compensation can fall in two ways: nominal compensation can drop or the price level can rise. What happens will ultimately depend on the Federal Reserve. If it fixes the price level, nominal compensation will have to fall--an event that workers might accept because they would no longer have to pay income tax and hence would take home about the same pay as now. Most analysts note, however, that workers have resisted cuts in nominal compensation in the past. Those analysts expect that firms fearing morale problems or facing union contracts will hesitate to make such cuts. In that case, nominal compensation may fall slowly to its new level, leading to higher unemployment rates in the interim. To prevent that outcome, the Federal Reserve is expected to allow the price level to rise. For example, a VAT or sales tax of 10 percent would lead to a one-time jump of 10 percent in the price of consumer products.

Further price increases may ensue if compensation is indexed to inflation. In that case, the price rise will cause a corresponding rise in compensation, and real compensation will not drop enough to maintain full employment, requiring a further price rise--that is, a wage-price spiral. That problem occurred in the United Kingdom when it adopted a VAT in 1979, although the extent of indexing there was greater than it is in the United States.

Source: U.S. Congressional Budget Office. (1997). The Economic Effects of Comprehensive Tax Reform. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Setting aside for a moment temporary inflexibilites in contracts for wages, bonds, and so forth (we address these later), whether ther overall level of prices changes or not does not materially affect this story.16 Even if prices do not rise at all, moving to a consumption tax would cause the purchasing power of both wages and existing wealth to decline by an average of 20 percent relative to a situation with no taxes. Nominal wages would be forced down because firms would be earning 20 percent less, after taxes, from the output produced by workers. The nominal value of existing capital assets - in the form of, for example, share prices - which constitute much of old wealth, would also decline because the output they produce provides 20 percent less in after-tax revenues.
  1. Whether in fact consumer prices would rise in the event of tax reform depends on the monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve Board.

Source: Slemrod, Joel and Jon Bakija, Taxing Ourselves: A Citizen's Guide to the Great Debate over Tax Reform, MIT Press: Cambridge, 2004.

Transition Costs and Macroeconomic Adjustments

One of the most difficult issues to address in considering a shift to consumption taxes is the transition from the current system to the new tax regime.5 While all shifts to a consumption tax cause some common transitional disturbances and windfall gains and losses, the most serious problems arise from a shift to a national retail sales tax or to a value added tax. In these cases, a tax formerly largely collected from individuals is now collected at the firm level -- either from retailers on total sales or from both final and intermediate producers' value added. Flat taxes avoid this problem but can result in confiscatory taxes on existing assets.

Price Accommodation and Short-run Contractions Under a Retail Sales Tax or VAT

Holding prices fixed, these firms would need to reduce payments to workers to retain profit levels. In fact, many firms would not have enough of a profit margin to pay the tax without something else -- either prices or wages -- adjusting. Consider, for example, a grocery retailer that may have a 1% or 2% profit margin now owing a tax equal to 20% of receipts. This firm simply does not have the cash to pay the tax. If it is difficult to lower wages (and presumably it would be), a significant one-time price inflation, to allow these costs to be passed forward in prices instead, would be required to avoid a potentially serious economic contraction. Note that the price increase, were it possible to implement correctly and precisely, would solve the transition problem because although prices would rise, individuals would have more income to purchase the higher priced goods -- and demand would not fall. It is difficult, however, for the monetary authorities to engineer such a large price change. Moreover, even with the monetary expansion in place to do so, the imposition of such a tax would be disruptive if firms are reluctant to immediately raise prices, again leading to an economic contraction. That is, firms could contract their business, or even close down, until output had contracted enough to raise prices.

These disruptions are not minor in nature -- imagine the difficulties of engineering and absorbing a one-time price increase that is likely to be close to 20% (the level, approximately, that might realistically be needed to replace the income tax).6 Even if such an inflation could be managed, there are always concerns that any large inflation could create inflationary expectations -- it's hard to manage a single one-year price increase. In fact, economists who judge a consumption tax to be superior to an income tax may nevertheless be skeptical about the advisability of making the change because of these transition effects.

  1. See CRS Report 98-901, Short-Run Macroeconomic Effects of Fundamental Tax Reform, by Jane G. Gravelle and G. Thomas Woodward for a more detailed discussion of these issues.
  2. The rate would depend on whether and the extent of any family exemption. A 20% tax exclusive rate would correspond to a tax inclusive rate between 16% and 17%.
  3. 7 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, Tax Modeling Project and 1997 Symposium Papers, committee print, 105th Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 20, 1997, JCS-21-97 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 24.
Source: CRS Report for Congress: The Flat Tax, Value-Added Tax, and National Retail Sales Tax: Overview of the Issues. Esenwein, Gregg A. and Jane Gravelle.

Prices.

Prices for consumer goods and services quickly rise by the amount of the tax, and then some. The portion of the price increase in excess of the tax is due in part to the higher cost of imports (from the weaker dollar) coupled with the ability of some domestic producers of competing goods to hike their price to that of imports. Consumer prices similarly rise 25 percent -- roughly the nominal rate of sales tax, unadjusted for any exemptions or transition rules -- by 2002 and gradually drop from that peak to a level that remains about 18 percent above the pre-change baseline.

Examined on a year-over-year basis, these price increases generally amount to a large, one-time hike in prices as the NRST is imposed, with some moderation of this increase in the longer run. Due to a weaker dollar, merchandise import prices increase by nearly 4 percent shortly after the NRST is imposed and are 6.5 percent over baseline levels in 2010. Merchandise export prices are also above baseline levels. In 2001 and 2002 they are nearly 3 percent above the baseline. However, due to lower interest rates, which reduce business costs, export prices are only slightly greater than baseline levels for most of the remainder of the forecast period. The overall impact on prices is measured by the change in the GDP deflator, which initially rises 20 percent above the baseline price level before settling back to a 13 percent price rise relative to the baseline.

The notion espoused by some that pre-tax prices would drop some 20-30 percent under a NRST (so that after-tax prices would not rise and may even decline) is a peculiar one. This could only happen if all of the personal income tax, the corporation income tax and payroll taxes are currently embodied in retail prices. Tax incidence -- that is, who actually bears the ultimate tax burden -- is an elusive question that has been the focus of many economic papers, because the answer is not clear. However, the general consensus among economists is that perhaps a portion of the corporate income tax may be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, but that the majority is ultimately paid by corporate owners in the form of lower after-tax profits and by employees in the form of lower compensation. Most economists concede that personal income taxes and payroll taxes are ultimately borne by labor and are not passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Source: Statement of John G. Wilkins, Managing Director, Barcroft Consulting Group, on behalf of National Retail Federation. Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform. April 11, 2000.

Transitional Issues in Tax Reform

Price Level Effects

Because the flat tax is similar in structure to the existing income tax system, its implementation would have relatively little effect on the absolute price level. Both before- and after-tax wages would be roughly similar before and after reform, so that nominal prices remain roughly constant.

In contrast, the effect of implementing an NRST on the absolute price level is less certain. One possibility is that the tax could be fully shifted forward in the form of higher prices for consumption goods, with no change in the price of investment goods, which are untaxed under the NRST. At the other end of the spectrum of possible responses, nominal prices could remain constant. Under this scenario, before-tax real wages would have to fall roughly to the level of prereform after-tax real wages in response to the elimination of the income tax. Intermediate responses between the "full price adjustment" and "no price adjustment" scenarios are of course also possible.

Choosing between these various scenarios requires making necessarily speculative assumptions about the response of the monetary authorities to the imposition of the NRST. However, most analysts assume that the monetary response would be sufficiently accommodating that the full price adjustment scenario would obtain.

The primary rationale underlying this assumption is the view that the downward flexibility of nominal wages is quite limited, in part because most wage contracts and agreements are specified in nominal terms. Thus, a tax reform that required wage reductions to reach a new equilibrium would be quite costly as these wage reductions would initially be distributed unevenly across industries. This in turn might result in considerable unemployment in sectors characterized by rigid wages, as well as misallocations of labor, at least in the short run. Proponents of the full price adjustment view assume that monetary policy would be expansionary to avoid these costs.

Most observers fall into the full price adjustment camp. For example, McLure (1996, p. 23) concludes that it would be "hard to imagine the monetary authorities not accommodating such an increase in prices." Gravelle (1995, p. 59) argues that full price adjustment is likely because a "national sales tax would tend to produce an economic contraction if no price accommodation is made." In its analysis of the distributional implications of implementing consumption taxes, the Joint Committee of Taxation (1993, p. 59) concludes that, "Unless there are convincing reasons to assume otherwise, the JCT staff assumes the Federal Reserve will accommodate the policy change and allow prices to rise." Finally, Bradford (1996a, p. 135), in discussing the same issue in the context of a value-added tax, observes that, "It is commonly believed that introducing a value-added tax of the consumption type will bring with it a monetary policy adjustment that would result in a one-time increase in the price level ;and no change in payments to workers in nominal terms."

Nevertheless, opinion on this issue is certainly no unanimous. For example, the alternative assumption [that wages will fall] is implicitly made by Jorgenson and Wilcoxen, who argue that implementing a national sales tax would reduce producer prices on average by 25 percent. Auerbach (1996) takes a compromise position by assuming partial price adjustment. In addition, European experience with the introduction of the VAT is mixed, generally suggesting partial price adjustment. On the other hand, Besley and Rosen (1999) find full (or even more than 100 percent) forward shifting of state sales taxes in the United States.

Source: Zodrow, George R. (2002). "Transitional Issues in Tax Reform." In United States Tax Reform in the 21st Century, George Zodrow and Peter Mieszkowski, Editors. Cambridge University Press.

Monetary Implications of Tax Reforms

Does it matter how the central bank responds when the tax system is reformed? Some economists would argue that in a very general sense it does not. Many would argue that the central bank's response would have little long-run effect, because what really matters is the productive capacity of the economy and because there could be no money illusion in the long run.

And, in the short run, the standard relation between prices and money makes it clear that, under limiting assumptions, the central bank need not change monetary policy. Consider the transition from our present tax system to a consumption tax. Ignoring any incentive effects caused by the tax reform, velocity and output are unchanged. With a revenue-neutral tax reform, aggregate after-tax income is unchanged, so there need be no demand-driven effects on consumer prices. Under these conditions, v, y, and q remain unchanged as a result of the tax reform, and thus maintenance of the status quo implies that the central bank need not change its policy. Assuming that output is constant, the central bank could eliminate any transitory price changes in the long run by leaving monetary policy unchanged.

But things may not be that simple. The implied changes to wages and producer prices require a degree of flexibility in the economy that many might find unlikely. Specifically, for the consumer price to stay constant, the producer price must fall by the amount of the tax. And because a drop in the producer price means that the business revenue produced by hiring another worker drops, the before-tax wage must drop by a corresponding amount. Many have argued that such price and wage changes are implausible and that the central bank should "accommodate" a transitory change in the consumer price level by adjusting monetary policy so that it is consistent with constant producer prices and wages.

Source: Bull, Nicholas, and Lawrence B. Lindsey. 1996. "Monetary Implications of Tax Reforms." National Tax Journal 49.3 (September): 359-79.

The Price Level

When Britain adopted consumption taxation in 1979, the price level rose by the amount of the new tax. This jump in prices caused substantial disruption in the economy, partly because it stimulated further rounds of wage and price increases through indexation formulas that failed to exclude consumption taxes from the measured cost of living. Standard macroeconomic analysis suggests that the underlying cause of such a price effect is the contractual determination of wages in money terms. Under an income tax, the wage is set in pretax terms. Workers finance consumption out of what remains of their wages after paying taxes. Under a sales tax or a value-added tax (VAT), the wage is set on an after-tax basis. Workers use their entire wages for consumption and pay their consumption taxes as they consume. When an income tax is replaced by a sales tax or VAT, the wage bargain should be revised to lower the purchasing power of wages or by raising the prices of consumption goods. As a practical matter, the second always occurs.

One of the advantages of a flat tax or a personal cash-flow consumption tax is that both leave the wage bargain in pretax form. There is no disruptive jump in the price level. Unlike other effects I have discussed, the increase in the price level is not intrinsic to a consumption tax, but is the result of a particular choice about how to administer the tax.

Source: Potential Disruption from the Move to a Consumption Tax, by Robert E. Hall. The American Economic Review.

282 posted on 06/10/2005 2:22:05 PM PDT by Your Nightmare (::tick:: ::tick:: ::tick::)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It matters because it isn't an apples to apples comparison. People's incomes will jump at the same instant prices rise, because at the moment the NRST takes effect, income taxes (e.g. withholding) vanishes. Of course purchases will drop with a sudden jump in prices, all else being equal.
283 posted on 06/10/2005 2:24:56 PM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
You neglect to consider the cost of government being reduced by sending the tax agents packing

The agents will only go packing to work for the new tax collection agency. If you think forcing everyone to go through legal channels to pay the 30% tax is not going to take a large enforcement effort, you are kidding yourself. Collecting $2 Trillion is a difficult task no matter how it is done.

- and the increased efficiency in the business world because of vastly lower tax compliance costs.

No, that has been taken into account.

284 posted on 06/10/2005 2:25:42 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: coloradan; Principled

It would be helpful to the rationality of discussion if we can all refrain from accusations of lying and fraud. Come on, guys (includes you gals too)!


285 posted on 06/10/2005 2:26:18 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Bookmark.


286 posted on 06/10/2005 2:26:19 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (My tagline is currently being blocked by Congressional filibuster for being to harsh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
prices go up for everyone

According to the FairTax-ers, that's where you're wrong.

287 posted on 06/10/2005 2:27:37 PM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

after I found he was included in his compliance costs the time a guy spends doing his taxes instead of watching TV at $25/hr.

You want to point that out in any of his IGEM studies? For it isn't there.

Business costs are quite separate from the factors associated with consumers in Jorgenson's IBEM models. They are treated as two entirely separate entities.

The only place leisure time comes into play, is how much leisure time the consumer gives up to go out and earn more so he can invest and save more tax free.

288 posted on 06/10/2005 2:28:33 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
It matters because it isn't an apples to apples comparison. People's incomes will jump at the same instant prices rise, because at the moment the NRST takes effect, income taxes (e.g. withholding) vanishes.

Certainly most peoples incomes will go up to make up for the cost increases. The problem is, many sources of income do not have withholdings and will not go up. For example, millions of elderly on Social Security will not see their checks go up. People on tax-free pensions or tax-free investments will also not see any increase in income. These people will be in trouble under the sales tax.

289 posted on 06/10/2005 2:29:19 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Marak

Exactly, my problem, too. If something has to be sold like snake oil, hold on to your wallet.


290 posted on 06/10/2005 2:31:41 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

More importantly, this whole thing (admittedly, flat tax would do this too) would destroy an industry that has allowed alot of hard working people to become rich.


291 posted on 06/10/2005 2:32:04 PM PDT by AzaleaCity5691 (Farragut got lucky, if we had been on our game, we would have blasted him off Dauphin Island)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
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.

Freedom's a risky business.

Takes some courage to walk out of the jail cell...

292 posted on 06/10/2005 2:34:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Quality of life": Another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

It was included in his estimate for the compliance costs on individuals, as opposed to business costs.


293 posted on 06/10/2005 2:34:32 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Business costs are quite separate from the factors associated with consumers in Jorgenson's IBEM models.

Point us to his methodology. The $250 Billion number that is usually thrown around was calculated by looking at the numbers of forms that were filed, multiplying it by the time the IRS says it takes to keep records and fill out the form and multiplying it by some hourly rate. That means the $250 Billion number thrown around is bore mostly by individuals not by businesses and are not neccessarily actual costs.

294 posted on 06/10/2005 2:37:53 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Fools rush in.....

You have to look at the risk/reward trade-off, and a depression or having both IT and FT are risks that are not adequately rewarded, IMO. I don't go walking on any freeways looking for quarters -- I hope you don't either.

295 posted on 06/10/2005 2:38:15 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

I lived in New Jersey when the state was in a financial crisis. The voters were told that we needed an income tax or a major boost to the sales tax. There were people pushing for each option. Each chose their arguments based on their own finances, and both sides had good arguements.

So who won?

The government. After campaining against the income tax, Spendi Brenden was elected governor and promptly instituted BOTH taxes. Politicians exist for one reason, to take your money.


296 posted on 06/10/2005 2:39:21 PM PDT by Marak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

What happens to all the CPA's though. Accounting firms are big corporate entities, that provide alot of people with good jobs, and I'm not so sure it's a good idea to completely up-end that without having a sort of back up plan.

Tax Reform is something that has to be done rapidly, for the precise reason of avoiding a shock to the system.


297 posted on 06/10/2005 2:42:47 PM PDT by AzaleaCity5691 (Farragut got lucky, if we had been on our game, we would have blasted him off Dauphin Island)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691
More importantly, this whole thing (admittedly, flat tax would do this too) would destroy an industry that has allowed alot of hard working people to become rich.

I don't think the flat tax would hurt housing as much as the sales tax. The mortgage exemption is an overstated benefit. It only has a marginal effect once you factor in you could have taken the standard deduction anyways. Another negative thing about the Sales Tax is it actually charges a tax on interest. I believe it charges 30% on the amount of interest that is above the fed or prime rate.

298 posted on 06/10/2005 2:43:11 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691
More importantly, this whole thing (admittedly, flat tax would do this too) would destroy an industry that has allowed alot of hard working people to become rich.

Are you referring to tax accountants and lawyers and such? If so, read up on "deadweight loss". Spending billions of dollars complying with income taxes is no more useful than spending billions of dollars paying people to dig holes and fill them again. It ultimately produces nothing and is a net loss even if some come out ahead.

299 posted on 06/10/2005 2:46:37 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (These pretzels are making me thirsty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Sorry about that, but, "government taxing government" is represented as a flaw in the NRST. But gov't already taxes gov't, through income tax on government workers. It is dishonest, IMO, to neglect to mention this.
300 posted on 06/10/2005 2:47:54 PM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,241-1,246 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson