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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,241-1,246 next last
To: Always Right

Pure smoke - pure mirrow. The tax loopholes are eliminated in a national sales tax and there are no exceptions to the sales. Flat tax or NST either one would eliminate the volums of federal code we currently labor under.


41 posted on 06/10/2005 11:52:56 AM PDT by sandydipper (Less government is best government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord; frogjerk

One problem with your numbers, PL... the $100 item would be $77 for the seller, $23 for the feds, not 70/30.


42 posted on 06/10/2005 11:53:21 AM PDT by kevkrom (Jack Bauer / Chloe O'Brien '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
I do not like these "consumption" based taxes. It seems to me that when the economy tanks, the flucuation in tax revenue will be extrememly drastic and it may encourage other "temporary" taxes...

You're looking at things backwards.

If the economy 'tanks', and the American people are having to do with less, that would be a good time for government to have to tighten its belt as well.

43 posted on 06/10/2005 11:53:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Quality of life": Another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

And even if it DOES require a huge NSRT to remain revenue neutral why is that a BAD thing? Would it not be better if the people KNEW how much of their money the government was stealing?


44 posted on 06/10/2005 11:54:29 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
In the end it works out the same either way, but for an apples to apples comparrison, one must used the tax inclusive method.

In a tax inclusive system, would the seller be required to itemize the taxes and products?

45 posted on 06/10/2005 11:55:39 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Now tell me, who currently pays more overall taxes? An doctor making $500,000/year or a drug dealer making $500,000 per year? If you say neither, then you are lying to yourself and me, too because you know that the doctor will pay probably $100,000 in income taxes while the drug dealer pays nothing.

I agree. But let's look at the sales tax. Under the sales tax the doctor must remit $150,000 for sales tax. Meanwhile, the drug dealer should remit $150,000 for sales tax on all the drugs he sold, but he won't. So in the end, the drug dealer has more money in his pocket to spend under both systems. Taxes are avoided under both system.

46 posted on 06/10/2005 11:56:59 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If the economy 'tanks', and the American people are having to do with less, that would be a good time for government to have to tighten its belt as well.

Unfortunately, given the nature of government, this never happens... :(

47 posted on 06/10/2005 11:57:13 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Re: the 'Flat Tax':

The Flat Tax is still an Income Tax.

Income Taxes are totally flawed from their inception.

If you go out in the pasture and find a big, fat juicy cowpie, then flatten it, what do you now have?

A flat cow pie...


48 posted on 06/10/2005 11:57:55 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Quality of life": Another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
would the seller be required to itemize the taxes and products

The NRST does require the tax to be separately charged and stated (with certain practical exceptions, such as for vending machines that don't proudce receipts).

49 posted on 06/10/2005 11:58:19 AM PDT by kevkrom (Jack Bauer / Chloe O'Brien '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

I think you're right on target. After this "sales tax" we'll still get hit with state, local, school taxes etc. There'll be no exemptions, only the poorhouse!


50 posted on 06/10/2005 11:58:51 AM PDT by KenmcG414
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
The customer will pay $100 and the seller keeps $70 and sends $30 to the government.

This results in a rate of 43 percent. ( 30/70 )

51 posted on 06/10/2005 11:59:14 AM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pop Fly
and discourages business

How does it discourage business?

When you hear complaints about companies setting up a PO Box on some Carribeian island, remember they did so to avoid some of the onerous income taxes put on them. Such as paying income tax on foreign revenue. Offshore headquarters at a PO Box will no longer have a tax benefit and will no longer happen.

Also, currently there is better than $10 TRILLION of American wealth in offshore financial institutions, primarily because of the tax system and level of taxes. With the removal of the income tax and other federal taxes, a very large portion of that $10 TRILLION will return to America and move through our economy.

52 posted on 06/10/2005 11:59:16 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
How many people actually believe that a corporation, once it has gotten people used to paying a certain price for an item, will actually lower their prices?

I do, assuming said corporation wishes to stay in business and not lose to its competitors.

53 posted on 06/10/2005 11:59:52 AM PDT by ThinkDifferent (These pretzels are making me thirsty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

The Cat is Out of the Bag. Thanks for the summary.


54 posted on 06/10/2005 11:59:53 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
How many people actually believe that a corporation, once it has gotten people used to paying a certain price for an item, will actually lower their prices? The reality is that they will just pocket more money.

Lets just assume for the sake of argument that the NRST would reduce possible price at retail. If it does then business have 2 options available.

1) Lower prices

or

2) Go out of business when their competitor lowers prices.

There is no 3rd option.

55 posted on 06/10/2005 12:00:42 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Let me in on a little secret. There is always someone willing to make few dollars less to make a sale. If Nissan passes on the savings they get from the NRST, then Toyota and Honda and GMC and FORD and Chrysler will have to follow suit to compete.

Hell, if I was the owner of Ford, the very FIRST thing I would do the day the hated income tax went away (after firing the tax lawyers and accountants, of course) would be to go on TV and announce: "Come buy our automobiles! With the end of the income tax we are cutting the cost by 30%!"

It is called the free market. A leaner, hungrier company is always in the shadows.


56 posted on 06/10/2005 12:00:51 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Any criticism of the rate as an argument against the FairTax is bogus. The level of the rate that is needed to keep the new form of taxation REVENUE NEUTRAL is a commentary on the level of FEDERAL SPENDING, not the method by which you collect revenue.

Very well said. Complaining about the FairTax rate is just shooting the messenger.

57 posted on 06/10/2005 12:01:29 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (These pretzels are making me thirsty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

My fault on that, you are correct. Just makes Always Right's numbers that much more wrong.


58 posted on 06/10/2005 12:01:56 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Not to mention "THE BLACK MARKET". We'll need more revenue agents than now employed by the IRS.


59 posted on 06/10/2005 12:02:01 PM PDT by KenmcG414
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Currently, I have to pay both the personal income tax when I make the money PLUS the hidden/imbedded taxes when I spend it.

Next, he'll tell you that prices do not include any tax costs. Really.

60 posted on 06/10/2005 12:02:27 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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