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.
All one has to do, IMHO, is look at the economic history of the United States prior to the implementation of the progressive income tax and compare that to what has followed.
Few even know that the progressive income tax finds it's modern origins in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" despite the ease with which one can find out such things in today's world.
Not all business will need to remit - only retailers will.
Stop pushing your income tax snake oil. The income tax is not great, it's horrible.
Currently, tax burdens are generally separated into 3 categories: income tax, FICA, and embedded tax in prices.
Today, the drug dealer only pays a portion of his tax burden, the part embedded in prices. But under the nrst, the drug dealer begins paying his full burden. Hence the drug dealer pays more tax under the nrst.
You're not quite there yet. Should be "The desire to maximize profits leads to attempts to improve margins". Sometimes that leads to attempts to gain market share in order to either (i) improve margins by amortizing fixed costs over more units, or (ii) get a dominant, semi-monopolistic position so as to set the market price (Jack Welch's approach). Sometimes it just leads to raising the price.
LOL! Medication ran out?
And you have credibility??? Further, what indicates to you it will be the same people in the same offices doing the same jobs?
The nrst reduces the # of collection points by 80%. And 80% of retail transactions go thru only 20% of retailers. There will be no inspection of individuals' incomes. There will be no individual audits - only business audits. 45 states already collect a sales tax - they'll collect the nrst and earn 1/4% on it.
You aren't misled, just trying to paint tax reform proponents as something they aren't. It's the income tax fanatics who mislead on nearly every post. It's all the kool aid the income tax demagogues have left.
Well, it was in 540
But it was part of my main point that creditors would hold the debt.
Now tell me, what caused the Depression, was not the Gold Standard, was not the stock market crash in and of itself.
What happen was, the entire economy of the 1920s (like the 1990s, I'm afraid to say) was financed on credit, rich and poor alike went on a credit frenzy. So when the stock market crashed, all this money evaporated, so when creditors tried to collect, well, it was a vicious cycle.
I do hate FDR, but I will admit one thing, if it had not been his program, we would have ended up with much worse. I seriously believe Huey Long could have become President in 1936, and what does that say for America at that time.
We're lucky we escaped the 30's with some form of free government (somewhat) intact, especially when you look at what happened to Germany and other countries.
The entire economic future of this country is hinged on credit, and that is the foremost basis of my entire opposition to the NRST. My belief is, at some point, we will have a downturn and that credit bubble is gonna bust. If you consider the Depression the worst recession of all time, and then put it in a category of "depressions" or, bad recessions. Then by the rights of the time scale, we are overdue, and we are now more entangled in credit than ever.
Does the FDIC insure, yes it does, up to (I still think 100k)
100k was worth alot more in 1933 then it is today, so while it is more difficult to occur, bank failure is entirely possible if it gets bad enough
With a NRST, you are just adding a higher volume of debt in a society that's already gone rabid, and I hate to break it to you, this economy is not as stable as we would have it.
As a result, I'm not in the mindset that we need to be adding more to the debt thru legislative fiat, because if credit in this country goes, our whole system is gone.
ping
But the tables are turned with the NRST. The states will be remitting grossly more than they will ever receive. It would then be the states with the power to withold money from the feds if the feds don't comply.
Massachussetts: " No money from us until you pass a gay marriage law."
California: "No money from us until you legalize marijuana."
New York: "No money from us until you ban all assault weapons"
With a NRST, you are just adding a higher volume of debt in a society that's already gone rabid, and I hate to break it to you, this economy is not as stable as we would have it.
Just where is this higher volume of debt coming from you say the NRST is supposed to be adding to.
Taxation levels are the same under the NRST as they are now.
The FairTax legislation specifically assures the same level of effective progressivity in the tax burden as exists today with the income/payroll tax system.
The individual's contracted wage is under no risk of the NRST, thus he will receive his gross pay he earns with no federal withholding or FICA taken out of it.
Sorry, I totally fail to see your imagined scenario of higher individual debt at all, just the contrary as the factors that lead to such extreme consumption are reversed with the implementation of a retail sales tax.
Saving and investment for future benefit is encouraged by no taxation of savings.investment capital thus wealth grows without the heavy tax burdens of income taxes taken out of re-invested earnings or even the capital put into the investment initially. Consumption on the other hand is taxed and a visible deterrent to excess credit spending is imposed.
Your extended flights into hypothesis are simply substance-less with no foundation to them.
My vote is for a simplified and lower income tax, with the savings coming from less government.
Absolutely! As every economist worth his salt will readily attest.
consumption is more stable than income.
Well, consumption is more stable than income. Did you not know this?
It retains withholding.
It retains payroll taxes - employee and employer
It retains the IRS looking into every individual's life, where we're guilty until proven innocent
It retains hidden, embedded taxes and tax costs in prices. Hidden taxes allow gov't to grow without the populace being made aware that they're paying for it.
It retains the tax component in US exports.
Get over the flat tax. It's only how income tax lovers sell their snake oil - to try to prevent any reform at all.
No, you're trying to avoid what my argument is: that the nrst will tax big spenders more than now. That's one of the things that allows many people to pay less - broadening of the base being another.
The big spenders could pay as much as 23%. The less you spend, the less your tax. So you could save and pay less tax. You could give to charity and pay less tax... maybe ancient_geezer would post a graph illustrating effective rates by $ spent...?
Why mislead? Is that all you've got?
Another huge problem with the nrst - as big as the "earmarking problem in alabama"... is leprocy. How can the nrst guarantee that leprocy won't spread in alabama? Well, if it can't stop leprocy, I'm against it.
rotflmao
Like a man with a terminal illness who is offered medicine but refuses the medicine because it may not work. Well, not taking the medicine sure isn't gonna help him. How stupid is that?
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.