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 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,241-1,246 next last
To: pigdog
Not at all, the 30.0% number is not correct and you surely know it.

He said 30% not 30.0%. If he rounded to one decimal place it should be 29.9%, but you are really grasping, IMHO.

821 posted on 06/12/2005 1:21:36 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

I dunno, Rongie - most perople think that when something is not right it is wrong. I guess your value system doesn't function that way, though.


822 posted on 06/12/2005 1:22:45 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Translation: You want a simpler implementation of one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, aka the income tax.

That would be a progressive income tax. I favor a flatter tax, and liked what Reagan did. That have mucked it up significantly in the last 20 years.

823 posted on 06/12/2005 1:23:35 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
NRST will NOT leave us with a "single tax." It will become VAT and will be hidden from the population. Not only that but do you really think the government will give up all it s other taxes? Like the gas tax? Britain still has its gas tax and it provides 11% of the revenue because when the price goes up folks tend to blame it on the oil companies. Europe still has most of the taxes it ever had. Plus its sales tax. Thăt is the way of government.
824 posted on 06/12/2005 1:27:58 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Change your name.

Freedom is calling and you are doing your best to send it away.


825 posted on 06/12/2005 1:28:15 PM PDT by Badray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; pigdog

I think most sane people would accept 30% as a round figure for 29.87%.

Why would any sane person allow a business to round a tax rate up and end up paying more than is due?

826 posted on 06/12/2005 1:28:48 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
I dunno, Rongie - most perople think that when something is not right it is wrong. I guess your value system doesn't function that way, though.

There is nothing wrong or misleading or incorrect about rounding 29.870129 to 30. There is nothing that says you must round to two decimal places, especially since the 23% number does not contain more figures. Now if I were making a calculation where I wanted 4 or 5 significant figures, I would take it out to six places or so. But for discussion purposes, 30% is perfectly correct and an honest representation.

827 posted on 06/12/2005 1:29:05 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

No, they can't Rongie. There is no provision in the bill for that sort of nonsense. There would first have to be shown some legal basis that the taxpayer was involved in some activity outside of the law before he could be hauled into court.

The taxpayer (the consumer) has far more legal protection - and legal rights - under the FairTax than under the present tax system.


828 posted on 06/12/2005 1:29:16 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Everything I said was true.


829 posted on 06/12/2005 1:29:49 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Quality of life": Another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: Radioactive

Who decides how much money to create? The govt clearly has an incentive to create more money, thereby not only increasing their revenues, but causing galloping inflation.


830 posted on 06/12/2005 1:29:56 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I favor a flatter tax, and liked what Reagan did. That have mucked it up significantly in the last 20 years.

Thanks for posting such a resounding refutation of your own 'point'.

831 posted on 06/12/2005 1:32:06 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Quality of life": Another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You obviously have NO conception of what most people go through in filing those "simple" tax returns...


832 posted on 06/12/2005 1:32:13 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Why would any sane person allow a business to round a tax rate up and end up paying more than is due?

LOL, you guys are losing it. Arguing about rounding 29.87 to 30. This is too funny. If that is what you are going to bitch about, I will take it.

833 posted on 06/12/2005 1:33:44 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

Sane???


834 posted on 06/12/2005 1:34:48 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Defending industries like the auto and homebuilding industry may be in my self-interest, but I also beleive it is neccessary for the future of this county. I love this country and think overall it is the greatest country ever and will continue to be so.

The income tax hardly qualifies as one of the things that made this country great.

And the country remains great in spite of, not because of, the Stupid Tax.

835 posted on 06/12/2005 1:34:53 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Quality of life": Another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
You obviously have NO conception of what most people go through in filing those "simple" tax returns...

Taking their W-2's and 1099i's to HR Block to file? You can actually go to the IRS office and they will help you for free if you wish. It is probably better, because they will take the time to fill out the Earned Income Tax credit if you qualify. Most file a 1040 EZ.

836 posted on 06/12/2005 1:36:37 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You can twist and turn 'till you're blue in the face, but Wrong is Wrong, Rongie. And 29.87 ain't the same as 30.00 or 30.0 or 30. Why not round it DOWN to, say, 25???


837 posted on 06/12/2005 1:37:09 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

The 30% number is correct. Making it 30.0% is technically not correct only if the 23% is 23.0%, although your making a mountain out of a molehill in this case would be rather demented. However, since the 23% number is an estimate, only, the 29.9% number is no more accurate than the 23.0% number.


838 posted on 06/12/2005 1:37:58 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

People who push something like NRST with the fanaticism of the FairTaxers are usually looking for power and conquest- my way or die! and "my way" is totalist.


839 posted on 06/12/2005 1:38:00 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

Oh, my Lord, you are in need of your medication!


840 posted on 06/12/2005 1:38:54 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 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