[Always Right]

The above is total and complete idiocy. The assumption is that because it "misses" the first taxation, something has been lost, and that it happens today because hookers, drug dealers do it. Yeah, sure they don't pay INCOME tax now and only pay SALES tax when they spend, but what happens when the NRST changes the rate? I'll tell you, it got missed the first go'round because it's illegal, but we got it on the second go'round because, my friend, it ain't at the same rate.

I am not sure what is 'idiocy' about it, but I was not talking about sales tax. When the drug dealer buys a $50,000 car under the income tax, it creates taxable income for a lot of people. The sales guy makes $3000 and has to pay income tax. The car dealership makes $8000 and has to pay tax on that. The guys that shipped the car and the guys that assembled the car and the car manufacturer made income too, and must pay tax. A legal sale under the income tax does not capture any federal sales tax, but captures income tax embedded in the car.

[Gaffer]

A legal sale under the income tax does not capture any federal sales tax, but captures income tax embedded in the car.

Whether it's captured in "income taxes" through the middle-men now under the present system or captured in an NRST scenario later, it doesn't make a difference in the end to the government. What it does, however, equalize is the misproportioned taxe rates, breaks, social credit system that the tax code has now. Based on your argument above, which is very confusing, I don't see the bad side.