[Principled]

First, it's an NRST. THere's a big difference. Second, the drug dealer will pay more of his taxes under the nrst.

Today, the drug dealer only pays a portion of his tax burden, the part embedded in prices (he pays none of his income tax nor any of his FICA.) But under the nrst, ones full tax burden is paid thru purchases for retail consumption...the drug dealer begins paying his full burden via consumption. Under the income tax, the dealer only pays a portion of his taxes, under the nrst the dealer pays all his taxes. Hence the drug dealer pays more tax under the nrst.

[Always Right]

But under the nrst, ones full tax burden is paid thru purchases for retail consumption...the drug dealer begins paying his full burden via consumption.

Which is total crap, unless he remits sales tax on his gross receipts which he will not. Unless the sales tax captures this part of the economy the arguement is false.

[Blood of Tyrants]

That is what I have been trying to get across to "Always Right". Plus, I do believe that the drug dealer, having no legal job, would not get a monthly rebate check, either.

[groanup]

Today, the drug dealer only pays a portion of his tax burden, the part embedded in prices (he pays none of his income tax nor any of his FICA.)

Which brings up a point. I haven't been following this thread to any great degree so if you guys have addressed this earlier, my apologies. Under the NRST, how do we determine SS benefits? Currently, the benefits accrue based on money paid in from earned income. A drug dealer who reports no earned income has accumulated no SS benefits. Under a NRST he/she will be entitled. How will it be determined?