That's not true, it is mostly the NRST worshipers who don't see the point. Besides, I really don't care who agrees with me, because I am absolutely correct on this.
Whether it's a wash is not relevant.
That's the whole point, so how can it not be relevant.
What IS important is that of the total collected, the drug dealer now pays his share.
He illegally does not remit the 23% of his gross sales, so I can't see how any rationale person can claim he pays his share. Who share is he pocketing then? No matter how you view it, he is liable to remit that tax and he does not.
Currently, he doesn't. Currently, his only pays a portion of his taxes.
He pays zero income tax on the money he receives from drug sales, just like he will pay zero sales tax on the drug sales. The amount is roughly the same.
But under the nrst, the drug dealer pays ALL his taxes, so we no longer have to pay any of his taxes... becuase he pays ALL HIS TAXES under the nrst.
Except the 23% of his gross which you seem in denial about. When the drug dealer finally makes legal purchases, he will pay the embedded taxes which will roughly be the same as the 23% sales tax. Or do you change your assumptions for different scenarios? That is very convenient of you, but very typical.
That's not the point everyone else is talking about. It should be clear that the total collected will be the same - it's revenue neutral, remember?
The point is that the share of taxes paid by drug dealers is small under the income tax compared to the share that would be collected under the nrst.
This is because under our income tax, drug dealers only pay a portion of their tax burden - the part embedded in taxes.
But under the nrst, the drug dealer pays 100% of his taxes.
Under the income tax, the dealer only pays a portion of his taxes, so the rest of us have to pay more in order to collect required revenue.
Under the nrst, the dealer pays ALL of his taxes, so the rest of us don't have to pay his share anymore to collect required revenues.
You are the only one focused on total collected - the rest of us know the nrst is revenue neutral and will collect the same amount of revenue. But unde our income tax, drug dealers escape paying much of their taxes. Under the nrst, they pay all their taxes.
Geez.
Are you trying to tell us that drug dealers will increase their price in order to pay the tax?!!! LOL!!!!
Besides, in a competitive industry, unnecessary costs are eliminated. If that were true, they'd increase their prices by x% today. But they don't.
But under the nrst, he pays 100% of his taxes when he buys stuff. He will no longer escape paying his taxes.
AW: Except the 23% of his gross which you seem in denial about.
DENSE!
First, he isn't going to charge any extra for the nrst - as you note, he doesn't pay income tax now, so he doesn't inflate his price in order to pay them. He won't collect the nrst on the sale either - he won't increase his price. HIs price is already at the tax free level and will remain there.
The dealer doesn't pay his tax based on his income! He pays his tax when he spends!
DENSE!!!!!
I see you now agree that embedded tax costs are about the same as the nrst. Progress.
But that isn't what you wanted to say! You did it by accident trying to perform mental gymnastics to prove a point that isn't proveable! LOL
The original point is that under the nrst, the drug dealer will pay more of his taxes. The original point was not whether the same would be collected by the gov't - but that it will be more fair under the nrst... because under the income tax he doesn't pay but a part of his taxes - the part embedded in prices.(... we have to make up the part of his taxes he doesn't pay via higher rates on honest folks). BUt under the nrst, he pays ALL his taxes - meaning we don't have to make up the difference.
Dang!