Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mind-numbed Robot
You seem equally intent on denying that the NRST will recoup some of that money when the scofflaws purchase something new, as they are likely to do.

If the scofflaws purchase something new in the legitimate economy, it will be taxed in either system. If the scofflaws purchase something new in the underground economy, it won't be taxed under either system.

Underground economy transactions by definition can't be taxed.

180 posted on 09/15/2005 12:11:54 PM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]


To: SolidSupplySide
If the scofflaws purchase something new in the legitimate economy, it will be taxed in either system.

Because we are talking about different kinds of taxes here it is easy to confuse the issue, at least for me. The income tax is only affected by sales in that sales improve the economy and create new jobs. The economy is affected by many things other than the tax code and makes the whole tax collection or increase iffy. A sales tax, conversely, taxes purchases of taxable items immediately. I see little correlation or similarity of the effect.

If the scofflaws purchase something new in the underground economy, it won't be taxed under either system.

This is what I meant in the post you are replying to when I said you are technically correct but that is short term and limited. As soon as the ill gotten gains cross over into the legitimate economy, as they eventually must, they will be taxed by the NRST. I see no way for the income tax to touch them except long term and indirectly through job creation.

Underground economy transactions by definition can't be taxed.

A correct but meaningless statement.

243 posted on 09/15/2005 3:29:07 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]

To: SolidSupplySide
"Underground economy transactions by definition can't be taxed."

Well, at least THAT'S valid - so why bother to keep stating the obvious? The argument never was about the FairTax (or even the income tax for that matter) taxing illegal income, but was about which system obtained more in tax revenue from the illegal economy when that income was spent for taxable things.

Your pretense that those in the illegal economy presently somehow pay lots of income taxes when they buy things is quite incorrect. Thay pay only a very small tax contribution presently under the income tax when they buy something at retail. We once estimated that on a $100 purchase presently, the tax contribution would be something like (from memory) $3.75 whereas under the FairTax a $100 purchase would contribute $23.00.

That's a huge difference in favor of the FairTax.

253 posted on 09/15/2005 5:28:16 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]

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