Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
Nobody ever said otherwise.
What eveyone is saying is that under the income tax, the drug dealer only pays a portion of his taxes... the part embedded in prices... he currently does NOT pay his portion of income taxes... he currently does NOT pay his porton of FICA taxes.... so currently he's skipping out on paying some of his taxes.
Further, everyone is saying that under the nrst, the drug dealer pays 100% of his taxes.
Note that nobody is saying that the aggregate amount of tax collected changes.
What everyone gets (excep you so far), is that under the income tax, the drug dealer avoids some of his taxes, but under the nrst, he pays all his taxes.
Hense the assertion that the nrst captures more of the drug dealer's taxes.
See #699
But under the nrst, he drug dealer pays 100% of his taxes, so the rest of us no longer have to pay any of his taxes.
Nobody is saying the aggregate collected changes.
But he pockets the sales tax he is suppose to collect and remit. He is legally liable to remit 23% of the tax for the goods he sells, but does not. He is absolutely not paying 100% of his taxes he owes. How can you keep repeating that?
The tax reform proponents know the agreggate won't change - it's revnue neutral.
Currently, drug dealers only pay a portion of their taxes - the part embedded in taxes (which always right agrees is 20-30%). But they don't pay their income taxes like the rest of us and they don't pay thier fica like the rest of us. They currently do NOT pay all their taxes. So us honest folks have to pay higher rates due to drug dealers skipping out on taxes. But under the nrst, drug dealers will pay 100% of their own taxes. So honest folks won't have to cover any of the drug dealers' taxes anymore.
That's why tax reform proponents say the nrst captures more taxes from the underground economy - like drug dealers. That 100% of their taxes are paid helps honest folks pay the right amount!
Those aren't his taxes, income tax boy. His taxes are paid when he purchases things.
So the drug dealer will pay 100% of his taxes under the nrst.
And are you really saying the drug dealer is going to up his price to include sales tax??!!!
You're on your own on this one! Nobody thinks the aggregate is changing. Hell the bill is revenue neutral! But the drug dealer pays only a portion of his taxes now.
Under the nrst, he pays 100% of his taxes.
One's full tax burden is paid thru purchases.
I really don't see how I can possibly explain this any clearer. The drug dealer is pocketing money that belongs to the government under the sales tax. He is cheating the sales tax system the same way he would cheats the income tax system. Or are you saying that drugs are not goods under the NRST? It is my understanding that all purchases of goods by consumers is suppose to result in tax being collected and remitted. Drug dealers will not do this and is not 'fair' to those legal retailers who will. Drug dealers pocket 100% of their gross sales, legal retailers pocket 77%. How is that fair?
I would respond buy you failed to make one point to dispute anything I said, nor has 600 plus comments fail to make a dent in any of my points.
He may or may not. It doesn't matter. If he were on the up and up, he would have to remit the tax whether he raises his prices or not.
LOL, you call me ignorant and you make a statement like that! Learn about the Fair Tax and get back to me. For an item that costs $100, the retailer has to add $30 to it for a total of $130. The so-called '23% tax' is 23% of the after tax price of $130. The retailer keeps $100 and sends in $30 to the tax collector. If you had a clue about the bill you would know that.
I realize that, that is why I took the total of what states collect now of income and sales tax and averaged it out what a typical state would have to charge to make up for that revenue. My analysis is rock solid.
You can't do that way, and you know it. Look I don't not want to have to teach you basic econ 101. Trust me your point is as solid as water.
I am not ticked, but I know you are clueless so I forgive you. I am 100% correct on my statement, you fail to understand the difference between inclusive and exclusive tax rates. The 23% inclusive rate is equivalent to a 30% exclusive rate that consumers are typically use to. Not one of the fair tax faithful even argued that point, because it is a non-debateable fact.
If the 23% rate was an exclusive rate you would be correct. But that is the trick, they quote the rate based on the after tax price, not the base price.
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.