Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
1. The 23% sales tax rate turns 37%. A retailer who sells an item for $100 must charge his customer an additional $30 for federal sales tax. Most people familiar with state sales tax call this a 30% tax, since the tax is 30% of the seller's price. The Sales Tax folks call this a 23% tax, since $30 is 23% of the final price ($130 including tax), which they call the 'tax-inclusive' rate. Neither way is technically incorrect, it is just important to understand what is really being discussed. Remember this 30% tax-exclusive rate is only the federal portion of the tax, state sales tax will also be added in. With the elimination of federal reporting, states will have to replace their personal and corporate income receipts, with a sales tax. States collected nearly $500 Billion in 2003 through income tax and sales tax. With Personal Consumption at $7.76 Trillion in 2003, that is 6.4% in tax inclusive terms, which will add another 6.8% to the tax-exclusive rate. So if you buy $100 worth of goods, you will end of paying nearly $137 once State and Federal Sales tax.
2. Even 37% is not enough. One amazing fact when sales tax calculates their rate is that they assume 100% compliance. Everyone will cheerfully report every sale. There will be no under the table or black market sales. Also, no one will try to buy goods overseas to avoid this tax. This is pure fantasy. No one could believe any tax system will have perfect compliance and zero avoidance. The current income tax system has about a 15% tax-evasion rate. Conservatively, we could assume that the sales tax will have a similar tax evasion rate of 15% and a tax avoidance (like spending overseas) rate of 5%. With these more realistic assumptions, the tax rate would have to be bumped up to 44% to be revenue neutral. And these are very conservative assumption. Brookings Institute economist William Gale (National Retail Sales Tax, September, 2004) calculated that about a 60 percent sales tax would be required to be revenue neutral.
3. Fraudulent Calculations. Besides using ridiculous assumptions like 100% compliance, the sales tax economists create money out of thin air. Their paid for economists routinely double-count savings of their plan. The biggest one is being the $1.3 Trillion that individuals pay in taxes. Under the 30% Sales Tax bill, that money would end up in the pocket of individuals, and the proponents correctly tell you that take home pay will go up. But then the Sales Tax proponents go on to tell you that prices will go 25-33% to offset their 30% sales tax. Well if individuals are pocketing 67% of the taxes that are eliminated, how are businesses going to reduce prices very much? The sales tax eliminates about $650 Billion in taxes to businesses. Considering Americans consumers spend $8 Trillion on goods and services, that only allows for businesses to lower their costs by 8%. Once the 30% sales tax is added, the final end cost to the consumer will be 20% higher if the calculation were done honestly. Even allowing for a reasonable amount of savings in compliance costs to businesses under the sales tax system, prices would still shoot up 18-19%.
4. Millions must file. The Sales Tax supporters would have you believe that only retailers need to file under the Sales Tax. That simply is not true. In order to offer the 'low' 30% rate, the Sales Tax must tax services too. 'In 1993, 12,778,000 taxpayers filed individual returns with business income or losses, and another 1,919,000 filed farm returns. In addition, in 1992 the IRS received returns for 17,292,286 non-farm sole proprietorship businesses, 1,484,752 partnerships, and 3,868,004 corporations-all of which probably produced goods or services on which the sales tax would be levied. Thus the supposed simplicity of the sales tax turns out to be a mirage.' (Brookings Institution Policy Brief #31-March 1998) Thus over 35 million filers will still be subjected to reporting and audits, most of these are individuals. This doesn't even consider the 100 million of people who will still have their wages reported to the SSA. Also, all households must register every year with the 'sales tax administering authority' in order to receive your monthly tax rebate. Furthermore, individuals that buy things without sales tax, like overseas purchases, must submit monthly forms and payments to the government. Hardly the zero tax filings for individuals as the sales tax supporters claim.
5. Tax Evasion will skyrocket. 20 countries have tried a national sales tax, and 20 have switched to a value-added tax. These countries have gone on record and have flat out stated a retail tax of more then 12% is unworkable. People will avoid it, especially with the internet which makes it very easy for the common citizen to purchase goods from foreign sources. The fact that businesses to business sales are not taxed, makes it very tempting to buy personal stuff under a business name. It will take a mighty powerful and intrusive taxing authority to audit all business expensive to make sure. The sales tax rates we are talking about have never been successfully implemented in the history of the world, but it hasn't been for a lack of trying. "Many people would masquerade as businesses" to avoid the tax, says Robert Hall, an economist at the Hoover Institution. Gale reckons that evasion would be far higher than today 's estimated 15%.
6. Big Government gets Bigger. In the 20 countries where the national sales tax has been implemented, and in each case replaced by necessity by a Value-Added Tax, the amount of federal taxes quickly grew from about 20% of GDP, as currently in the US, to 40% and above of their GDP. Not a promising precedent.
7. Underground Economy still not taxed. The NRST advocates falsely claim that the underground economy now will be taxed. Nothing could be further then the truth. Sure, when the money re-enters the legal economy the money is taxed, but that is true today. But will the drug dealers and prostitutes remit sales tax for their goods and services under the NRST? Absolutely not, this portion of the economy is still invisible to the tax collector and therefore not taxed. According to Bruce Bartlett, 'thus whatever revenue is gained when drug dealers spend their ill-gotten gains will be lost because no tax was collected on their drug sales.' (Bruce R. Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy, Analysis, November 5, 1997).
8. Lower and Middle Income pay more. Steven Sheffrin of UC Davis in a 1996 CPS brief says that a revue-neutral consumption tax even with a generous personal exemption shifts the tax burden to the lower to middle income households. A 1992 Congressional Budget Office study of consumption based tax concluded the consumption tax would decrease the tax on the wealthiest 20% by five percent, while hitting all other groups with a higher tax burden. The poorest quintile being hit the hardest with a 20% increase in tax and the 20-40% income quintile being hit with 9.3% increase in their effective tax rate. This is because the poorest spend a much higher percentage of their income each year and in many cases are even forced to borrow to keep up with their expenses. These numbers are much worst today as the federal tax liability for the bottom 20% has been greatly reduced through expansion of the earned income tax credit.
9. Elderly assets are unfairly burdened. While people currently working will get to keep more of their paycheck, people on fixed incomes will stay the same. Elderly, who have already worked and saved under the income tax system, will now be faced with paying additional high consumption taxes. This group of especially hard hit people, will not have the opportunity to earn tax-free wages, so all their already taxed wealth will be taxed again when they spend it. Come January 1, 2007, if someone's rent was $1000, they will owe an additional $300 in federal tax alone, and many without any additional source of income.
10. Government Taxes Itself. One amazing thing is under the Sale Tax is that government somehow raises money by taxing itself. Whereas this is an interesting way to reduce government, it is typical of the smoke and mirrors the fraudulent analysis of the so-called fair taxers use. Under the plan, the government is considered the consumer and most of it's purchases and employee salaries are taxable. So if the state of Alabama pays its clerk $30,000 in salary, it would be liable to pay the federal sales tax of $9000. The same applies to the federal government, but it pays itself. An interesting way to raise revenue, but it more fraud on their part. If government could truely tax itself, why not just put 100% sales tax on government and then no one else would have to pay taxes.
11. Auto and Housing Industry Hit Hard. As the luxury taxes have proven in the past, adding a large sales tax on item deters people from buying. In 1991, after the Democrats snuckered Bush Sr. into signing the Luxury Tax, Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales that year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000. And that was only for a 10% tax! With new homes and autos having to compete against existing homes and used cars, paying the additional 30% sales tax will be hard to swallow for most consumers.
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.