Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
Good. Thanks...
Then how do individuals get the "pre-bate" checks that are supposed to be sent out every month?
It's a contract, you brainless jerk.
Patently ridiculous. Even if you don't agree about after-tax prices falling, you'd have to admit that purchasing power would be at least closely equivalent. Also, what are people going to do with their money if they don't spend it? Sure, there will be some increase in savings and investment (hardly a bad thing), but eventually, that money doesn't do you any good unless you buy something with it.
Under the NRST, they would have to.
Given the fact that the government has run in the red for the better part of the past 3 decades, I don't see why a switch to the NRST would suddenly stop them from continuing to run in the red and borrow borrow borrow.
And you think the landlord can suddenly charge you more rent than is in the contract? Who's the "brainless jerk"?
"Interest is also taxed under the sales tax"
Just how did you come to that conclusion?
I question some of the conclusions you have reached to support your position, but my primary opposition to the current taxation scheme is that it is more about rewarding and punishing behavior than about raising money. This is the primary engine of social engineering and power for congress which is the real root of the opposition to change.
Yes but it is a different matter than the fact that savings will be double taxed, so I think it deserves its own bullet.
Interest is taxed today. And under the fair tax, if I made $500 in interest on my savings account in a year, the government could not tax it because they wouldn't even know about it because I would no longer have to file any income forms with them.
OK. You guys, I think, have answered that question for me. I appreciate it.
Wrong. The doctor's personal income is $500,000. Not the cost of his services. You are getting how much money his office takes in confused with income because the collection of sales taxes is unrelated to your income.
To confuse you less, let's say that the person was a nurse working at a hospital for $50k/yr and the drug dealer was small time making $50K. Both spend their entire income to support themselves. The nurse pays all kinds of federal, state, and local taxes on their income while the drug dealer pays nothing. The nurse's pay after taxes is probably about $35,000, while the drug dealer gets to enjoy the entire $50,000 and is able to buy MUCH more than the hard working nurse.
It's like a millionaire, who can't spend a dime is poorer than a vagrant with $2 in his pocket...;)
Exactly.
But the sales tax is collected on money spent, not earned. So the full tax burden of the doctor AND the drug dealer are collected at purchases for retail.
In the income tax scenario, tax burdens are income, payroll, and embedded. The doctor pays them all, but the drug dealer only pays a portion (the portion embedded in prices).
But again, the nrst puts 100% of one's tax burden in sales tax, which they both pay.
It should be clear that the nrst does indeed capture more of the drug dealer's taxes.
The government collects $1.3 Trillion from individuals, and $650 Billion from businesses (which includes their half of SS and medicare taxes). Business can remove that $650 Billion from their prices, but that only will reduce prices by about 8%, far less than the 30% sales tax that will be added.
The reason it is discussed in tax inclusive terms is that for an apples to apples comparrison you must do it tax inclusive because the income tax is tax inclusive.
To have on tax exclusive and one tax inclusive is a dishonest comparrison of an apple and an automobile.
How convenient!
It shows how badly a person has been infected with the tax-and-spend mentality of modern American government when THEY CONSIDER THRIFT TO BE A BAD THING, and a detriment to our economy.
That kind of short-sighted silliness is exactly what has gotten us to this point: the point of overwhelming, overweaning government intrusion into our pocketbooks and our economic lives.
This is the thinking that makes long-term prosperity for individual citizens harder and harder and harder to obtain.
23% of $70 is $16.10. Total cost $86.10, not $100. Even 30% of $70 is $21 for a total of $91.
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.