[Always Right]

Now tell me, who currently pays more overall taxes? An doctor making $500,000/year or a drug dealer making $500,000 per year? If you say neither, then you are lying to yourself and me, too because you know that the doctor will pay probably $100,000 in income taxes while the drug dealer pays nothing.

I agree. But let's look at the sales tax. Under the sales tax the doctor must remit $150,000 for sales tax. Meanwhile, the drug dealer should remit $150,000 for sales tax on all the drugs he sold, but he won't. So in the end, the drug dealer has more money in his pocket to spend under both systems. Taxes are avoided under both system.

[balrog666]

Also, next time, add a bullet for the fact that rent will be taxable. If you pay $1000 to rent a house, you will have to pay $1300 ($1000 rent + $300 NRST) under the NRST.

[Phantom Lord]

I agree. But let's look at the sales tax. Under the sales tax the doctor must remit $150,000 for sales tax. Meanwhile, the drug dealer should remit $150,000 for sales tax on all the drugs he sold, but he won't. So in the end, the drug dealer has more money in his pocket to spend under both systems.

I don't quite get how you can do such mental gymnastics.

If a drug dealer is making $500,000 today, he pays ZERO in federal income taxes and zero in FICA. If a Doctor makes $500K today, he pays in excess of $100K in federal taxes on it.

So currently the score is Drug dealer pays $0, doctor pays $100K.

Under the NRST, if both the Doctor and Drug dealer earn $500K, and they both spend the same amount of money on retail products, they will both pay the same amount in federal taxes. It is a tremendous revenue gain on illegal activity compared to todays system.

This worry that drug dealers are not going to pay sales taxes on their illegal drug sales is far beyond a red herring and straw man.

[Blood of Tyrants]

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.

[Principled]

Under the sales tax the doctor must remit $150,000 for sales tax. Meanwhile, the drug dealer should remit $150,000 for sales tax on all the drugs he sold...

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.

[Altamira]

"So in the end, the drug dealer has more money in his pocket to spend under both systems. Taxes are avoided under both system."

At least until the drug dealer spends it. Those watches and gold chains, under a National Sales Tax, would be taxable; he may evade taxes on the drugs he sells, but, absent some grand luxury-retailer conspiracy, has to pay tax on what he buys with his ill-gotten gains.

[calex59]

I agree. But let's look at the sales tax. Under the sales tax the doctor must remit $150,000 for sales tax. Meanwhile, the drug dealer should remit $150,000 for sales tax on all the drugs he sold, but he won't. So in the end, the drug dealer has more money in his pocket to spend under both systems. Taxes are avoided under both system.

BS. How do you figure the drug dealer won't pay sales tax? Doesn't he have to eat? Doesn't he have to buy cars, appliances, etc? The doctor doesn't have to pay sales tax on the money he earns, only on the money he spends so your figures here are faulty. Anyone who thinks an income tax is better than a sales tax has their head square up their butts. Flat tax is not good, it would soon turn back into a sliding income tax. Sales tax with complete elimination of 16th amendment and a new amendment outlawing income taxes at the federal level is the only way to go.

The reason sales taxes would have to be high to match the income tax is because our wonderful government spends so much. When people confront the real amount they have to pay every year they will scream and holler and maybe we can finally reign in runaway spending.

[SALChamps03]

I agree. But let's look at the sales tax. Under the sales tax the doctor must remit $150,000 for sales tax.

Why would the doctor remit anything? Salaries are not taxed under the NRST. Taxes would only be paid when purchasing retail products and services.

[SOSCEO]

I agree. But let's look at the sales tax. Under the sales tax the doctor must remit $150,000 for sales tax. Meanwhile, the drug dealer should remit $150,000 for sales tax on all the drugs he sold, but he won't. So in the end, the drug dealer has more money in his pocket to spend under both systems. Taxes are avoided under both system.<

But if both the doctor and drug dealer are going to buy a Mercedes, they will both be paying the same sales tax and the drug dealer WILL be taxed. If you have money, no matter how you got it, you will spend money. If you spend money, you will be taxed.