Except for the $23,000 he illegally does not remit in sales tax from his $100,000 in drug sales. How can you keep ignoring that? And besides, he doesn't report SS income today, so again you tout a benefit that is non-existant.
I'm not, nor is anyone else. But everyone else sees that the $23,000 does not get reported in either system. That doesn't change.
What does change is that the drug dealer begins paying his full share of taxes under the nrst. Under the income tax, he only pays a portion of his share- the part embedded in prices.
You're the only one who is so blind not to see this.
The $23,000 goes unreported in either system, duh. That's one of the reasons it's called an illegal transaction.
Beyond that, you have a fundmental misunderstanding about who pays the nrst. It is not business, it is the consumer. You're so stuck in the mindset of income taxes that a myopia blinds you to things others see as obvious (big surpirse).
Open your eyes.
But under the nrst, drug dealers will pay their full share - so us legal folks don't have to pay for them anymore.
The FairTax arguments were never - NEVER - about taxing illegal income ... that was always the SQL crowd trying to raise straw men.
(Did I say NEVER!!!)?