Replies

"Really? The retailer couldn't simply not remit the tax?
Would the state worker put on his federal tax collection hat and go knock down the door of the consumer and demand to see a receipt?"
Certainly the retailer could "simply not remit the tax" but then he'd have a great amount of backing and filling and covering up to do at audit time since he's agreed in writing to collect the tax. I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.

Of the smaller retailers left, that means there are more audit resources devoted to them. And states have a lot of ways to "audit through" a business to see if sales are reasonably correct and the paperwork exists. Even these smaller retailers have little reason to not handle the tax amounts correctly since it is the taxpayer (not the retailer) paying the tax and the retailer is paid to do this. the retailer would gain nothing but trouble should he take it upon himself to "help the customer" (for some unknown reason) since he, the retailer, is still liable for the tax and would gain nothing by doing so.

There's no reason for "demanding to see a receipt" from the consumer since he has already complied with the tax law by buying the item and receiving the receipt. It's the seller who would be the focus point - not for "evasion" since there would have been none - but for theft of the government's tax money the merchant contractually agreed to collect and forward. That's not "evasion" but "theft".

Certainly the retailer could "simply not remit the tax" but then he'd have a great amount of backing and filling and covering up to do at audit time since he's agreed in writing to collect the tax. I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.

The retailer has agreed voluntarily?

The study found the average dollar loss per employee theft case to be $1,341.02 compared to $207.18 for the average shoplifting incident.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/employee_theft.htm

Now, prove how the loss occurred.

Of the smaller retailers left, that means there are more audit resources devoted to them.

So we assume the large retailer is honest and subject the small mom and pop store to increased scrutiny? Doesn't that increase the small business compliance costs? Nice!

Nobody gets involved in criminal activity to destroy their business, they think they can get away with it.

Ehibit A, ENRON; Exhibit B, Arthur Andersen

I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.

This is another one of the FairTaxer's lies. Large retailers do 80% of the retail sale of all goods, but the FairTax taxes more than just goods - it taxes all services, too. It would be taxing my lawn guy, my house keeper, the guy that cuts my hair, my dentist, etc. Large retailers would not be collecting 80% of the FairTax.

I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.
That's from one side of your mouth but from the other side you talk about this "broad tax base"...(but then you think "tax base" means tax payer not what is taxed).

The funny thing is, even in the Texas comptroller's testimony he claims that Texas retail tax filers would increase from 600,000 to 1.5 million in Texas alone under the Fairtax...

Your words from either side of your mouth don't hold water, never did.