In addition the FairTax may "change the rules" but hardly places a "new burden" on the retailer but in fact has very minimal reporting requirements - a two line report - for which the business is paid.
And increased scrutiny. According to you the IRS is the camels nose under the tent, intruding into the lives of American taxpayers to a degree that is oppressive; then you assert that the camel will increase his intrusion into the affairs of retail business forced to collect taxes for the federal government, but it ain't no big deal. I guess that means government intrusion is OK as long as it ain't YOU.
IOW he must rearrange his business to sell to other businesses etc. Now before you go off whining how "that ain't fair", let me stop you.
That'll work well for the mom and pop Seven-Eleven.
It certainly is fair, provides him the choice, and keeps him solidly within the law.
Its the same choice you have now to keep your income below taxable levels.
Certainly most rational merchants I know would so choose - and make more money in the bargain.
So why is the retailers association against the FairTax?
Are we now going into this little pretend game of yours claiming you were not saying there would be widespread evasion due to the FairTax???
To claim there will be a significant degree of evasion under the FairTax is not the same thing as your assertion that I stated "how dishonest everyone was". Talk about word games!
I think that now trying to shirk the responsibility of what you said is what many would consider to be "... indicative of a basically dishonest person ...", but I make no such charge.
Take responsibility for your own words, including the words make up and attribute to others. Model that behavior for us.
Not that is is any of your business, but I haven't the slightest intention of buying a Plasma TV for any reason.
OK, so would you be inclined to make any significant purchase (if you were inclined to make a significant purchase) before the FairTax went into effect, or wait and pay the added tax?
"Talk about word games! "Indeed!!! - let's!!!
"And increased scrutiny. According to you the IRS is the camels nose under the tent, intruding into the lives of American taxpayers to a degree that is oppressive; then you assert that the camel will increase his intrusion into the affairs of retail business forced to collect taxes for the federal government, but it ain't no big deal. I guess that means government intrusion is OK as long as it ain't YOU."
It seems to escape your notice, but those are YOUR words, not mine. You're merely attributing to me something you perhaps wish I'd said - and didn't. In fact, there will be DECREASED "scrutiny" for most businesses compared to the situation under the present system. And you overlook the fact they'll be paid for their efforts whereas at present they must bear the costs of the entire government tax-collection exercise as it relates to their business.
Additionally, the two line report involved for those collecting taxes under the FairTax represents no "camel's nose" but a reporting of figures they would have in any event. Even should the business be audited by the state sales tax authority, the "scrutiny" is most likely less than it would be under the income tax when extensive records and documentation must be produced upon demand not only of sales and purchases, but of depreciation schedules, income carry forward/carryback rules and amounts, etc. etc. almost endlessly. A sales tax audit by its very nature is much simpler for the auditee whereas an income tax audit can be both wide-ranging and very much like a proctologist's exam - and frequently less pleasant.
So your "increased scrutiny" comment is shown to be invalid along with the other implications in that same paragraph. Nor have I anywhere said that government intrusion (which is actually lessened by the FairTax, not increased) is "OK". Please show a post of mine where I have said that.
As for "mom and pop" 7-Elevens (you're apparently in CA), there are probably very few since many if not most are owned and run by investment businesses and financial groups. But you still haven't answered the question posed as to why the merchant would not elect to follow the law, comply with the FairTax and be paid for doing so. The smaller the merchant the more likely he would be to do so to earn the extra payment under the FairTax. The other option as I pointed out is to alter their business plan to serve a tax free base. That's why businessmen earn the big bucks, to make these "tough" choices and to alter their operations to adapt to changing business circumstances ... and taxes (and in this case it's not even taxes paid by the firm but those collected from the actual taxpayers that are involved along with the reporting thereof) are, indeed, a business circumstance - the reporting and forwarding of them; not the paying of them.
"Its the same choice you have now to keep your income below taxable levels."
No, it's not the "same choice" at all. Under the income tax for most normal businesses the only two "options" are to reduce your income or break the tax laws. Altering the nature of your business with respect to who your customers might be offers no tax benefit as it would under the FairTax in switching your customer base to be non-taxed sales. Under the FairTax you could remove the business from collecting the taxes by making that change (thereby reducing the business income by the amount of the fee for collection of tax).
Keep in mind, too, that what we're discussing here is the collection and forwarding of the FairTaxes and not the paying thereof - which is done in any event by the taxpayer - the end consumer. Your desire to pretend that a seller would frantically try to avoid collecting and forwarding the FairTax makes little business sense. For most merchants today sales tax audits are straightforward affairs and, barring some law-defying stunt on the part of the merchant, he'd be far better off than under an income tax audit since under the FairTax there is the presumption of innocence on he part of the auditee whereas with the income tax he is guilty until he can prove otherwise to the satisfaction of some IRS person (or frequently persons).
"why is the retailers association against the FairTax?"
Perhaps you should ask them ... and they'll merely quote to you from their hitpiece "study" (done not by recognized economists but by a "consulting" firm). They have no other option except to admit the truth which I believe is that the NRF (National Retail Federation) - which is the lobbing group in DC for retailers - certainly knows that once the Fairtax passes their entire lobbying effort (pleasant offices and facilities, sizable staff, "congenial" lunches and meetings with congresspersons off-the-record, etc.) will be gone!!! They'll be out of business. To believe that the run of the mill retailer agrees with the view the NRF study puts out means that you (of course) haven't done much looking into the matter except for the superficial fact that YOU THINK the lobbyists commissioned study represents the belief of all merchants. Here is a refutation of the NRF study. The "study" is sometimes called the "Price Waterhouse" or the "Nathan Associates" study. If I recall it was first the Nathan name and during the course of development, it was absorbed into Price Waterhouse. Nonetheless, it is the same "study".
"Are we now going into this little pretend game of yours claiming you were not saying there would be widespread evasion due to the FairTax??? "
Yes, indeed - it seems that exactly what's going on when you try to say that what you have done is to "... claim there will be a significant degree of evasion under the FairTax ...". It seems there is little, if any, difference in those two descriptions - one from me and one from you. Talk about word games!
"OK, so would you be inclined to make any significant purchase (if you were inclined to make a significant purchase) before the FairTax went into effect, or wait and pay the added tax?"
I'd already told you this was none of your business so lest you didn't understand that let me say it again - it's none of your business!! In addition, it has nothing to do with the FairTax discussion and is merely a "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of question.