[agitator]

Bend over, here it comes again. A "national retail sales tax" is not constitutional, neither is a "flat tax." Neither is the fiat currency system that we currently "enjoy" which is the enabler of all of the social welfare programs and legions of bureaucrats ruining this country. People need to study history a little more. I'll crawl back under my bridge now.

[mlo]

What makes you think they aren't constitutional?

[Eva]

The NSRT may not be constitutional, but neither is the income tax and the courts haven't overturned it.

[BlkConserv]

A "national retail sales tax" is not constitutional

We're in the 21st century. It'd be nice for the feds to get their revenue from excise taxes and various other fees. But a NRST makes sense.

[Jim Robinson]

"A "national retail sales tax" is not constitutional"

Huh? I believe a sales tax is an excise tax:

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[section9]

I believe the Constitution only calls for tariffs, non?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[PhilipFreneau]

A "national retail sales tax" is not constitutional, neither is a "flat tax."

You are kidding, right? Both are Constitutional. The 16th Amendment reads: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." There is nothing that requires the "tax on income" be deducted in a paticular manner. A sales tax is a tax on income, as is a flat tax.

[Nephi]

I haven't heard the reasoning behind your statement that a national sales tax would be unconstitutional. Not that the tax on a gallon of gas is legal.

[calenel]

A NRST is, in fact, constitutional, and could be implemented without more than a majority vote in congress.

The 16th Amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

An NRST is an INCOME TAX on the RETAILER as opposed to the employees.

The added benefit of the NRST is that, at least to some degree, it is tied more closely to the performance of the economy.

[Phantom Lord]

What is unconstitutional about a flat tax? And why would a national sales tax be unconstitutional? We already have federal sales taxes. Are they unconstitutional? And if so, why haven't they been ruled as such?

And don't forget, the Supreme Court ruled an Income Tax UNCONSTUTIONAL 5 times! That is why they had to amend the constitution to get one.

[Conservative til I die]

Actually, the income tax is Constitutional. Anything added into the Constitution legally is Constitutional, by nature. If the President, Congress, and the States passed an Amendment placing a 1000 year moratorium on immigration, it would be Constitutional. Same thing with a NRST.

[HelgaHawk]

Well, at least it gives you a choice. Right now we have no choice.

[Action-America]

A "national retail sales tax" is not constitutional, neither is a "flat tax."

Actually, a National Retail Sales Tax is, by definition, an excise tax, which is specifically authorized under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and since it would be "uniform throughout the United States", it would further meet Constitutional muster.

As for a flat income tax, I agree that it is not really legal, just as the current progressive income tax is not really legal.  But, since SCOTUS refuses to hear any arguments about the improper ratification of the 16th Amendment, the people are denied the chance to prove that neither the flat income tax nor the progressive (Marxist) income tax are legal.  SCOTUS has effectively made both the flat income tax and the progressive (Marxist) income tax legal, by simply refusing to hear any ratification cases.

The only way to make any of them truly illegal is through another amendment to the Constitution.  In the mean time, for all intents and purposes, they must all be treated as legal methods of taxation.  As such, Congress may implement, change or revoke any of them, via legislation.

 

[RaceBannon]

Bend over, here it comes again. A "national retail sales tax" is not constitutional, neither is a "flat tax." Neither is the fiat currency system that we currently "enjoy" which is the enabler of all of the social welfare programs and legions of bureaucrats ruining this country. People need to study history a little more. I'll crawl back under my bridge now

It would certainly be a tax on the poor, while it would be 'fairer' to tax all the ssame rate for income, it would not be fair to tax someone on expenditure without some sort of non-taxable commodities put on a no-tax list.

Poor people do not buy cars at any high rate, rich people do, and they may pay more per price in tax, they have the money to. Poor do not have the extra cash. HOWEVER, if they have less taken out of their check...and if they save it...

[rwfromkansas]

blah blah "I don't know what I'm talking about" blah blah

[Paulus Invictus]

The 1913 income tax amendment is also un-Constitutional. It was never ratified by the States and that nullifies it! (or so they say...) I'm for a NST whatever happens. Anything beats the IRS and the incomprehensible Tax Code!

[RipSawyer]

Sorry, you can't crawl back yet! Leaving aside constitutional questions for the moment, what do you think the practical results of this would be? My theory is that this change would be deflationary since money would not be taxed when earned but would be taxed when spent. It seems to me that this would encourage people to postpone purchases to postpone taxes and would also encourage imputed income (do it yourself activity) since anything you make for yourself would not be taxed whereas now you have already paid the tax when you earned the money so you might as well go ahead and spend it. What do you think, troll?

[Thane_Banquo]

A "national retail sales tax" is not constitutional

I am afraid you are incorrect. I quote Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

The Miriam Webster Dictionary defines excise as "an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity."

Thus as long as a national sales tax is uniform throughout the country, it is Constitutional.

[stickywillie]

So, is the current IRS system Constitutional?

[Cultural Jihad]

I'll crawl back under my bridge now.

LOL! A self-avowed troll was spotted spouting his tinfoil hat nonsense! ;)

[Tango Whiskey Papa]

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)