A national retail sales tax? GREAT IDEA!

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 09/24/2004 | Herman Cain

[LowCountryJoe]

Inez should put that in her pipe and smoke it.

[Rakkasan1]

the Oprah "free car" incident proves Americans would better
off knowing the true cost of taxes. These people didn't have a clue.If we didn't have payroll withholding taxes and
people had to make out a yearly or quarterly check, there
would be a tax revolt, but since half the population doesn't
pay any tax and gets a "rebate", they don't care.

[midwyf]

It would be wonderful if they would pass it, but I have a feeling that some of the fat cats who have set up deductions to benefit themselves and their high dollar donators will put the kibosh on it.

[narby]

The FairTax is a progressive tax. The biggest-spending wealthy will pay an effective tax of $23 for every $77 they spend on new products and services.

My quick scan doesn't pick out how they plan to do this. But I believe that this proposal only taxes big ticket items above $500, so as to "tax the wealthy".

Anyone who works in manufacturing in the US had best squeel loud about this. It will complete the destruction of manufacturing in the US, as most such items are above $500.

I can see an economy dominated by $499 items, convienently combined to make something that would cost more. Motorcycles sold with frame and engine separate. Airconditioner "kits" sold in pieces. Etc.

This is a mess and will be worse than what we've got.

[y2k_free_radical]

GO MR.CAIN

[bear11]

see www.fairtax.org

Great site to promote the Fair Tax

[drypowder]

Clinton was known to use IRS audits to harass his critics as did Nixon. Thus, the income tax and the IRS is like the US's Gestapo. A National Sales Tax would be nice but I hardly think the politicians will be willing to give up the power to control.

The Golden Rule = those with the Gold, Rule.

[ThinkDifferent]

But I believe that this proposal only taxes big ticket items above $500, so as to "tax the wealthy".

Not true at all. See fairtax.org for details.

[ThinkDifferent]

Fairtax ping

[Yogafist]

How would drug dealers pay their fair share if they don't report their illicit income and qualify as one of the poor who get their money back? Am I missing something?

[jackibutterfly]

A replacement! YESSSS!!!!!

[Dead Dog]

Manufacturers wouldn't pay ANY tax. Only the finish product is taxed. OEM's are tax free. Where we used to collect tax at every "Value added" stage, we would now only collect at the Point of Sale. This means the tax burden is spread to imports as well. It is a defacto tarif, and would actually bring work home.

[jimthewiz]

If the tax is collected at the time of purchase, even drug dealers would pay. All underground income would then be subject to the tax when the money was spent. But to be fair and remain revenue neutral, the percentage should be reduced as government costs are reduced. (e.g. no further need for the tens of thousands of I.R.S. employees now working in compliance and collection.)

[JesseHousman]

Let's see now. Tack on a National Sales Tax of probably 20% onto a state and county sales tax of 7-8% and "voila" we'll be back where we started>

There would still be the onorus federal bureaucracy to make certain all the tax was collected and many forms would have to be filed to make certain we have purchased enough taxable goods to have paid our "fair share."

Rebates would have to be made to the "working poor" so that they could purchase more goodies.

I'm in favor of taxing lower income workers at a higher rate than the upper income workers in order to get the lower income workers to get off their dead arses amd PRODUCE!

[JesseHousman]

If the tax is collected at the time of purchase, even drug dealers would pay...

Oh, please.

[Future Useless Eater]

This is a dumb thing to be talking about at election time.

And WHO is pushing this? democRATS are saying it's Dubya's
idea, and they're supposedly convincing lots of undecided's
to vote RAT party because of this!!!

This whole idea should only be broached at TAX TIME, and
ONLY if it combined with a repeal of the amendment that
gave us the INCOME TAX + permanent dismantlement of the IRS.

(so basically its almost certain to never happen)

[wardaddy]

the lifetime self employed like me have known all of this for a lifetime...

however...a flat national sales tax doesn't do much for me....I already pay 10% sales tax to Tennessee and huge property and F&E taxes on my investments...and I max out FICA of course

...a flat national tax of 25% with no deductions would probably be worse for me

for the paycheck crowd...it might be better if they are in the higher brackets

[No.6]

"Oh, please."

I gather you're thinking drug dealers would collect sales tax from the users? Of course not. But they have to buy cars and food and gas and beer like everyone else, so their drug money gets taxed when the spend it.

Now, of course, one of the 'perks' to working under the table or on illegal things is you dodge the income tax.

[Gorjus]

Step right up and join my energy co-op! Invest in energy, not taxes. No retail transactions involved. Your investment pays dividends in the form of ... gallons of gasoline ... TAX FREE gasoline, since it's not a retail transaction.

---

That's just one idea. I'm sure the really creative people out there will find lots of other ways around that 'simple' tax structure.

Would it be better than the current income tax, with bloated, despotic IRS in charge? Well, it certainly couldn't be any worse . . .

. . . unless the politicians decide to institute a national sales tax in addition to an income tax - with tax rates adjusted, of course, to be 'revenue neutral.' But just in case, you see, that the calculations turn out to be in error and instead of 23%, they need, oh, 25% or so - to be truly revenue neutral, they better leave the current system in place as well. For our own good, of course.

I think income taxes are the worst possible approach to taxation - penalizing people for delivering goods or services that someone is willing to pay for. That should be encouraged, not attacked. But I don't trust politicians, and I have a healthy respect for the ingenuity of the American entrepreneur. This will not be as simple as the proponents claim.

And I'd make a large bet that if it ever starts to look like it's actually going to happen, someone in Washington will have decided how to use it to grab more of our money (perhaps downstream a year or two) - not be revenue neutral.

[narby]

Well, I'll look at it.

But being as how the US is the most successful economy on the planet, and we've been saddled by this income tax for decades, I'll have to be seriously convinced that somehow this is "better" before I'll support it.

The fact that it's "progressive", is enough to make me skeptical already.