Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The national sales tax (Why the NRST is dopey)
Town Hall ^ | May 3, 2005 | Bruce Bartlett

Posted on 05/03/2005 3:16:24 AM PDT by RobFromGa

The national sales tax
Bruce Bartlett (back to web version) | email to a friend Send

May 3, 2005

According to columnist Robert Novak, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is adamant about replacing the entire federal tax system -- payroll and income taxes -- with a 30 percent national retail sales tax (NRST) collected by the states, such as that in H.R. 25, sponsored by Rep. John Linder, R-Ga.

 I have written many times before about what a dopy idea I think this is. Following is an effort to summarize the key arguments against it that appear over and over again in the scholarly literature.

 -- People will still have to keep records, file income tax returns and get audited, because the states and some cities will continue to have income taxes. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the states will get rid of their income taxes if the federal income tax is abolished.

 Quite the contrary, they are likely to view the federal government as co-opting their traditional tax base -- the general sales tax. Therefore, the states will just take over the tax base being given up by the federal government -- the income tax -- and abolish their state sales taxes, which would otherwise come on top of the NRST.

 The only way this can be prevented is if the federal government prohibits the states from imposing income taxes at the same time it abolishes the federal income tax, which is probably impossible constitutionally. And if the states keep their sales taxes, the federal government will have to force them to conform to its tax base. Right now, no two states have exactly the same sales tax systems and none come anywhere close to taxing sales as broadly as contemplated by the NRST.

 -- There is a very severe problem of taxing business inputs under a sales tax. These must be exempt from tax in order to avoid cascading -- taxes being levied on taxes -- which creates serious economic distortions. To avoid this under a NRST, every business, no matter how small, would need some sort of exemption certificate, which would create unlimited opportunities for evasion, or they will have to be extensively audited in ways at least as onerous as under the income tax.

 -- Services are by their nature much more difficult to tax than goods. For this reason, no state makes any effort to tax more than a few of them. Yet the NRST would tax 100 percent of services, including medical services and government services. Every time you go to the hospital, you will have to pay 30 percent on top to the federal government. And local governments will also be taxed by the federal government on services they provide, which will sharply raise property taxes.

 -- In order to offset the regressivity of the NRST, it would establish a massive new government entitlement program costing hundreds of billions of dollars that would send rebate checks to every American on a monthly basis. This system would be based on the poverty level income established by the Census Bureau. People would get 23 percent of this amount annually in 12 monthly installments based on their family status. Quite apart from the massive complexity of this proposal, it would clearly require an enormous enforcement mechanism to avoid fraud and would undoubtedly be manipulated by politicians. It would be very tempting to change the formula to aid the poor and penalize the rich, just as the current tax code does.

 -- Every serious analysis has concluded that a NRST would have massive evasion. Taxing the spending of drug dealers and others not currently paying income taxes will not come close to compensating for the new evasion opportunities that will be created. Since it is not in the interest of either retailers or consumers to pay the tax, and because all of the revenue is collected at the point of final sale, it will be too easy for tax-free deals to be made with producers and wholesalers.

 Although evasion of state sales taxes is relatively small, that is only because the rates are low enough that it is not worth the trouble. However, where rates are high on things like tobacco, evasion is also high. A vast amount of foreign experience indicates that retail sales taxes cannot be collected much above 10 percent without breaking down.

 Under our current tax system, there is withholding of taxes on wages, which is the vast bulk of the tax base. Under a value-added tax (VAT), something similar occurs because taxes are paid at each point of the production-distribution system. Thus, if the retailer fails to collect the tax, only a small portion of the total revenue is lost, whereas with a NRST, all of it would be lost.

 Primarily for this reason, every single country that has ever contemplated something like a NRST has instead chosen a VAT, which the NRST people oppose.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: fairtax; flattax; linder; nrst; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-415 next last
To: biblewonk
I think it's dopy too.

Yeah, this'd put a hugh dent in yer Harley plans, eh?

Seriesly though, please tell us why you think it's "dopy."

21 posted on 05/03/2005 5:47:46 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
There is no reason whatsoever to think that the states will get rid of their income taxes if the federal income tax is abolished. Quite the contrary, they are likely to view the federal government as co-opting their traditional tax base -- the general sales tax. Therefore, the states will just take over the tax base being given up by the federal government -- the income tax -- and abolish their state sales taxes, which would otherwise come on top of the NRST.

This statement alone shows that Bartlett is either disingenuous or just flat-out lazy. The states only manage a reasonably effective income tax enforcement because they piggy-back off of the federal IRS. Without the feds providing the bulk of income tax information collection, the states would have to work much, much harder to maintain, let alone add, an income tax.

22 posted on 05/03/2005 5:49:27 AM PDT by kevkrom (If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as Utopian planners wish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa; datura
RobFromGa: In what way is this not the Fair Tax?? This is exactly what they have been talking about as the Fair Tax- a 23% sales tax imposed on all goods and services at the point of purchase.

It was not the Fair Tax movement, but Dennis Haster who threw out the "23%" number on Foxnews H&C about a year ago.

23 posted on 05/03/2005 5:51:08 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

I'm sorry if I'm not communicating well this morning I'm not saying that 23% of 100 is 29. I guess I didin't make it clear later in my post that 23% of 100 is 23 but we are not talking about straight percentages here were talking about taxes. if you go to thier website they will use the same numbers I just did to explain that as currently propsed the NRST is a inclusive Tax they want to charge a 23% inclusive tax on a retail purchase which is where they get that 129 number. So if you make a purchase of 100$ they figure the tax INCLUSIVE so you would pay 129 for you goods because 23% of 129 is 29 and 129-29=100 not like the exclusive state sales tax I pay here in Texas where if the rate were 23% (thank God it's not) the straight forward tax on $100 would be $23 for a total of $123 go to thier website and see for yourself.


24 posted on 05/03/2005 6:06:51 AM PDT by Texas Patriot (Remember.... The Alamo, never forget HOORAHH!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

#1, Unlike socialized medicine, which is a pretty poor idea with a couple of good points, this kooky scheme is not currently being used by anyone anywhere in the world....is it?


25 posted on 05/03/2005 6:10:23 AM PDT by biblewonk (John 2:4 "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

#2, This is a question, are the CSX's and Rockwell collins's and GE's and Aliant's of the nation jumping up and down to go to this method of taxation? If not, and I seriesly doubt I'm wrong, then this is #2.


26 posted on 05/03/2005 6:12:20 AM PDT by biblewonk (John 2:4 "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
I think the best way to answer your questions is to point you here.

(Think of it as one of your wind energy sites advocating the Fair Tax instead of wind energy. ;O)

27 posted on 05/03/2005 6:24:36 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
The United States was a "kooky idea" before we tried it. It was a system not used anywhere else in the world.

I assume you have a point? Are we now going to use the EU's VAT as a reason for us to use something similar, but very much fundamentally different?

The NRST is not perfect. Very few are claiming it is. However, it is a heck of a lot better than our current progressive, socialistic income tax scheme. Kind of make you wonder why people need to make up lies about what it really does to bolster their arguments against it.

28 posted on 05/03/2005 6:33:52 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Infidel
I know, as a small business owner, that my overall costs coupled with my costs of compliance are going to be as bad, if not worse, than what it costs me now.
Do you do any processing of credit cards in your business? If so, do you mind sharing what your transaction fee is (I'm assuming it's a percentage of the transaction).
29 posted on 05/03/2005 7:21:06 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

I don't think you'd know an awful lot about windmills or some of my other personal favorite study topics if I just pointed you to the source rather than answer any question that ever popped into your mind.


30 posted on 05/03/2005 7:28:42 AM PDT by biblewonk (John 2:4 "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

You're dismissed.


31 posted on 05/03/2005 7:29:44 AM PDT by biblewonk (Good heavens a Yale man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
This statement alone shows that Bartlett is either disingenuous or just flat-out lazy. The states only manage a reasonably effective income tax enforcement because they piggy-back off of the federal IRS. Without the feds providing the bulk of income tax information collection, the states would have to work much, much harder to maintain, let alone add, an income tax.
I've never bought this argument. The state seem to be able to run complicated sales and property taxes without piggybacking on the federal government.

If the states want to keep/implement an income tax, they will.
32 posted on 05/03/2005 7:35:35 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
For over five years, going back to the late Chief Negotiator, and now the the 'Geezer, these are and have been my exact arguments against the so-called FairTax.

In a nut shell, the purpose of the NRST is to add another tier of taxation at the Federal level to pay for GWB's and Congress' extravagance and to fully fund the new socialist model that is required when our economy is finally transformed from our former nationalist domestic model to the globalist model.
33 posted on 05/03/2005 7:38:07 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
I don't think you'd know an awful lot about windmills or some of my other personal favorite study topics if I just pointed you to the source rather than answer any question that ever popped into your mind.

That's certainly true. And, if you had the same level of expertise regarding windmills as I do on the Fair Tax, I'd be a lot better off if you'd just send me to a Web site.

34 posted on 05/03/2005 7:38:23 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

Trite response. I should have known better than to expect more.


35 posted on 05/03/2005 7:51:17 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
The article starts off with a lie (the NRST will top out at 23% - NOT 30%) and goes downhill from there.

The NST is "23% of the gross payment" (including everything in a "gross payment).

An item with a cost of $100.00 before federal tax would cost $130.00 (gross payment) after federal tax.

$30.00 is 23% of $130.00 (gross payment).

and goes downhill from there.

Where is that law written?

36 posted on 05/03/2005 7:51:52 AM PDT by lewislynn (My other car is an XC90 T6 AWD....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority
the purpose of the NRST is to add another tier of taxation at the Federal level

NRST proponents insist Amendment XVI must be repealed before NRST becomes an option. What am I missing?

37 posted on 05/03/2005 7:52:00 AM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

I'm wondering why you responded that way. Maybe there's a communication breakdown somewhere.


38 posted on 05/03/2005 7:53:52 AM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa

I've always had reservations about this and now I can see several reasons why.

My main objection was that I think this would create havoc in the economy. Why mess with it now?

It sounds like in effect it would be a net tax increase when you add in things like services and state, local and business spending.

Also, a 30% tax rate is way high enough to give merit to the rampant evasion theory. From reading this article 30% now seems too high.


39 posted on 05/03/2005 7:58:16 AM PDT by dg62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
An item with a cost of $100.00 before federal tax would cost $130.00 (gross payment) after federal tax.

No. An item with the current cost of $100 drops to $77 after payroll taxes and corporate income taxes go away. At point of retail sale, that $77 dollar item is taxed back up to around $100.

40 posted on 05/03/2005 7:58:30 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-415 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson