At first glance I was for this but now I am not sure. Besides the states that don't have any sales tax there are many that cannot have no sales tax because their state's have laws would have to be overturned to do it. Once the law is overturned there's a good chance it can't be reinstated. This sounds good to most of us here but would have dire results for many states. Therefore, the 6 Billion federal price tag could be more like 60 Billion in the end !

I say give the money to the people and they will spend it for sure !

If everyone could direct all purchases for the year to the 10-day tax holiday period, then even a 10-day tax holiday of some 6.5% would be the equivalent of a year-long 6+% after-tax income increase.

That would suggest that if my local sales tax was 6.5% but I traveled to where the sales tax was normally 8% I would increase my after tax income even more....

Pure nitwitery by two like minded nincumpoops.

Well, you've never been the brightest bulb around that's for sure...

Patty Murray and Olympia Snowe... propose a federally underwritten national sales-tax holiday that would last for 10 days.

Where in the U S Constitution does the federal gov't have any conrol over how the several states collect taxes for state purposes? (Not that the Constitution matters anymore)

States would receive reimbursements from the federal government for all lost revenue.

Where does the fed. gov't get its money except by taxes? This is just pay me now or pay me more later. IMO.

How about a one year income tax holiday, instead?

What a bunch of lib baloney! If we are going to have a "National Sales-Tax Holiday" then let's have one!

If however, "States would receive reimbursements from the federal government for all lost revenue" (bold is mine for emphasis) then it is no tax holiday, just another lib gimmick, National tax burden to be borne by future generations of unborn Americans.

Murray and Snowe: Go back to playing in your Swedish State Socialist Sandbox, and let us get on with the business of reducing the size of the non-military federal payroll.

I guess this would sound good to those who don't understand the way the Fed. Govt. GETS the money it spends. If the Feds are going to reimburse the States, it just means we won't pay at the time of purchase, but the cost will be higher in the long run because it will be administered by the Govt. and it ALWAYS cost more that way. So we'll pay more on the other end. No thanks!

I'm surprised to see this coming from Laffer - frankly, all I see in the plan is the temporary transfer of a tax burden from federal taxpayers to state taxpayers, which will do two things: (1) increase the federal budget deficit, and (2) make those taxpayers in states having no, or a low, sales tax to subsidize those (such as me) living in a state with a high sales tax. How this stimulates the economy is not really too apparent - for my state it will, of course, but for Oregon, who has no sales tax?

It being Laffer, I'll give it another look, but I'm real skeptical.