|HR 25 National Retail Sales Tax - has been getting lots...||94Nole|
Aug 7, 2003 1:11 PM
|of airtime on the major AM talk shows. In between Ah-nold for CA governor, that is.
What say ye about a national sales tax? Would repeal the 16th amendment of the constitution all income, payroll, gift and estate taxes. Introduces a 23% national sales tax.
No compliance issues for corporate and individual taxpayers, meaning no longer be required to file returns.
I plan to read the bill tonight and formulate my opinion. Can be found at www.fairtax.org and no, I am not affiliated with the cause in anyway.
|Interesting.. will have to read it to..., 23%...||PdxMark|
Aug 7, 2003 1:20 PM
|That would get everyone's attention...|
|I fully support it, but it probably isn't the best structure,||TJeanloz|
Aug 7, 2003 2:40 PM
|I believe a national sales/consumption tax is the fairest way to tax people. It is, however, quite regressive (i.e. the poor pay considerably more, on an relative basis, than the rich), and thus unpalatable for a big portion of the country.
If it were me, I would exempt the first, say double the poverty line, so $35,000 of spending, and then tax at a constant rate. But it gets very tricky because of differing costs of living in different locales. It really isn't as simple as it seems it should be.
|Not that hard||53T|
Aug 7, 2003 4:12 PM
|States have instituted progressive sales taxes in the past. They do it by exempting clothing below $250 a piece, unprepared food, other staples and necessities. that way the poor, who should be spending a small percentage of thier money on taxable items, will pay far less tax. If they are spending thier money on taxable items, the sales tax will act as a little "social engineering" and help them get thier priorities straight.
The biggest problem with a national sales tax, is that it will never pass as a replacement for income tax, only as a supplement, and that is just bad news.
|Not that hard||Duane Gran|
Aug 8, 2003 5:02 AM
|The biggest problem with a national sales tax, is that it will never pass as a replacement for income tax, only as a supplement, and that is just bad news.
I agree. There are many aspects of a national sales tax I like, chiefly that in one form or another even criminals pay taxes when they go to purchase goods through traditional channels. Of course, such a change would require more aggressive regulation of commerce to avoid black markets. I like the idea of simplifying the tax system. The tax code is outrageously complex, which mostly serves the powerful and wealthy -- who have the resources to minimize their tax burden.
|Your reply made me think about other results from a NRST,||94Nole|
Aug 8, 2003 6:06 AM
|would it probably make people more self-reliant? Would more people raise gardens, make things themselves, etc. to prevent paying the sales tax?
Probably not all bad. Would prehaps result in more entrepreneurs that would make things themselves and begin selling their wares. I like that thought.
|Selling thier wares?||53T|
Aug 8, 2003 6:12 AM
|One example of people making things themselves and selling their wares would be General Motors. Of couse cars are taxable. The folks with the gardens would be encouraged to grow their own food, or maybe barter for other goods, to avoid the cash transaction. Food is a bad example, since it is usually exempt anyway.|
|53T - I said nothing about selling food. I am convinced...||94Nole|
Aug 8, 2003 7:28 AM
|some of you just like to argue.|
Aug 8, 2003 9:23 AM
|Selling food was MY bad example, not yours. I just wanted to point out that people who sell thier wares will be subject to sales tax.|
|Heresy: A national sales tax (consumption) tax would be good||OldEdScott|
Aug 8, 2003 6:26 AM
|because it would discourage consumption and encourage savings, thrift and individual creativity (you could design a lifestyle that would reduce your taxes-paid to very little, were you so motivated).
There are many problems with it too, as noted by TJ, especially problems of fairness. And liberals tend to hate sales taxes for their regressive character. But my analysis is a consumption tax per se is not incompatible with tax fairness and liberal values.
|I think this NRST idea has a provision...||94Nole|
Aug 8, 2003 7:41 AM
|that taxes only consumption above the poverty level given for a particular family. For example, a married couple two kids (a family of four) would be exempt from the tax up to $22,500, in other words, they would receive a monthly rebate of $431 to reimburse them for the tax they pay on the goods that they purchase up to the first $22.5k.
Those in the lower brackets would be limited on the amount of tax they pay to the extent that their pay exceeded the exemption amount and only if they spend the excess (which they will no doubt have to do to afford to live and raise their kids). I think this strives for fairness, in that, those with more money will spend more and thus pay more tax.
I will believe it will be passed when pigs fly.
|Sounds like crap to me.||MR_GRUMPY|
Aug 8, 2003 6:29 AM
|So, where are towns and States going to get their money ? From the Feds ? Ha.
Just look at what Bush and his pals are doing to the States now. Pretty soon, some State, desperate for money, is going to throw on a $100 per year, per bike, user fee.
|The big money is in user fees.||Spoke Wrench|
Aug 8, 2003 9:56 AM
|Say you tax bike riders so much per mile. Let them report their miles on the honor system. Bike riders love to lie about how much they ride. They'd inflate their miles like crazy just so they could complain about how much bicycle tax they have to pay. It'd work with runners too.|| |