Naming and Claiming a national sales tax figure

[Pug]

If it were me, and I heard that a national sales tax of, say, 20% were being imposed, I would assume this meant that a 100 dollar item would cost me 120 dollars. (I’m ignoring any remaining state or local taxes, etc.) Would you consider it deceptive if you were told there would be such a tax, and it turned out that they meant that it would really cost you 125 dollars?

Mind you, they have some math to justify this figure, but, so what?

And if it would be deceptive, do you feel, “so what?” Or would you dislike what your representative government is up to?

Here is an article in the National Review online that I could find sort of about this topic: nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200408090847.asp

 

[MJE]

A national sales tax (or flat tax) that needed some adjusting would be such an improvement over our current tax system. I am glad it is a conversation.

 

[BrianDay]

Go to the Fair Tax website to get their side of the story.
fairtax.org/
Go to the “Learn More” page for examples on how it works and for rebuttals to critics.l

 

[JamesD]

One of the many advantages of replacing income tax with sales tax is that people will get a better understanding of how much tax they are paying. It is really funny to read that because it would take some large sales tax percentage to keep revenues constant that people would revolt! Seems to me the current system is kind of underhanded.

 

[jlw]

So, the idea is that we get rid if ALL income taxes, and have a national sales tax instead?

I like it on it’s face. Taxing consumption, not production, is fair.

And there would be some sort of tax “rebate” for the lower income folks?? A social security check kinda deal??

 

[Augustine]

jlw:

So, the idea is that we get rid if ALL income taxes, and have a national sales tax instead?

Mark my words: it’ll problably become yet another tax…

Politicians are sleazy all the way. As soon as this idea gains acceptance, they’ll try to subvert it to encroach their own agendas.

Not that I’m against the idea, it’s just that I’ve heard this kind of talk in my home country about a tax replacing the federal income tax that eventually became yet another tax.

At this moment, I don’t care about how the government gets its revenue. It spends way too much and it must cut its giving away according to whomever calls the tune for political gains.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Name it and claim it? Sounds like “Word of Faith” rubbish to me. The Democrat version could be called “Blab it and grab it”.

 

[Paul_W]

I’d accept a national sales tax only after a Constitutional Amendment banning any and all Federal Income Tax.

Otherwise, it’s a bait-and-switch. They get you to agree to the sales tax by reducing the income tax, but after a few years they raise the income tax back to where it was (or higher), and we end up paying far more than we thought we would.

My favorite Sales Tax was several years ago in Louisiana. As in all states, certain items in Louisiana are subject to state sales tax, and certain items are exempt from state sales tax. Well, one year they had trouble balancing the budget, so they imposed a sales-tax on tax-exempt merchandise. :whacky:

 

[Pug]

Scott_Lafrance:

Name it and claim it? Sounds like “Word of Faith” rubbish to me. The Democrat version could be called “Blab it and grab it”.

Indeed, the phrase sounds like rubbish to me, that’s why I said it.

It seems to me that they are using language to describe the “sales tax” that all typical Americans will interpret to mean it will be calculated in a certain way. But they are really going to calculate it in another way so they can say it is a lower percent than it really is, I assume in order to make it more able to be passed into law. I dislike them for doing this. Word the bill and its promotional literature in such a way that it means what we think it means.

This is the deal. They say it is a 23% tax. So an average American will THINK they mean a $100 item will cost $100x1.23=$123. But they REALLY mean it to be 1-.23=.77 so it will really cost $100/.77=$129.87. In other words it is saying that of the total price you pay including taxes, 23% of that total goes to tax, not 23% of the price of the *merchandise alone.
*
I’m sure they tell you this somewhere, but the figure they quote is a 23% sales tax. But with the way they are figuring it, it should be quoted as a 29.87% sales tax in standard American language. I find this annoying. They should describe the percentage in the way it will be understood by people.

I agree with Paul W about the amendment. How else to prevent a slow creep in of an income tax again?

jlw, I have seen it proposed that a check be sent to the lower income families. I’m not sure how they will track the low income people to send the checks. Would they have to file something similar to an income tax form?

 

[Lisa_N]

Although I do understand some of the critics, one thing I like about a national sales tax is that it does capture a portion of the “underground economy.” People who don’t declare their earnings, illegals, people who make a living in illegal activities such as drug sales. ALL these people BUY things or contract for services and it’s a lot easier to get a tax out of them at the point of purchase than trying to find them afterward.

The sales tax is regressive but I think if certain things like food and medical care are exempt then it would reduce the burden on the poor. Possibly there would still need to be a rebate to the poorest of the poor. In this country you actually get a tax refund even if you don’t pay taxes! The earned income credit is a negative tax and I understand it is essential for many low income folks to stay afloat.

I definitely agree about no sales tax without a complete removal of the federal income tax.

Lisa N