Get ready for a National Sales Tax

[bryand71]

In a recession, government receipts decline.  And then you have this: an idiot of a President that signs into law a Health Care Bill that the American people don't want and will probably bankrupt the country in the long run.  Trying to find revenues to support the HC program is going to become increasingly more difficult as time goes by, so Obama's policy makers will have to look to alternative forms of revenue and the number one choice will be a National Sales Tax.  Now, if this is adopted, it would have both positive and negative effects that must be carefully considered.  Lets face it, they need the money to pull this thing off, so get ready. It's comin' folks~~

National Sales Tax:
Function
At its core, a national sales tax would levy taxes on consumer items. Although legislators would ultimately decide what items would be included, most proposals of a national sales tax exclude necessities such as food, clothing and housing.

Theory
Proponents of a national sales tax argue that it would be relatively fair; that is, consumers choose to purchase products in excess of necessities, therefore consumers would be making a rational decision to pay the tax. A national sales tax might replace the current, relatively complex income tax system.

Benefits
The obvious pros of a national sales tax include a new government revenue stream and simplicity. New tax receipts could help fund national programs or agencies or help to repair bridges and roads, for example. Consumers already buy products, so implementing a national sales tax would not place reporting burdens on individual taxpayers.

Cons
Opponents of a national sales tax question the burden it would place on retailers, who would be required to collect and report the tax. Another con is the regressive nature of a national sales tax because the poor would potentially pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Conclusions
Any pros and cons of a national sales tax must ultimately be considered around actual proposed legislation. If, for instance, the tax included certain items of clothing not deemed necessities, then the possibility of increased revenues must be reexamined against any potential for regression.

Charles Krauthammer on the National Sales Tax:

The solution to our "Tax problem" is the FAIRTAX! www.fairtax.org

Look it up, the basic jist is that it REPLACES all the "inclusive" taxes that are already imbedded into the price of an item or service with a 23% "Fairtax". You get a Pre-bate for the taxes you would pay on the basic neccessities and only pay tax on anything else that you would spend for your family. If the FAIRTAX is implemented, it would eliminate: all payroll taxes on the federal level. You would then receive your total paycheck (minus what your state takes from you). April 15th would be just another day in the month.
If you get a chance, pick up the book "The Fairtax" by Neal Boortz and John Linder... I have it and highly recommend it. It explains how the FAIRTAX would work and why it is better than the VAT tax.

Nothing is better than paying "NO TAXES", but at least with the FAIRTAX, I get to decide what I want to pay taxes on.

[TAB]

fair tax is anything but fair.  Basicly the poor will pay a higher %  thier income, then the rich will.  Thats not what I call fair.



A progressive tax rate, is about as fair as it gets.  Its the system we have now, its just there are too much other crap we have added too it.

[Pathfinder]

Not all of it, and here's why. Some are mere cermonial laws (no wearing clothes of blended fabrics, women "cleansing" themselves after a period etc), some were based on practical matters, like not eating shell fish pre-refrigeration and some just made sense at the time when laying down the law (litterally) for a tough and poor people living in a cold hard world. When interpreting scripture, its key to remember that God was talking to a particular people, in a particular time and place for a particular reason. Our moral responsibility (IMHO) is to try to figure what parts of that apply to the here and now and how they do so. If you don't accept this responsibilty, you become like a fundamentalist muslim who wants to impose Sharia. It probably made sense in Arabia 1400 years ago, not so much today.  God may not change but human society does. We have to figure out how what He said 2,000 plus years ago can be applied today.
FQ13

Ah, yes, just like the US Constitution, the Bible is a living, breathing, always changing entity, and can be freely interpreted any ol' way you want to. Is that what you're saying?

Sorry, FQ, you outdid yourself on this one. Obeying God's word is never about fundamentalism. You came close in that it is about learning how to apply the instructions in today's world and modern life, but not interpreting the Word to fit your modern sensibilities. And certainly not in picking and choosing which ones you can personally figure out and forget about the rest.

[fullautovalmet76]

fair tax is anything but fair.  Basicly the poor will pay a higher %  thier income, then the rich will.  Thats not what I call fair.
A progressive tax rate, is about as fair as it gets.  Its the system we have now, its just there are too much other crap we have added too it.

What is so "unfair" about paying taxes on what you consume versus having the government confiscate a portion of your earnings to give to another group of people? Don't you understand that higher income earners tend to spend their money on higher priced items? The current system is a racket to take money from one group of people and transfer to another group of people. It is the classic example of the government picking the winners and losers and they have very poor judgment.

If you want to help the poor, which is a noble cause, then go help the poor yourself!

[MikeBjerum]

If I understand this correctly, both TAB and FQ are for taxing the hardworking fortunate at a higher rate ... not to penalize them, because only a liberal would do that, but rather to redistribute to those that are either unlucky or just not willing to put forth the effort to better themselves.

I had this discussion with our daughter this afternoon as I helped move some furniture and do a couple simple repairs ... and deliver the puppy to them.  She asked the rhetorical question - Why did we work hard in school and college to get good jobs, and why do we bust our butts long hours and weeks just so we can get taxed to support the "single sl***s that keep having kids on my dime, or the guy that is too good to get a blister for his paycheck?"

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

If I understand this correctly, both TAB and FQ are for taxing the hardworking fortunate at a higher rate ... not to penalize them, because only a liberal would do that, but rather to redistribute to those that are either unlucky or just not willing to put forth the effort to better themselves.

I had this discussion with our daughter this afternoon as I helped move some furniture and do a couple simple repairs ... and deliver the puppy to them.  She asked the rhetorical question - Why did we work hard in school and college to get good jobs, and why do we bust our butts long hours and weeks just so we can get taxed to support the "single sl***s that keep having kids on my dime, or the guy that is too good to get a blister for his paycheck?"

That's because both of them are to dumb to understand that the Govt has no authority to spend money that is not theirs on so called entitlements.
Do I have to post the Crockett speech again ?

[TAB]

What is so "unfair" about paying taxes on what you consume versus having the government confiscate a portion of your earnings to give to another group of people? Don't you understand that higher income earners tend to spend their money on higher priced items? The current system is a racket to take money from one group of people and transfer to another group of people. It is the classic example of the government picking the winners and losers and they have very poor judgment.

If you want to help the poor, which is a noble cause, then go help the poor yourself!

I have clients that have 10s millions in assets that drive 20 year old cars and live in 1500 sqft houses.  I have 1 client that has 100 mill( yes thats hundred) million, makes about 5 mill a year,  that lives in a home that was built in the 50s, has never had any major work done too it, drives a 70k car, wears old ripped up jeans and a well worn T shirt every day of his life.  Your telling me he should pay less tax then say a family of 4 with a household income of say 60k?      Please exmplain to me how thats fair.


Not all rich people spend, infact many are rich becuase they don't spend.

I'm not talking about who pays more tax, I'm talking about what % of thier income goes to tax.    The poor are always going to spend more of thier income with it comes to a sales/VAT tax.

Then there are those like myself that consume Many times over what I actually make.   I've spent well in excesse of 2 millon in the last 5 years on goods,( not services, just goods) yet I only made some where in the 250k range.  Why should some one like me, pay more tax then some one that pushes paper all day for the same pay?    There is no doubt about it, I did more financial good to the local area, then any office worker.  

[fightingquaker13]

, but not interpreting the Word to fit your modern sensibilities. And certainly not in picking and choosing which ones you can personally figure out and forget about the rest.

You're right Path my bad here. After all, if the Bible required interpretation, there might be more than one church and folks would disagree on theology, and heck there might even have  been something as bad a fist fight.
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

You're right Path my bad here. After all, if the Bible required interpretation, there might be more than one church and folks would disagree on theology, and heck there might even have  been something as bad a fist fight.
FQ13

Ah, so we're talking about religion here, not obeying God's word as a part of your personal relationship with Him? My bad.

I have clients that have 10s millions in assets that drive 20 year old cars and live in 1500 sqft houses.  I have 1 client that has 100 mill( yes thats hundred) million, makes about 5 mill a year,  that lives in a home that was built in the 50s, has never had any major work done too it, drives a 70k car, wears old ripped up jeans and a well worn T shirt every day of his life.  Your telling me he should pay less tax then say a family of 4 with a household income of say 60k?      Please exmplain to me how thats fair.

Not all rich people spend, infact many are rich becuase they don't spend.

I'm not talking about who pays more tax, I'm talking about what % of thier income goes to tax.    The poor are always going to spend more of thier income with it comes to a sales/VAT tax.

Exactly! That's the same point that Ramsey makes - if you want to be rich, copy the habits of the rich people. Rich people - the self-made ones anyhow - don't join gangs, don't become "baby daddies", they don't boost cars, they don't hang on street corners running numbers or swilling Colt 45.

They are disciplined, they spend less than they make, they don't buy into the having to have the latest and greatest of anything. They are focused and typically highly industrious. One study also found that they are honest to a fault.

Do you also buy into the that whole "Da man be keepin' me down!" crap we hear so often? Or maybe it's more important for people to stay glued to the latest "reality" show, or wandering the mall babbling like an idiot into their friends' ears and their latest fancy cell phone at the same time, rather than

See, it's all about personal responsibility - and being able to keep the gummint thugs' hands off what you personally produce. You've lived in kalifornicated too long, you've been poisoned by the same entitlement crap and political forces that are wrecking this country as we speak.

Taxes should hurt, and they should hurt everyone. That way we are reminded of the value of small gummint.

[Rastus]

I don't want a national sales tax in addition to what we have.   I'd like to see taxes phased out and sales tax phased in.  When the economy dips then the government income dips and they should spend less and cut back on grandiose plans to nowhere.  It might provide the politicians an incentive to keep the economy going if they knew funding to stay in office would be cut in step with the pain of the people.

TAB, what in the heck are you talking about?  Do you think that guy that has 100 mil and puts 5 mil a year away has not already paid taxes?  Put it in gear man, what is right, in your example, about him being taxed again because he has money and doesn't want to spend it?  

There are people in the world who hoard all they have without helping people and that will not change with the great socialist/communist world...look at Russia and China and the splendor their leaders live in and the abject poverty their people lived in...it's everywhere.  China does a better job for some of their people..but I still would not want to live there and I certainly don't want that over here.

I know you paid the workers when you should not have to provide an income and that is commendable.  You took it in the shorts to do that.  But dude, it doesn't matter what kind of government there is there will be people at the top who hoard to the detriment of the little guy who works.  Undeniably, our little guy over here is better off than the little guy in Europe, South America, Asia, etc.  

There have over the last couple of centuries, been a number of economic collapses across the world.  Fiat currencies fail, leaders overspend and enslave...the wrinkle factor of the people is what pulls the economies up (oft times in concert with overthrowing the government).  Wrinkle factor....that of the belly, when you get hungry you will really work to find something to do.  Things become more efficient after a collapse, simpler of sorts.  Hoards of lawyers, accountants, politicians, etc. don't have a legal infrastructure that brings them work and a lavish lifestyle...people don't have the money and won't pay what they have when it means starvation.  The guy who can fix a water leak or repair an electrical circuit or plant a garden is in demand and has value...all those value added people suck wind...maybe not a bad thing from time to time to get things in proper perspective.

Mark 14:7 (King James Version)
7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.