National Sales Tax

[beararms1776]

The only question is who is the party that is responsible for paying it. If you buy goods from out of state and have them shipped to you then its typical that YOU are the responsible party.

There you go. You answered your own question.
Who the heck uses internet for online purchases anyway.
BTW, thanks for the great advice and nice comment in the other thread.

 

[melensdad]

There you go. You answered your own question.
Who the heck uses internet for online purchases anyway.

I didn't actually ask a question, I stated a situation rhetorically.

And purchases are NOT limited ONLY to the internet.

They can include such things as buying a Rolex in the Virgin Islands at a discount and bringing it home on your wrist. Or visiting a furniture shop located in an adjoining state and having them deliver across the state line; many do that claiming to do it "tax free" but really they just pass the obligation to the buyer. Obviously they also include buying on the internet, by phone, through a catalog, etc.

 

[beararms1776]

I didn't actually ask a question, I stated a situation rhetorically.

And purchases are NOT limited ONLY to the internet.

They can include such things as buying a Rolex in the Virgin Islands at a discount and bringing it home on your wrist. Or visiting a furniture shop located in an adjoining state and having them deliver across the state line; many do that claiming to do it "tax free" but really they just pass the obligation to the buyer. Obviously they also include buying on the internet, by phone, through a catalog, etc.

In some states, a seller adds the tax to a purchase. Would one be required to pay another tax on the same purchase when delivered in their home state. Like double taxed?

 

[Donnelly]

{snipped}The other problem is that it does not restrict spending so in "good economic times" the government has more $$$,$$$ flowing in and it spends it, but in "bad economic times" the government has fewer $ coming in but has incurred bills that need to be paid because the government is too short sighted to set money aside for bad times. Consequently, just like in England, the politicians raise the rate.

My friends and I have discussed having a National sales tax before and Melensdad's quote above is the main reason that I think that it won't work. We would simply get pinched harder the next time a recession came around and the government would raise the % rate. And do you think that when the economy picked up that they would willingly lower that rate back down?

Everyone that believes that, stand on your head.

 

[melensdad]

In some states, a seller adds the tax to a purchase. Would one be required to pay another tax on the same purchase when delivered in their home state. Like double taxed?

No.

The "use tax" provision in the tax code only applies to the purchase of goods that have not been previously taxed (sales tax).

In my prior example, if you buy furniture in an adjoining state and the seller 'does you a favor' and delivers it into Indiana "tax free" then all he has done is shifted the burden of tax payment to you. If, on the other hand, you pay the state tax in the state where the furniture was purchased, and then you receive the goods in Indiana via his delivery truck then you are not obligated to pay additional taxes.

 

[John Galt]

I see nothing but bad coming from the District of Corruption, no matter what tax method they use. The spending/printing in Washington is sociopathic and shows no sign of slowing down and their programs to "help" the needy are accelerating the unsustainable. At the rate we're going, with the combination of spending and printing and the strangulation of growth with suffocating regulation, it's just a matter of time before simple math takes over.
"You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." - Ayn Rand

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Okay, so tell me why this would not work? ?

It won't work until " we the people " kick ALL , as in every last one of the 535 out of office and start all over again .

We need an entirely new system that takes human nature out of the equation .

No elected official from local county office to DC should ever be so wealthy that they can no longer identify with the plight of the common man .

NO lobbyists , NO loopholes for anybody , NO government job of any form that pays enough for that person to become "fat and happy" , NO exemptions period .

Actual term limits , not the same old "you can vote them out" crap .

Every elected official position would get a term of two - ? years with one very important caveat .

At the end of your term , you're going on trial (by your peers) and we shall see if you've indeed served the people's interests or your own .

If you've been found guilty you get the death penalty . If it's proven that anyone has conspired against you , they also get the death penalty .

If not for an abundance of empathy or a good moral compass , fear of the consequences would keep them straight .

 

[PistolBob]

Online retail sales for the year 2012 are estimated to be over 226 BILLION dollars. Most of that goes without any sales tax being collected, or purchases reported. That is going to be the biggest driving force for a national sales tax just as soon as the feds figure out how to take all that money and send it back to the states in an equitable fashion, after keeping a piece for the treasury. I don't think a national sales tax will replace income tax, most likely it will replace local and state sales taxes...if they can figure out an agreeable way to send the monies collected back to the states and localities.

Some places have state sales tax, county sales tax, and locality sales tax...

 

[John Galt]

It won't work until " we the people " kick ALL , as in every last one of the 535 out of office and start all over again .

We need an entirely new system that takes human nature out of the equation .

I don't see how taking the "human nature" equation is possible with actual "humans" involved in the entire process.

No elected official from local county office to DC should ever be so wealthy that they can no longer identify with the plight of the common man .

Who determines the appropriate definition of "wealthy"? (Wouldn't determing this require some of the "human nature" you wanted to eliminate earlier?) Who determines the definition of "common man"?

NO lobbyists , NO loopholes for anybody , NO government job of any form that pays enough for that person to become "fat and happy" , NO exemptions period .

Lobbyists are there to help the uneducated elected officials on the subject matter. It is humanly impossible for the "average" person to be as knowledgable on all of the topics as they need to be to be able to make decisions that affect the lives of millions of people. They are a necessary "evil" and needed.

Actual term limits , not the same old "you can vote them out" crap .

Every elected official position would get a term of two - ? years with one very important caveat .

At the end of your term , you're going on trial (by your peers) and we shall see if you've indeed served the people's interests or your own .

If you've been found guilty you get the death penalty . If it's proven that anyone has conspired against you , they also get the death penalty .

Would YOU run for office under such a system? What if you're found guilty because you didn't dole out enough goodies? Define "conspiring", is it someone that stood up for individual liberty or didn't do enough to punish the "wealthy" that you mentioned earlier?

If not for an abundance of empathy or a good moral compass , fear of the consequences would keep them straight .

Gee, where in history has this type of government, fear of the consequences, been tried before and how did THAT work out for the people ... [/QUOTE]

 

[AtlasDM]

A system like the FairTax could work, and I believe that it would work quite well, but certain other aspects of our government would have to change to prevent abuse. So here would be my propositions:

- Eliminate all other forms of taxes.

- Actually enforce the limitations to government set upon it by the Constitution. Runaway government is how we got ourselves in to our current mess so this has to be addressed. If the government doesn't have the specific power to do something then it simply cannot be done. Stop letting politicians ignore the 10th amendment.

- Force congress to operate on a balanced budget. Right now, the government borrows money from the Federal Reserve and then raises taxes to pay back debt. Instead, limit spending to the taxes collect in the year prior. Then (by Constitutional amendment preferably) force congress to maintain a balanced budget and only allow borrowing during extenuating circumstances.

- Enact term limits. Cutting out the possibility for "career" politicians should help keep elected officials from becoming puppets and cut back on wasteful spending.

- Along with term limits, require congress to sign an affidavit for every bill they vote on that 1) states they have read and understand the bill, and 2) states something along the line of 'I believe it is in the best interest of the people to spend tax dollars on X instead of letting the people keep their hard earned money for themselves.' Is is controversial? Yes. Would it result in more frugal politicians? Hell yes.

- Phase out entitlement spending. Over the course of a few years/decades, phase out the entitlement spending that is draining our tax dollars and creating a ballooning debt. The Constitution doesn't allow for the redistribution of wealth by the federal government for any reason. The change to wean people off the government teat wouldn't be possible to make over-night. But through a series of baby-steps it can be done. That said, nothing would stand in the way of a state making their own welfare programs using state taxes.

- Phase out federal bureaucracy. Laws and regulations should be made by elected officials, not agencies of unelected 'officials' that lack any kind of oversight by the people. In addition, the individual states are perfectly capable of making their own laws and regulations without federal micromanagement. Leaving the states to govern themselves (or simply letting free market influence do the job) not only gives the people more freedom, but it would save tons of money and result in a lower federal tax rate.

-Change foreign/economic policy. Stop occupying foreign countries with our military (gasp!) and stop waging preemptive, undefined wars without a vote from congress. If we focused more on peace and free trade with all countries we would over time create more allies, have fewer enemies, and more economic prosperity. To add to that, stop giving foreign aid to other nations. It's not right that taxes be extracted from American workers and then given to foreign governments. And finally, scale down the military. Keep our military in our own borders and reduce the number of active duty members unless a state of war is declared by congress (which ideally would only be a defensive war and if not include defined goals, and a time limit to reach those goals or withdraw).

- Create an emergency fund. Several states do it, so why not the federal government? Create an emergency fund for when economic times turn sour and certain key elements of the government must be sustained. Then protect the fund by requiring a state of emergency to be declared and a separate vote by congress to access the fund.

- Get away from fiat currency and the central banks. Fiat currency and central banks are responsible for a lot of the economic woes that the world faces. They aren't so much the creators as they are the enablers. Think of them as drug dealers and governments as the drug users. They enable governments to make unwise financial decisions that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

- Return the excess. Maintain a certain amount of liquid capital for unexpected expenses but for the most part, return the remaining tax money to the people or to the states in a manner that is proportional to the amount of money collected from the people of that state. For example, if Indiana residents paid 2% of the federal taxes collected then our state would get 2% of the remaining federal dollars returned to it.

This was a long post, but I think all of these ideas are possibilities that would need to be considered if we were to adopt a national sales tax. Balance the budget, reduce spending, hold congress accountable, and leave more decision making to the individual states.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

It won't work until " we the people " kick ALL , as in every last one of the 535 out of office and start all over again .

We need an entirely new system that takes human nature out of the equation .

I don't see how taking the "human nature" equation is possible with actual "humans" involved in the entire process.

I'm talking about greed .

IMO , we need a system that doesn't allow any elected official to get rich while in office .

For example , "insider trading" that they can do but is illegal for you and me .

No elected official from local county office to DC should ever be so wealthy that they can no longer identify with the plight of the common man .

Who determines the appropriate definition of "wealthy"? (Wouldn't determing this require some of the "human nature" you wanted to eliminate earlier?) Who determines the definition of "common man"?

Wealthy , defined as having more money than the "average" middle class "common man" you're supposed to be representing .

NO lobbyists , NO loopholes for anybody , NO government job of any form that pays enough for that person to become "fat and happy" , NO exemptions period .

Lobbyists are there to help the uneducated elected officials on the subject matter. It is humanly impossible for the "average" person to be as knowledgable on all of the topics as they need to be to be able to make decisions that affect the lives of millions of people. They are a necessary "evil" and needed.

That may be what they were intended to be for but it doesn't work that way now .

" Pass a law in my favor and you'll get a kickback" , " I'll make sure my union votes for you ", " give my company the contract and we'll donate to your favorite charity " .

Actual term limits , not the same old "you can vote them out" crap .

Every elected official position would get a term of two - ? years with one very important caveat .

At the end of your term , you're going on trial (by your peers) and we shall see if you've indeed served the people's interests or your own .

If you've been found guilty you get the death penalty . If it's proven that anyone has conspired against you , they also get the death penalty .

Would YOU run for office under such a system?
Yes I would .

What if you're found guilty because you didn't dole out enough goodies?
That's partly my point , to stop the gravy train . More of what's in the best interests of the country , for the good of all , not more of "what's in it for me" .

Define "conspiring", is it someone that stood up for individual liberty or didn't do enough to punish the "wealthy" that you mentioned earlier?

Someone who bared false witness against you to make it look like you used your position for personal , instead of public gain .

Someone who lied or conspired against you .

Pretty simple concept .

Nothing about punishing any wealthy , don't know how you arrived at that .

If not for an abundance of empathy or a good moral compass , fear of the consequences would keep them straight .

Gee, where in history has this type of government, fear of the consequences, been tried before and how did THAT work out for the people ... [/QUOTE]

IDK , I was thinking of Sparta when I wrote it .

The idea is simple , no government official or employee makes more than their private counterpart .

No millionaires should be making public policies period because they can't empathize with the problems faced by the less fortunate of society . Force those who make the laws to live under them also .

keeping those in positions of power as broke as the society they govern you keep them humble and keep their minds on doing the right thing , if not it it's off with their heads .

 

[beararms1776]

I see nothing but bad coming from the District of Corruption, no matter what tax method they use. The spending/printing in Washington is sociopathic and shows no sign of slowing down and their programs to "help" the needy are accelerating the unsustainable. At the rate we're going, with the combination of spending and printing and the strangulation of growth with suffocating regulation, it's just a matter of time before simple math takes over.
"You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." - Ayn Rand

Have you seen the documentary "Forks over Knives"?
It's an interesting study on food related diseases that's driving the most expensive industry (health care) into astronomical figures. If you watch it, don't blame me for your change in diet.
The studies are interesting.
Now, if every being were to change their diet, would it put more money in our pockets. Honestly?

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I am not arguing either way here, just throwing out a point to consider in depending on a sales tax for federal revenue.

Picture two (2) honest, decent hardworking people.

Person #1 doesn't have the best career but is married and has one (1) child. Person #1's household income is $35k per year. In all reality Person #1 is going to spend 100% of their household income during the year just to survive.

Person #2 has a great career and is married with one (1) child, the exact same circumstances as Person #1. However, Person #2 with their good career makes $200k per year. Person #2 does not need to spend all $200k their household brings in. So in reality Person #2 can control how much money they spend taxes on. This is not necessarily bad for Person #2 and we should not begrudge them this benefit.

However, Person #1 does not have a choice. They must spend all of their smaller income to support their family and therefore they will be taxed on all of it.

If we then start to pick and choose what we do not tax, such as food, to relieve some of the burden on lower income families we return to special interest groups and are back to square one picking and choosing things that are taxed or not taxed.

This then creates a new set of problems to solve and issues to resolve. In the long run this may (?) be better than what we have now but we must understand that it wouldn't be as simple as "just shifting" from one system to another.

Regards,

Doug

 

[AtlasDM]

If we then start to pick and choose what we do not tax, such as food, to relieve some of the burden on lower income families we return to special interest groups and are back to square one picking and choosing things that are taxed or not taxed.

This then creates a new set of problems to solve and issues to resolve. In the long run this may (?) be better than what we have now but we must understand that it wouldn't be as simple as "just shifting" from one system to another.

I encourage you to pickup The FairTax Book by John Linder and Neal Boortz. It addresses exactly what you brought up quite well. In short though, a minimum standard of living line is established and EVERYONE receives a rebate on their taxes up to the minimum standard. That way, no one is taxed on essential purchases such as food etc. that is required for subsistence. This works around the possibility of special interests as everything is taxed at the final retail sale and paid for by the end user.

 

[NathanJefferson]

To All,

I am not arguing either way here, just throwing out a point to consider in depending on a sales tax for federal revenue.

Picture two (2) honest, decent hardworking people.

Person #1 doesn't have the best career but is married and has one (1) child. Person #1's household income is $35k per year. In all reality Person #1 is going to spend 100% of their household income during the year just to survive.

Person #2 has a great career and is married with one (1) child, the exact same circumstances as Person #1. However, Person #2 with their good career makes $200k per year. Person #2 does not need to spend all $200k their household brings in. So in reality Person #2 can control how much money they spend taxes on. This is not necessarily bad for Person #2 and we should not begrudge them this benefit.

However, Person #1 does not have a choice. They must spend all of their smaller income to support their family and therefore they will be taxed on all of it.

If we then start to pick and choose what we do not tax, such as food, to relieve some of the burden on lower income families we return to special interest groups and are back to square one picking and choosing things that are taxed or not taxed.

This then creates a new set of problems to solve and issues to resolve. In the long run this may (?) be better than what we have now but we must understand that it wouldn't be as simple as "just shifting" from one system to another.

Regards,

Doug

I've seen many descriptions how consumption taxes disproportionally tax those who have the least. That is why I would like to see a progressive income tax and a sales tax (which is regressive).

Well that is I would REALLY LIKE to see pretty much all taxes go away and let tariffs, excise and other taxes be the only thing, but that isn't going to happen.