re: My experience with "normies", is they are basically hopeless and will reject the red pill

quote:

---

The red pilled only see corruption because they can only believe themselves above all others.

Shows lack of humility and intelligence.

---

perfect statement from a fricking leftist supporter of the corrupt

That is absolutely possible. This is why it requires vigilance on the part of we the people to police our elected officials, and most importantly, to send people to Congress who actually represent our values and desires, rather than the most ambitious who have figured out how to turn the Treasury into their personal ATM.

quote:

---

Shows lack of humility and intelligence.

---

This "You so dumb" BS from leftist trash like you in your cheap shot hit and run posts is becoming the foundation for recognizing a stupid person.

like you

quote:

---

Youre exactly who he is talking about

---

Maybe and maybe not. I am in no way agreeing with the current tax system and structure, so likely I am not.

I simply hate morons that say “abolish X and all will be good” with no thoughts of accounting for the lost revenue.

quote:

---

The nation survived for 73 years without the IRS. It can do it again. And the cherry on top was the IRS was formed to support a war against its own citizens. The war against its citizens continues to this day. They recently added 87,000 agents to keep the war effort going But of course you knew that. And thats still OK with you

---

Are you truly comparing the early years of this nation to now? Do you honestly think the needs of the people now are the same as a tiny population in comparison to the time of the founding fathers?

Again, I am not saying to keep income tax. You are going to have to find something to replace it, and likely will still need the IRS for handing collection.

Also, for those saying states handle it, I am sure you must never drive in interstate highways which are like 95% funded by federal tax dollars. Reality is that while some states do well without an income tax, in most cases they are balancing that out with extremely high property taxes (see Texas), which again shifts the burden off certain groups to an extent.

In the end, I said it is stupid to cal for abolishing the IRS because there is no way you are going to have no taxes period. Overspending doesn’t excuse poor fiscal management in collecting federal revenue.

The country now is too polarized for a term such as 'normie'.

Thats because you say shite like “normies” and red-pill you fricking nerds.

quote:

---

And once the 16A was signed, it was under the premise that the income tax would go away

---

And this is just part of the reason I do not support a national sales tax: I don't trust those frickers to forget about income tax, and in a few years we would be paying both.

I'm also not sure I see an advantage to a sales tax at this point. What would it need to be, like 30%? Take whatever the experts say and increase it by at least 50%.

So our take home pay increases by almost 30%, but the cost of everything also jumps up by 30%. Does that really help? Plus, the states that currently have income tax will likely drop it, because they rely on the IRS for their numbers. So your property taxes and local sales taxes also go up.

I'm not saying the idea is crazy, I just don't support it.

quote:

---

And this is just part of the reason I do not support a national sales tax: I don't trust those frickers to forget about income tax, and in a few years we would be paying both.

---

Again, this is predicated on Americans actually paying attention to what their elected officials are doing and holding them accountable. It requires a level of personal responsibility that based on some of the comments here may not be possible on an individual basis. Anyone who doesn't want to hold their elected officials responsible isn't going to see the benefit of this system.

quote:

---

I'm also not sure I see an advantage to a sales tax at this point.

---

One of the major benefits is that it spreads the tax liability of funding the federal government across ALL consumers. Citizens, tourists, dignitaries, illegal aliens, drug dealers, preppers, anyone who lives cash-only.... EVERYONE.

quote:

---

What would it need to be, like 30%?

---

The Nobel economists who were commissioned to research the plan came up with the figure that 21-23% would be needed to be revenue neutral to our current income tax scheme. That is to say, at that rate, it would replace the existing progressive income tax system to the penny.

quote:

---

ake whatever the experts say and increase it by at least 50%.

---

That's cynical conjecture. In a scenario where we hold our representatives to account in order to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace the income tax system with the NRST, why can't that same pressure be used to reform federal spending? We have to police those crooked snakes to safeguard against the double taxation concern many have voiced as it is.

I'll address your other main concern in a moment, as this reply is long enough as it is.

quote:

---

So our take home pay increases by almost 30%, but the cost of everything also jumps up by 30%. Does that really help?

---

No offense, but this is the most common misconception about the plan. In 20+ years of researching and understanding it, that perspective is usually rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporate income taxes are paid. At the risk of repeating myself from earlier in the thread:

quote:

---

Corporations do not pay corporate income taxes, they collect them. The NRST simply replaces the embedded federal income taxes which are passed down along each step of the supply chain, from manufacturer to wholesaler to distributor to retailer, and ultimately paid by the consumer.

In a NRST scenario, there is no need for the 22% embedded corporate income tax that is already baked into the price you pay at the register. Market forces will drive retail prices down to their rightful place, and the price paid at the register will effectively be the same as it was under the old IRS/income tax model. The major difference being that it's purchased with your whole paycheck, because withholding will have gone away due to obsolescence.

---

This is going to wander into TL;DR territory, but those who are truly interested are going to stick around. The howler monkeys are going to sit in the cheap seats and fling feces no matter how long the post is.

For ease of discussion, let's talk about something that costs $10 at retail right now. We're going to call it Item ABC. Only around $7.80 of what you're paying covers the cost of that item - from production to wholesale to distribution to retail profit. The other $2.20 is tacked on at the various stops along the way to recoup the corporate income taxes that are incurred. Ultimately, that bill comes due for the retail consumer. Again, corporations do not PAY income taxes, they COLLECT them.

In the National Retail Sales Tax scenario, the income tax is abolished and what's left of the IRS is simply a clearinghouse entity within the US Treasury to receive the taxes collected by retailers. If there is no more income taxes to be collected, then the cynical folks in the room would believe that the NRST would be tacked on to that $10 price tag for Item ABC, and you'd now pay $12.20.

There's a couple of things that would prevent that from happening, thanks to economics and folks who sell Item ABC wanting to make the sale. Let's say that Grocery World sees a chance to make a quick buck and on day one of the NRST being implemented, they keep the price of Item ABC $10. With the sales tax applied at the register, they don't care that you're paying $12.20, they just want the sale. If that scenario persists, then the consumers are the net loser (though there's a case to be made that +22% at retail is better than -45% on your gross income, but that's a discussion for another time).

While Grocery World is continuing to charge $10 for Item ABC, their competitor Circus Mart is savvy enough to realize that they can make the same margins as before plus a little extra if they drop the price of Item ABC down to $9.00. Obviously, Grocery World would be putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage if they continued to keep their prices at the old levels. This back and forth continues among competitors, and one of them realizes that at $7.80, they would be making the same margins as under the old income tax model, and they were totally fine with that markup.

Simultaneously, Item ABC has a competitor product at the same price point of $10 - Thing 123. The makers of Thing 123 are smart enough to realize that they have that identical $7.80 break-even point that Item ABC has at retail. Even if the retailers weren't bright enough to realize that continuing to offer the old price point is a losing proposition, so they can make their pricing cuts to remove their corporate income tax liability that was previously passed on to the wholesalers. (Remember, the wholesalers were taking that income tax paid and including it in their cost charged to the distributors, and the distributors were passing theirs on to the retailers who ultimately baked all of it in a the register where the consumers foot the bill for the whole thing).

If the makers of Thing 123 are selling their inventory for less, then it's going to have an impact at the retail level. Thing 123 would be a much more attractive option than Item ABC for savvy consumers.

Two different opportunities for market forces to dictate that the previously-buried corporate income taxes paid by the consumer at retail are weeded out under the NRST system.

If you stick around the FairTax/NRST discussion long enough, you'll find that most opposition to the plan comes from folks who a) misrepresent the terms of the plan, either from ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, and/or b) inject hypothetical situations which are not part of the plan (e.g. assuming a higher tax rate than calculated in the base bill, deliberately flip-flopping between inclusive vs. exclusive tax calculations where it's advantageous to make their case; presuming double-taxation between the NRST and mistakenly presenting the income tax as returning, etc.)

quote:

---

Do you honestly think the needs of the people now are the same as a tiny population in comparison to the time of the founding fathers?

---

So small countries don't have income tax?

That is a red herring. Size and modernity should not change our basic principles.