What is your view on the National Retail Tax?

[Vince]

Help me out here....

How does this affect a shopping spree? Do I have to buy plain white undies, or can I still shop at VS? Clothing is essential, right? Will I pay a luxury tax for my Levi's, but not for Wal-Mart jeans?

Don't think Levi's should be considered a luxury. You gotta wear something.....then again, maybe not, but I'm sure items from Victoria Secret would be considered luxury....then again, from a mans point of view, I think maybe they should be considered essentials also.

 

[tlatchaw]

The IRS is involved in state Sales Taxes?

Don't confuse him with logic, he's trying to make a point.

 

[mAlice]

The more someone makes, the more they will spend. THAT is a fact.

Living proof!

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm not discussing what I don't agree in. I will just counter arguments as needed.

 

[Toxick]

Do you honestly think people makes wads of money, then stuff it under a mattress and only bring it out to fling it on the floor and roll in it?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[ylexot]

Help me out here....

How does this affect a shopping spree? Do I have to buy plain white undies, or can I still shop at VS? Clothing is essential, right? Will I pay a luxury tax for my Levi's, but not for Wal-Mart jeans?

If there were three classes of sales tax (essentials/normal/luxury), everything would have to belong to sub-classes. For example, medical supplies could be a sub-class of essential items and would not be taxed. Clothing (all clothing, but possibly under a certain price) could be a sub-class of normally taxed items. Yachts or cars over $30k (where I would make the cut) could be sub-classes of luxury items and be taxed at a higher-than-normal rate.

In summary, it could be set up such that if you bought a pair of $100 jeans, you'd pay normal tax, but if you bought a pair of $1000 jeans, you'd pay a luxury tax rate. Of course, it could be set up completely differently. But remember, one of the benefits of this type of system is simplicity. If you make too many divisions, you lose that benefit.

 

[vraiblonde]

Dear UrbanPancake,

If you are indeed trying to have a civil conversation, you might want to start with some actual conversing. WHAT don't you like about a national sales tax? Change my mind. I'm not that invested in the plan and am open to all considerations.

Your fiend,
Vrai

 

[ylexot]

I have. It's called our IRS, and it's a pretty big mess.

Yes, the IRS is a big beaurocratic mess, but they have nothing to do with saying which products are exempt from state sales taxes. (as others have pointed out)

 

[tlatchaw]

Your fiend,
Vrai

Freudian slip, Vrai?

 

[ylexot]

Actually, one of the drawbacks I can see is that it could decrease tourism from foreign countries. Essentially, their money would not go as far as it does now in the US because the taxes would be much higher. However, I've thought of that too. Show your foreign passport, get a lower tax. I'm sure someone will scream "privacy rights", but this could also be used to track foreign people in the country. Granted, if someone is really out to do bad, they'll just use cash and pay the high tax.

 

[vraiblonde]

Freudian slip, Vrai?

Nope.

 

[vraiblonde]

Actually, one of the drawbacks I can see is that it could decrease tourism from foreign countries.

Highly doubtful. They'll still want to come to Disney World and New York. Check out Hollywood and walk down Rodeo Drive.

This also does away with tax loopholes for people with slick accountants. No more tax deferrments. No more money laundering. No more hiding assets. Anything you save for your retirement will be automatically tax-exempt until you actually spend it. No more inheritance taxes. No more lots of things that cheat the system.

This really screws the rich, so you'd think Democrats would be all over this, wouldn't you. Guess why they're not.

 

[Toxick]

This really screws the rich, so you'd think Democrats would be all over this, wouldn't you. Guess why they're not.

Because a majority of Republicans are also in favor of it, and although they screech and squeal about bipartisanship, they'll be god-damned if they'll engage in it, even if they have to cut off their nose to spite their face?

:shrug:

 

[pixiegirl]

If there were three classes of sales tax (essentials/normal/luxury), everything would have to belong to sub-classes. For example, medical supplies could be a sub-class of essential items and would not be taxed. Clothing (all clothing, but possibly under a certain price) could be a sub-class of normally taxed items. Yachts or cars over $30k (where I would make the cut) could be sub-classes of luxury items and be taxed at a higher-than-normal rate.

In summary, it could be set up such that if you bought a pair of $100 jeans, you'd pay normal tax, but if you bought a pair of $1000 jeans, you'd pay a luxury tax rate. Of course, it could be set up completely differently. But remember, one of the benefits of this type of system is simplicity. If you make too many divisions, you lose that benefit.

Why not just keep it simple though. An essential and non essential tax. Food and meds and such essential. Clothing while it could be looked at as essential shouldn't be classified as such because let's face it. Damn near everyone has more then they really NEED. I guess you could make the same argument for food too but let's not split hairs. If you make the tax on non essential goods the government still wins. Let's say 5%. $100 jeans they get $5; if someone can afford and chooses to buy $1000 jeans the gov't gets $50. They/we win either way without having to complicate the system too much.

 

[Tonio]

This really screws the rich, so you'd think Democrats would be all over this, wouldn't you. Guess why they're not.

They claim that poor people would be hurt more since they spend a greater percentage of their income. I don't think that argument is valid, since rich people still spend more in dollar terms.

 

[Makavide]

Actually, one of the drawbacks I can see is that it could decrease tourism from foreign countries.

There are quite a few countries that have a Value Added Tax (VAT) which is basically a national sales tax. However, some of these countries also offer a VAT rebate for foreigners when they are leaving the country. You just show the receipts at the point of departure and get your refund.

 

[ylexot]

Highly doubtful. They'll still want to come to Disney World and New York. Check out Hollywood and walk down Rodeo Drive.

Ahhh, but "want to" and "will be able to" are two different things. Say that a 1-week vacation in the US will cost someone $2000. Now if you apply a 15-20% tax to it, the same vacation costs $2300-$2400. That can price some people out of the ability to come here. Not everyone, but some.

Now, that could be offset if the prices for goods drops as a result of the change in tax systems, but I just don't see that happening.

 

[vraiblonde]

Because a majority of Republicans are also in favor of it, and although they screech and squeal about bipartisanship, they'll be god-damned if they'll engage in it, even if they have to cut off their nose to spite their face?

Besides that.

 

[ylexot]

Oh yeah, one more thing that needs to be considered if the government wants to do this is can the stores/etc. handle it? Right now, the checkout systems can handle taxable/non-taxable items. Can the current systems also handle a multi-tiered federal tax system or will they need a major changes costing billions of dollars? Who would pay for it? The consumer or the gov't? Actually, I guess it's the same either way.

Anyway, nice conversation. Gotta go to class.

 

[dems4me]

Nope.