ahhaha -
It would only alter the IRS. It would create a new bureaucracy much like the IRS to administer the tax. There are many problems in such administration like eminent domain. States have the right to levy a sales tax. If there is a federal tax on sales, there is a friction between the two entities. No doubt a million schemes are available to manage this friction, but that defeats part of the purpose.
Then there is the consideration that such a tax punishes artificially spending and consumption. We've spent 100 years punishing one side, saving and investment, so why alleviate one for the other?
What qualifies as a sale liable for federal tax? You can't all say all sales. You'd have to say, final sales. How can that be differentiated?
From memory, I believe the intent was to piggyback the states and compensate them for serving as the collection agents. The states seem to be able to differentiate, and of course, there can be a lot of theoretical errors that may not really be significant unless they produce some really bad incentives, like, say, the present system. -g-
The pseudo rebates would be handled by the SS administration. (fixed amount checks, not requiring any documentation other than identity existence)
The single point retail tax places the support of the Federal Government out in the open, with no place left to hide, including no more wage withholding.
Regards, Don |
