Either you are building a straw man argument or you don't understand the tax code that's being proposed.
Right now, when you buy a new product(and this is still a bit of a simplification):
-You pay sales tax (out of money you paid income tax on)
-Manufacturer pays income tax
-Seller pays income tax
Then you sell the car and:
-Buyer pays sales tax
-You pay income tax
All of these repeat every time money changes hands for anything (barring used goods between individuals, but including used goods from stores). The proposed tax works more like this:
New product bought:
-You pay sales tax.
Used product bought/sold (even in a store):
There is no double-taxation. That's a large part of the point of not taxing used goods. The other being, as I mentioned, to give you a choice. You can get anything used, so to say "new or used isn't a choice" just seems silly. I suppose an exception would be food, but ultimately this seems to be a pretty minor issue considering the overall improvement.
I think it's reasonable that the country a product was originally created in (and by that I mean the people who chartered the creation -- the actual end seller, not mass manufacturers) receive a small fee for the first time a product is sold within its borders, and that money be used to maintain the mutually agreed upon government (ie, based on the Constitution). I think you'll be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who thinks there can possibly be no tax whatsoever and still maintain a free and relatively nonviolent country.
Income tax is straight up theft, but if you believe all taxation is theft then you are essentially advocating anarchy, which I can't get on board with.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not en