Even if it decreases the tax burden for some, it increases tax burdens for those already not paying income tax.
And revenue neutrality is a joke, why is revenue neutrality touted as some kind of good thing, we want the State to have LESS revenue.
A sales tax is just a sneakier way to for the State to steal, because it hides the coercion from the consumer and an applies it only to the seller.
I understand that you may think a national sales tax is a lesser evil, which I would not agree, but even if it were a lesser evil why would you advocate for it?
Taxation is not only inherently incompatible with the Non-Aggression Principle, but it is a cancer to the market.
Even if being shot in the leg more preferable than being shot in the gut,I would still prefer not to be shot at all.
I don't advocate for replacing the income tax with a sales tax, I advocate for abolition of the income tax and replacing it with nothing.
Rothbard on consumption taxes:
"The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax."
Also, Rothbard explained how a consumption tax morphs into an income tax:
"Having challenged the merits of the goal of taxing only consumption and freeing savings from taxation, we now proceed to deny the very possibility of achieving that goal, i.e., we maintain that a consumption tax will devolve, willy-nilly, into a tax on income and therefore on savings as well. In short, that even if, for the sake of argument, we should want to tax only consumption and not income, we should not be able to do so.... the sales tax is subject to an extra complication: the general assumption that a sales tax can be readily shifted forward to the consumer is totally fallacious. In fact, the sales tax cannot be shifted forward at all!...In the long run, of course, and that run is not very long, the retail firms will not be able to absorb a sales tax; they are not unlimited pools of wealth ready to be confiscated. As the retail firms suffer losses, their demand curves for all intermediate goods, and then for all factors of production, will shift sharply downward, and these declines in demand schedules will be rapidly transmitted to all the ultimate factors of production: labor, land, and interest income. And since all firms tend to earn a uniform interest return determined by social time preference, the incidence of the fall in demand curves will rest rather quickly on the two ultimate factors of production: land and labor.
Hence, the seemingly common-sense view that a retail sales tax will readily be shifted forward to the consumer is totally incorrect. In contrast, the initial impact of the tax will be on the net incomes of retail firms. Their severe losses will lead to a rapid downward shift in demand curves, backward to land and labor, i.e., to wage rates and ground rents. Hence, instead of the retail sales tax being quickly and painlessly shifted forward, it will, in a longer-run, be painfully shifted backward to the incomes of labor and landowners. Once again, an alleged tax on consumption, has been transmuted by the processes of the market into a tax on incomes.
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of