The Flat Tax

[RKMBrown]

And this is a problem how?

Does Joe have less right to educate himself and apply himself and become wealthy than Mitt had that right? If I did what I had to do to work my way through college--which I did--and qualified for a nice income, is it unfair that I make more than my classmate who chose to drop out of highschool?

But the topic here is the flat tax. And yes, those who were motivated enough and did what they had to do to achieve sufficient wealth that most of their income is from capital gains will pay a lower percentage on their earned income than will those who work strictly for wages but earn the same amount.

A flat tax would fix that by applying the same percentage equally across the board on all earned income regardless of how it is earned.

Do you miss the point intentionally or has the Kool-Ade addled your brain? Or worse. Yes, we are focused here on the flat tax and I have stated such a tax will put the last nail into the coffin of democracy in America. Election are bought, so are members of Congress and State Legislatures. Very soon we will reach the tipping point and the rule of law will be written by the rich, for the rich and enforced by the rich. In fact we're probably there now.

But your point made no sense whatsoever dear. It does not logically follow that a flat tax will allow anybody to buy elections more than does the progressive tax. I did my best to explain how a flat tax takes the politics out of the tax code far better than does any other system of taxation.

The flat tax would be an important first step in returning the power to the people.

But fear, uncertainty, and doubt compels him to know for a fact that we are at if not past the tipping point of letting the rich win it all!! Dogs and cats living in the streets. Mayhem is at the door. The sky will fall any moment!! A non progressive tax like "all the other non-progressive taxes we already have" would be the last straw! This one progressive tax is the only thing saving us from hell on earth. We must defend it at all costs!

 

[editec]

Who pays a rate of 90% taxes?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you miss the point intentionally or has the Kool-Ade addled your brain? Or worse. Yes, we are focused here on the flat tax and I have stated such a tax will put the last nail into the coffin of democracy in America. Election are bought, so are members of Congress and State Legislatures. Very soon we will reach the tipping point and the rule of law will be written by the rich, for the rich and enforced by the rich. In fact we're probably there now.

But your point made no sense whatsoever dear. It does not logically follow that a flat tax will allow anybody to buy elections more than does the progressive tax. I did my best to explain how a flat tax takes the politics out of the tax code far better than does any other system of taxation.

The flat tax would be an important first step in returning the power to the people.

But fear, uncertainty, and doubt compels him to know for a fact that we are at if not past the tipping point of letting the rich win it all!! Dogs and cats living in the streets. Mayhem is at the door. The sky will fall any moment!! A non progressive tax like "all the other non-progressive taxes we already have" would be the last straw! This one progressive tax is the only thing saving us from hell on earth. We must defend it at all costs!

LOL. Some do sound that way don't they. A flat tax certainly isn't a cure all for everything that ails us as a nation. We need some strong restraints--preferably in the form of a constitutional amendment--on federal spending and will need to wrest powers from the federal government that rightfully belong to the states. We need to restore a work ethic in this country and allow people to experience consequences for bad choices that arise out of skewed values again.

But a flat tax would definitely be a good first step in the process.

 

[RKMBrown]

But your point made no sense whatsoever dear. It does not logically follow that a flat tax will allow anybody to buy elections more than does the progressive tax. I did my best to explain how a flat tax takes the politics out of the tax code far better than does any other system of taxation.

The flat tax would be an important first step in returning the power to the people.

But fear, uncertainty, and doubt compels him to know for a fact that we are at if not past the tipping point of letting the rich win it all!! Dogs and cats living in the streets. Mayhem is at the door. The sky will fall any moment!! A non progressive tax like "all the other non-progressive taxes we already have" would be the last straw! This one progressive tax is the only thing saving us from hell on earth. We must defend it at all costs!

LOL. Some do sound that way don't they. A flat tax certainly isn't a cure all for everything that ails us as a nation. We need some strong restraints--preferably in the form of a constitutional amendment--on federal spending and will need to wrest powers from the federal government that rightfully belong to the states. We need to restore a work ethic in this country and allow people to experience consequences for bad choices that arise out of skewed values again.

But a flat tax would definitely be a good first step in the process.

Eh... flat tax and remove all deductions perhaps. Or perhaps just remove all the deductions and introduce a sales tax to catch some revenue from the people who are living off sheltered assets. I'd would not mind income and sales as long as the rates were flatter and no deductions and the goal turned to less is more wrt government spending.

 

[Foxfyre]

But fear, uncertainty, and doubt compels him to know for a fact that we are at if not past the tipping point of letting the rich win it all!! Dogs and cats living in the streets. Mayhem is at the door. The sky will fall any moment!! A non progressive tax like "all the other non-progressive taxes we already have" would be the last straw! This one progressive tax is the only thing saving us from hell on earth. We must defend it at all costs!

LOL. Some do sound that way don't they. A flat tax certainly isn't a cure all for everything that ails us as a nation. We need some strong restraints--preferably in the form of a constitutional amendment--on federal spending and will need to wrest powers from the federal government that rightfully belong to the states. We need to restore a work ethic in this country and allow people to experience consequences for bad choices that arise out of skewed values again.

But a flat tax would definitely be a good first step in the process.

Eh... flat tax and remove all deductions perhaps. Or perhaps just remove all the deductions and introduce a sales tax to catch some revenue from the people who have sheltered income. I'd would not mind income and sales as long as the rates were flatter and no deductions and the goal turned to less is more wrt government spending.

I favor the flat tax because it is not in any way regressive and would not require a lot of complicated regulations to keep it from truly hurting our least affluent people. And it would be much more difficult for Congress to manipulate for political advantage than would be a flat income tax.

Those who are going to cheat will find a way to do so regardless of the system of taxation used, but if you have one simple, non oppressive tax system, there won't be as much incentive to cheat as the risk of getting caught would outweigh any rewards to be achieved.

 

[RKMBrown]

LOL. Some do sound that way don't they. A flat tax certainly isn't a cure all for everything that ails us as a nation. We need some strong restraints--preferably in the form of a constitutional amendment--on federal spending and will need to wrest powers from the federal government that rightfully belong to the states. We need to restore a work ethic in this country and allow people to experience consequences for bad choices that arise out of skewed values again.

But a flat tax would definitely be a good first step in the process.

Eh... flat tax and remove all deductions perhaps. Or perhaps just remove all the deductions and introduce a sales tax to catch some revenue from the people who have sheltered income. I'd would not mind income and sales as long as the rates were flatter and no deductions and the goal turned to less is more wrt government spending.

I favor the flat tax because it is not in any way regressive and would not require a lot of complicated regulations to keep it from truly hurting our least affluent people. And it would be much more difficult for Congress to manipulate for political advantage than would be a flat income tax.

Those who are going to cheat will find a way to do so regardless of the system of taxation used, but if you have one simple, non oppressive tax system, there won't be as much incentive to cheat as the risk of getting caught would outweigh any rewards to be achieved.

Why should and how would the least affluent be sheltered from the true pain of taxation? You lost me there.

Cheat? That's just plain out of the blue what cheating?

non oppressive? All involuntary taxes are oppressive. Pretending there is some magic way to tax without causing pain is a lie told by the people who enjoy spending the taxes collected.

The sales tax would be to collect current taxes for current spending from people who are living off assets instead of income. Why should people who are living off assets be free to enjoy current services of the federal government without further taxation?

 

[Foxfyre]

Eh... flat tax and remove all deductions perhaps. Or perhaps just remove all the deductions and introduce a sales tax to catch some revenue from the people who have sheltered income. I'd would not mind income and sales as long as the rates were flatter and no deductions and the goal turned to less is more wrt government spending.

I favor the flat tax because it is not in any way regressive and would not require a lot of complicated regulations to keep it from truly hurting our least affluent people. And it would be much more difficult for Congress to manipulate for political advantage than would be a flat income tax.

Those who are going to cheat will find a way to do so regardless of the system of taxation used, but if you have one simple, non oppressive tax system, there won't be as much incentive to cheat as the risk of getting caught would outweigh any rewards to be achieved.

Why should and how would the least affluent be sheltered from the true pain of taxation? You lost me there.

Cheat? That's just plain out of the blue what cheating?

non oppressive? All involuntary taxes are oppressive. Pretending there is some magic way to tax without causing pain is a lie told by the people who enjoy spending the taxes collected.

The sales tax would be to collect current taxes for current spending from people who are living off assets instead of income. Why should people who are living off assets be free to enjoy current services of the federal government without further taxation?

You honestly think there aren't tax cheats? People get around taxes by hiding income, bartering, dealing in cash only, and various other ways. Ask any person if he or she has NEVER cheated in even a tiny way on their taxes, and I am guessing you'll have a hard time finding such noble, honest people. Even if it is just not reporting a small cash job or including a deductible item that you know isn't quite kosher or you hope won't be challenged. And there are some who make careers of avoiding taxes.

With a sales tax, unless there are accommodates made such as prebates or other exclusions from taxes, the poor will be taxed on every penny of their earnings because they have to spend it all. The rich, who need to spend only a small fraction of their income on necessities, would not feel the sales tax nearly as much. That is what makes a sales tax regressive, plus it is so easy to dicker with it--exempt this, include that, add just a quarter cent here and there that nobody will notice but adds up over time, etc. etc. etc.

There are so many ways the opportunistic politicians can buy votes via a sales tax should they choose to do so--and they will always choose to do so if they are able. There are no ways the politician can buy votes via a flat income tax that proportionately affects everybody the same when it is adjusted up and down.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again, a flat tax will create in short order an elite class able to use their wealth to elect others of their class and work together to protect and increase their wealth at the expense of the hoi polloi.

Isn't that obvious?

A national sales tax is regressive, as so well pointed out by Foxfyre in the post above.

One idea which has floated around for a while is to tax each and every sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, EFT's, etc. 25 cents. Doing so might mellow the market by keeping day traders in check and raise revenue to: Pay down the debt, reduce or eliminate deficit spending, and in time of national emergency allow the Federal Government to have a rainy day fund.

 

[Foxfyre]

Once again, a flat tax will create in short order an elite class able to use their wealth to elect others of their class and work together to protect and increase their wealth at the expense of the hoi polloi.

Isn't that obvious?

A national sales tax is regressive, as so well pointed out by Foxfyre in the post above.

One idea which has floated around for a while is to tax each and every sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, EFT's, etc. 25 cents. Doing so might mellow the market by keeping day traders in check and raise revenue to: Pay down the debt, reduce or eliminate deficit spending, and in time of national emergency allow the Federal Government to have a rainy day fund.

Investors already pay capital gains tax every time they sell a stock or bond or mutual fund or whatever. A true flat tax would continue to apply equally to ALL income regardless of its origin. And there would be far less incentive for that elite wealthy class you are so terrified of to shelter income because, with a certain and reasonable tax rate, it would be more profitable for them to put their income back into the economy and grow it. And that helps everybody.

How has the punative progressive tax you are so crazy about worked out for you in preventing an underclass and/or that wealthy elite class?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again, a flat tax will create in short order an elite class able to use their wealth to elect others of their class and work together to protect and increase their wealth at the expense of the hoi polloi.

Isn't that obvious?

A national sales tax is regressive, as so well pointed out by Foxfyre in the post above.

One idea which has floated around for a while is to tax each and every sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, EFT's, etc. 25 cents. Doing so might mellow the market by keeping day traders in check and raise revenue to: Pay down the debt, reduce or eliminate deficit spending, and in time of national emergency allow the Federal Government to have a rainy day fund.

Investors already pay capital gains tax every time they sell a stock or bond or mutual fund or whatever. A true flat tax would continue to apply equally to ALL income regardless of its origin. And there would be far less incentive for that elite wealthy class you are so terrified of to shelter income because, with a certain and reasonable tax rate, it would be more profitable for them to put their income back into the economy and grow it. And that helps everybody.

How has the punative progressive tax you are so crazy about worked out for you in preventing an underclass and/or that wealthy elite class?

Well, we don't know, do we. However, if allowed to save a penny today, and two the next day, and four the day after that, we know the outcome in one months time. Now, when that penny investor is also allowed a capital gains tax, and soon if the R's get their way, relief from the so called 'death tax', factor in CU v. FEC, it's not hard to proffer that the nation will one day be under the power and control of Paris Hilton or the progeny of Tom Cruise or the brother's Koch.

 

[RKMBrown]

People get around taxes by hiding income, bartering, dealing in cash only, and various other ways. Ask any person if he or she has NEVER cheated in even a tiny way on their taxes, and I am guessing you'll have a hard time finding such noble, honest people. Even if it is just not reporting a small cash job or including a deductible item that you know isn't quite kosher or you hope won't be challenged. And there are some who make careers of avoiding taxes.

With a sales tax, unless there are accommodates made such as prebates or other exclusions from taxes, the poor will be taxed on every penny of their earnings because they have to spend it all. The rich, who need to spend only a small fraction of their income on necessities, would not feel the sales tax nearly as much. That is what makes a sales tax regressive, plus it is so easy to dicker with it--exempt this, include that, add just a quarter cent here and there that nobody will notice but adds up over time, etc. etc. etc.

There are so many ways the opportunistic politicians can buy votes via a sales tax should they choose to do so--and they will always choose to do so if they are able. There are no ways the politician can buy votes via a flat income tax that proportionately affects everybody the same when it is adjusted up and down.

>>> People get around taxes by hiding income, bartering, dealing in cash only, and various other ways. Ask any person if he or she has NEVER cheated in even a tiny way on their taxes, and I am guessing you'll have a hard time finding such noble, honest people. Even if it is just not reporting a small cash job or including a deductible item that you know isn't quite kosher or you hope won't be challenged. And there are some who make careers of avoiding taxes.

Sheltering income is not cheating. Bartering is not against any law I've ever seen. Neither is helping your neighbors in compensation for them helping you. Buying items in cash is what cash is for. Last I checked the law does not want you to report small amounts of income from a one time thing, such as selling under 500 worth of cupcakes. If you are talking about illegal activities, such as drug dealers... well duh.

>>> With a sales tax, unless there are accommodates made such as prebates or other exclusions from taxes, the poor will be taxed on every penny of their earnings because they have to spend it all.

In nearly every state that has a sales tax, food goods homes and rent are not taxed. So your argument against sales tax is just not true.

The idea of a prebate discount is no different than a "progressive" tax. I prefer charity to be provided through charities not the tax system by force.

>>> The rich, who need to spend only a small fraction of their income on necessities, would not feel the sales tax nearly as much. That is what makes a sales tax regressive, plus it is so easy to dicker with it--exempt this, include that, add just a quarter cent here and there that nobody will notice but adds up over time, etc. etc. etc.

Again you appear to be proposing we punish the rich, progressively, for the sin of having more income than others, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the rich spend more thus end up paying more. You really want to punish the rich for investing rather than buying sales taxed products? Then put a sales tax on investment shares and remove the capital gains tax.. whatever.

>>> There are so many ways the opportunistic politicians can buy votes via a sales tax should they choose to do so--and they will always choose to do so if they are able. There are no ways the politician can buy votes via a flat income tax that proportionately affects everybody the same when it is adjusted up and down.

Yet here you are proposing the flat/sales taxes only start after some certain amount so the poor don't have to feel any tax pain.

 

[RKMBrown]

Once again, a flat tax will create in short order an elite class able to use their wealth to elect others of their class and work together to protect and increase their wealth at the expense of the hoi polloi.

Isn't that obvious?

A national sales tax is regressive, as so well pointed out by Foxfyre in the post above.

One idea which has floated around for a while is to tax each and every sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, EFT's, etc. 25 cents. Doing so might mellow the market by keeping day traders in check and raise revenue to: Pay down the debt, reduce or eliminate deficit spending, and in time of national emergency allow the Federal Government to have a rainy day fund.

Sales taxes are not regressive in any state of the union. You guys are just making shit up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again, a flat tax will create in short order an elite class able to use their wealth to elect others of their class and work together to protect and increase their wealth at the expense of the hoi polloi.

Isn't that obvious?

A national sales tax is regressive, as so well pointed out by Foxfyre in the post above.

One idea which has floated around for a while is to tax each and every sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, EFT's, etc. 25 cents. Doing so might mellow the market by keeping day traders in check and raise revenue to: Pay down the debt, reduce or eliminate deficit spending, and in time of national emergency allow the Federal Government to have a rainy day fund.

Sales taxes are not regressive in any state of the union. You guys are just making shit up.

FYI on Regressive taxation:

Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia

 

[RKMBrown]

Once again, a flat tax will create in short order an elite class able to use their wealth to elect others of their class and work together to protect and increase their wealth at the expense of the hoi polloi.

Isn't that obvious?

A national sales tax is regressive, as so well pointed out by Foxfyre in the post above.

One idea which has floated around for a while is to tax each and every sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, EFT's, etc. 25 cents. Doing so might mellow the market by keeping day traders in check and raise revenue to: Pay down the debt, reduce or eliminate deficit spending, and in time of national emergency allow the Federal Government to have a rainy day fund.

Sales taxes are not regressive in any state of the union. You guys are just making shit up.

FYI on Regressive taxation:

Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia

Ayup. And as I stated, the term regressive, does not fit to sales taxes in any state of the nation. Basic necessities are not subject to sales taxes. Thus, no matter how much people spend on "basic" necessities, by % of income, it does not matter. Those items are not subject to sales tax.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sales taxes are not regressive in any state of the union. You guys are just making shit up.

FYI on Regressive taxation:

Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia

Ayup. And as I stated, the term regressive, does not fit to sales taxes in any state of the nation. Basic necessities are not subject to sales taxes. Thus, no matter how much people spend on "basic" necessities, by % of income, it does not matter. Those items are not subject to sales tax.

Wow...did you read the link?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sales taxes are not regressive in any state of the union. You guys are just making shit up.

FYI on Regressive taxation:

Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia

Ayup. And as I stated, the term regressive, does not fit to sales taxes in any state of the nation. Basic necessities are not subject to sales taxes. Thus, no matter how much people spend on "basic" necessities, by % of income, it does not matter. Those items are not subject to sales tax.

And you honestly trust politicians in Washington to judge what is and is not a basic necessity? And the massive pile of regulations it would require to define that? And you think the politiians won't be giving exemptions to certain products in order to curry favor, campaign contributions, and votes? In New Mexico, however, we pay sales tax on EVERYTHING - groceries, medicine, etc.

 

[RKMBrown]

FYI on Regressive taxation:

Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia

Ayup. And as I stated, the term regressive, does not fit to sales taxes in any state of the nation. Basic necessities are not subject to sales taxes. Thus, no matter how much people spend on "basic" necessities, by % of income, it does not matter. Those items are not subject to sales tax.

And you honestly trust politicians in Washington to judge what is and is not a basic necessity? And the massive pile of regulations it would require to define that? And you think the politiians won't be giving exemptions to certain products in order to curry favor, campaign contributions, and votes? In New Mexico, however, we pay sales tax on EVERYTHING - groceries, medicine, etc.

Sorry you are wrong on the first thing I checked. New Mexico does not pay tax on food products. See page 18, of the following document: http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/SiteCo...and COMPENSATING TAXES - AN OVERVIEW 2009.pdf
Do you live in NM? If so gratz on no longer having to pay sales tax on your food. If your grocer is charging you tax on your food I recommend reporting them or asking for the money back from the state.

I trust the people to agree that sales tax on basic food product is "regressive."

 

[Rshermr]

Sales taxes are not regressive in any state of the union. You guys are just making shit up.

FYI on Regressive taxation:

Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia

Ayup. And as I stated, the term regressive, does not fit to sales taxes in any state of the nation. Basic necessities are not subject to sales taxes. Thus, no matter how much people spend on "basic" necessities, by % of income, it does not matter. Those items are not subject to sales tax.

Nearly all states (45 as of 2002) have instituted some type of general sales tax. State
sales tax rates range from 2.9% (Colorado) to 7.25% (California11). A few states levy a
lower rate on certain goods considered to be necessities, such as food and prescription
drugs. For example, the general sales tax in Illinois is 6.25% but food and drug sales are
taxed at only 1%.

Other states with sales taxes exempt some necessities from taxation
entirely.

In most states, localities can charge a separate sales tax. While local sales taxes
are generally lower than state sales taxes, there are exceptions. In New York the state
sales tax is 4% but local sales taxes are often higher than 4%.
Sales taxes tend to be quite regressive. The reason is that low-income households tend to
spend a larger share of their income on taxable items than high-income households.
Consider Massachusetts – a state with a typical sales tax rate of 5%. According to the
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (McIntyre et al., 2003), Massachusetts
households in the lowest income quintile pay about 2% of their total income in state sales
taxes. Meanwhile, those in the top income quintile pay only about 0.8% of their income
in state sales taxes.o, here is an actual study.
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/03-10-Tax_Incidence.pdf

Now, I know, RKM, you spend your time in the bat shit crazy con web sites. So a simple concept of sales taxes being regressive would be beyond your cognitive reach. But it is OK, me boy. Beleiving what you want is just fine for you. It is all you can really help for. That is how it goes for CI's (congenital Idiots). Remember, it is not your fault. Just bad luck.

Now, you should be immediately angry. At those clowns who you believed when they told you that sales taxes were not regressive. Though, a smart person might have read a bit about it...........

 

[Foxfyre]

Ayup. And as I stated, the term regressive, does not fit to sales taxes in any state of the nation. Basic necessities are not subject to sales taxes. Thus, no matter how much people spend on "basic" necessities, by % of income, it does not matter. Those items are not subject to sales tax.

And you honestly trust politicians in Washington to judge what is and is not a basic necessity? And the massive pile of regulations it would require to define that? And you think the politiians won't be giving exemptions to certain products in order to curry favor, campaign contributions, and votes? In New Mexico, however, we pay sales tax on EVERYTHING - groceries, medicine, etc.

Sorry you are wrong on the first thing I checked. New Mexico does not pay tax on food products. See page 18, of the following document: http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/SiteCo...and COMPENSATING TAXES - AN OVERVIEW 2009.pdf
Do you live in NM? If so gratz on no longer having to pay sales tax on your food. If your grocer is charging you tax on your food I recommend reporting them or asking for the money back from the state.

I trust the people to agree that sales tax on basic food product is "regressive."

Sorry, but you'll have to point out the clause that exempts all groceries. I'll be going over to Albertson's on my weekly grocery shopping excursion shortly, and I can assure you that the sales (gross receipts)tax will be added to my grocery bill when I check out. On all the products I buy today.

So what is a basic food product? In Kansas it got so ridiculous that you had to pay taxes on a package of ready-to-eat cookies but not on the ingredients you bought to bake the cookies yourself. Are potato chips a basic food product? Hershey bars? How about toilet paper and paper towels or dishwashing detergent? What does NOT constitute a basic food product?

Now admittedly the state gross receipts tax does exempt some grocery products bought in grocery stores only, but the city and country taxes tacked on don't. If I buy a loaf of bread at Albertson's I won't pay state tax, but will pay county and city tax. If I buy the same bread at a gas station convenience store or at the pharmacy on the corner, I will pay state tax on it. Now can you imagine the nightmare of our Federal government imposing so complicated a system upon us?

Eligible Foods (for exemption from the state tax) Include, But Are Not Limited to:
◾Any food or food product intended for human consumption;
◾Seeds and plants to grow foods for personal consumption of households;
◾Most staple grocery food items;
◾Most cold, prepared foods packaged for home consumption.
(Volumes of regulations necessary to distinguish what is included in the 'most')

Ineligible Foods and Sundries Include, but Are Not Limited to:
◾Receipts from the sale of food already exempt or preempted by federal law or exempt or deductible under the New Mexico Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax Act;
◾Nonfood items including but not limited to soaps, paper products, cosmetics, and household supplies;
◾Alcoholic beverages;
◾Tobacco and tobacco products;
◾Hot foods and hot food products prepared for immediate consumption;
◾Any food eaten in the store;
◾Pet foods, accessories, and medicines;
◾Vitamins and over-the-counter medicines;
◾Restaurant food;
◾Any food purchased at establishments that do not meet the definition of retail food store found in 7 USCA 2012(k)(1).

At issue is not only whether or not the food is purchased for home consumption, but also where the food is purchased. FYI-201 gives several examples to clarify what is, and is not, eligible for a deduction in the gross receipts tax.

Examples:
1.Doughnuts sold in packages at a retail grocery store are eligible for the deduction from gross receipts tax. Doughnuts sold at a doughnut shop that sells nothing but doughnuts are not.
2.Apples sold at a retail grocery store are eligible for the deduction from gross receipts tax. Apples sold at a roadside stand are not.
3.Milk sold at a retail grocery store is eligible for the deduction from gross receipts tax. Milk sold at a gas station convenience store is not.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sorry, but you'll have to point out the clause that exempts groceries. I'll be going over to Albertson's on my weekly grocery shopping excursion shortly, and I can assure you that the sales (gross receipts)tax will be added to my grocery bill when I check out. On all the products I buy today.

So what is a basic food product? In Kansas it got so ridiculous that you had to pay taxes on a package of ready-to-eat cookies but not on the ingredients you bought to bake the cookies yourself. Are potato chips a basic food product? Hershey bars? How about toilet paper and paper towels or dishwashing detergent? What does NOT constitute a basic food product?

I did point it out. It's the one on page 18 called "food deduction." The way I read it, is that in NM anything one could buy with food stamps is a basic food item that is not taxed through the NM gross receipts tax (NM's sales tax).