Posted on 04/23/2004 4:39:23 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Yes, this is the definition of tax inclusive. THe tax you pay is supposed to be 23% of the total you pay for the item plus the nrst - that's why it says to include Federal taxes imposed by this title. You forgot to print the part that says other taxes are excluded from being taxed. Why did you do that?
Lewis "somehow" forgot to copy and past the part that says "excluding other federal and state taxes".
Gross payment is defined (look in the bill yourselves, lewis omits and rephrases) just as you expect it to be defined.
Gee, I wonder why lewis didn't copy that part too???
Actually, it doesn't have to come out of pay -- there are costs associated with income taxes beyond the taxes themselves, the producers will save all of these costs. The sellers are compensated for colelcting and remitting the NRST by being allowed to keep a percentage of the taxes they collect (no unfunded mandate).
AG has the actual numbers.
It becomes "a business purpose" when it's sold or developed by a developer no matter when it's purchased.
Did I?...If it exists you could copy and paste it for me in it's entirety.
Nope! You're lying, there's the copy and pasted paragraph before and the paragraph after.
No sign of "excluding other federal and state taxes"...(even in quotes?).
Not really. I would expect that most retailers would list price including tax simply to avoid the "sticker shock" effect at the register, but nevertheless, the law requires the tax to be separately charged and stated on the receipt (exceptions for things like vending machines that are automated and don't provide receipts).
I don't know. The prices of today include federal taxes but folks don't know it. The tax they usually don't include is state and local sales taxes. Who knows what merchants will choose to do.
Technically speaking, is it not ultimately the merchants' responsibility to pay the taxes?
Yes, consumers don't have to keep any records of purchases for any tax purposes. This makes the merchant liable for the tax. Of course, every receipt has a line item
"23% Federal sales tax $xx.xx"
So are we talking about an invisible (to the consumer) tax, similar to all of the currently embedded taxes and regulation on a product's price?
Every receipt must have a line item "23% Federal sales tax $xx.xx"
One of the big advantages, IMO, of this tax system is that we would all become more aware of the cost of government- leading to decreased spending.
`Section 2(a)(16) USED PROPERTY- The term `used property' means--
`(A) property on which the tax imposed by section 101 has been collected and for which no credit has been allowed under section 203, and
B) property that was held other than for a business purpose (as defined in section 102(b)) on December 31, 2004.
Also, tax-inclusive is used to compare income/payroll taxes and the NRST on the same footing. If you prefer to use tax-exclusive rates, we can, but be sure to use a tax-exclusive form when talking about income and payroll taxes, too.
That's 8.28% for FICA (18.1% for self-employed), 25% for long-term capital gains (instead of 20%) etc.
You mean like this?
"If I earn $100,000 and pay $23,000 of it in taxes, that's a 23% rate."
You're right, that IS easy.. and it is the tax inclusive way - the way which you say is "deceptive".
Let's try another example...maybe this one will be "deceptive"?
I spend $100,000 and pay $23,000 of it in taxes, that's a 23% rate. hmmmm... that was easy too!.
Well let's make the math harder, maybe that's "deceptive"?
How about... I earn $67,596 and of those dollars earned, $15,547 was used to pay federal taxes. What rate is that? Let's see, tax divided by total earned is .23 or 23%. Is that deceptive?
How about I spend $67,596 and of those dollars spent, $15,547 was used to pay federal taxes. What rate is that? Let's see, tax divided by total spent is .23 or 23%. Is that deceptive?
None of that is deceptive. It's the way we all figure our taxes today.
What's deceptive is your agenda. There is an honest question on how to figure the tax - you're not asking it though. You're simply trying to confuse others so that they stop learning about the nrst. Why?
| Item description | $ 29.25 |
| 8.25% sales tax | 2.44 |
| TOTAL | $32.09 |
| Item description | $ 29.25 |
| 8.25% state & local sales tax | 2.44 |
| 23% national sales tax | 8.85 |
| TOTAL | $40.94 |
Right! (finger on nose! bells ringing!)
This is the question many people have... if they don't understand income and payroll tax rates, they won't understand the nrst rate - they'll simply want to compute the nrst tax using the "add-on method"... which is NOT the way you figure income tax. It is, however the way state and local sales taxes are figured. Hence it makes sense to want to do this. It's a natural question - how to figure the amount of tax.
You can figure the rate in more than one way. Just like you can measure a stick in meters or inches. Is meters deceptive? Some folks may prefer meters, others may prefer inches. Irrespective of the units, the distance is the same.
If you want to describe the nrst tax rate and compare to the income and payroll tax rates you pay, then use tax inclusive (tax divided by total spent including the tax)...because that's how income and payroll tax rates are expressed. That rate is 23%. That's a no brainer.
If you want to figure how much an item will cost after the nrst is ADDED on, then of course use the ADD ON rate. THat rate is 29.9%.
There is an honest question in there - some people use the phrase "sales tax" and default to "add this percent to the price". That's fine. THey can use the 29.9%.
Others want to compare what they'll be paying under an nrst to what they're paying now. That's fine too. They can use the 23%.
Obviously the $ amount of tax is the same - just a different measuring stick.
So what's the beef? Do you call people deceptive for using inches instead of feet? The distance is the same, just different units....
But I don't think we want to go there, because income and payroll taxes are much more difficult to deal with in those terms. For eaxmple, the "employee's share" of FICA (7.65% tax-inclusive) is 8.28% tax-exclusive, but for self-employment, which is double the amount of tax collected (15.3% tax-inclusive), the corresponsing tax-exclusive rate 18.1%. But because of how this percentage is calculated, the latter number (18.1%) is more than double the former (8.28%) even though the actual tax collected is exactly double.
Now that is confusing.
Other than that, your html looks good.
It is surely different to have a tax inclusive tax on a traditionally tax-exclusive receipt. It would be stupid to not recognize this. But different doesn't mean deceptive except to people who want to make the nrst less desireable to learn about. Some people think that calling something a name will prevent others from forming their own opinions.
The good thing about FR is that folks here are not stupid. They know a name caller, agenda holder at first post.
This bears repeating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.