And on taxing state and local government expenditures
As such are taxed now, as a consequence of states purchasing goods and services in which federal income/payroll taxes are now embedded to the tune of 20-25% of prices.
(which may be unconstitutional),
The specific issue is addressed here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3971d4b96c73.htm
As well as keeping in mind, the mere insinuation of ones opinion does not make for unconstitutionality as regards a court challenge of a statute, especially as regards the federal authority to tax commercial activity, (i.e. sales) with a general tax paid by all, as opposed to the direct taxation of a state government agency or the state itself by the federal government:
FLETCHER v. PECK, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)
"The question, whether a law be void for its repugnancy to the constitution, is, at all times, a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative, in a doubtful case. The court, when impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station, could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes. But it is not on slight implication and vague conjecture that the legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and its acts to be considered as void. The opposition between the constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other."
who pays for that (state would have paid ~$360 billion in 2001)? We do.
Yep just as we do now. 20-25% worth of federal imposed tax burden in everything that state and federal govenment purchases today. Only problem is the bill is hidden from the view of the electorate. So it just keeps growing as government keeps growing. Out of sight Out of mind, is the rule of government hiding the costs of its excess.
There will be "embedded federal taxes" in our state and local taxes
Nothing new in that.
just like there are "embedded taxes" in the products we currently buy.
Which the NRST would make visible to the citizen/voter to get angry and government about.
It's a shell game.
It is a multi pathed economy that loops through government, the citizen, and consumption, Dollars are fungible and flow throughout those loops focusing through consumption.
The NRST makes tax dollars VISIBLE to the electorate where they can experience and hold representatives accountable out of knowledge instead of ignorance of the costs they bear as a consequence of federal largess.
The first step to putting the Federal monster on a diet, and decreasing the size of government is for the people of the United States to preceive the cost of the government, personally in open view.
As long as a substantial proportion of the people continue to believe some guy behind the tree or mean old corporations pay the bill, what do they care about the extravegance or growth of government.
Those that do not perceive paying the bill, for their freebees are a readymade constituency for more government spending and bigger government.
Time to remove the government imposed horseblinders and quit playing the ostrich.
Ostriches may be a somewhat successful species by making themselves look like a bush or tree hiding their head in the sand and not see the lion. Unfortunately low flying buzzards roost in trees and sh't all overthem.
With the NRST, both the expenditure and the revenue it creates is on budget.Expenditures will go up the exact amount of the revenue created (actually, a little less revenue after the tax collection fees are removed).
LOL, lets see because tax revenues are visible, the budget naturally requires that the all revenue be spent rather than decrease the tax rate.
Unlike today where tax revenues are visible, and the budget continues to grow even faster with demands for higher taxes on businesses and the "rich" where the voter doesn't need see it.
It's like me giving myself a loan and counting it as income.
And this is something new for govenment? In fact government actually does create itself loans on itself it can spend can spend Social Security & Mediscare taxes it receives immediately.
Lock boxes and TrustFunds indeed ROTFLM(|)O!!!.
All they are, are calls for future tax hikes, to fund future layouts for SS/Medicare out of future general revenues collected.
HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
- Title VIII(Social Security Act), as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an 'income tax on employees,' and 'an excise tax on employers.' The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. Section 801 [26 USC 3101]. The excise tax on the employer [26 USC 3111] is to be paid 'with respect to having individuals in his employ,' and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages.
- . The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way. Section 807(a)[26 USC 3501]. There are penalties for nonpayment. Section 807(c), [26 USC 7203].
CRS Report for Congress (98-422 EPW)
Social Security: and the Federal Budget:"Its taxes like all other federal funds flow into the U.S. Treasury and its benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury."
"Taking the Social Security trust funds "off budget" has not changed how Social Security funds are handled. They are treated the same way today as they were in 1937 when Social Security taxes were first levied -- the tax receipts flow into the U.S. Treasury and benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect the receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury. "
"While the trust funds have an important role in monitoring the finances of the program and maintaining its fiscal discipline, they are basically accounting devices. The federal securities they hold are not assets for the government. When an individual buys a government bond, he or she has established a claim against the government. When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against some other entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another. It certainly establishes legal claims against the government for the Social Security system (i.e., it is a legal form of indebtedness of the government and does count as part of the federal debt; see Table 3 on the next page), but the system is part of the government. Those claims are not resources the government has at its disposal to pay for future Social Security claims. Simply put, the trust funds do not reflect an independent store of money for the program or the government, and taking Social Security "off budget" did not change this. "