Posted on 01/19/2006 7:55:17 AM PST by Eaglewatcher
Well it only took the first line to get to the first lie. Greenspan supports a consumption-based tax like a VAT. Greenspan has never specifically stated he supported the fairtax.
Unfortunately, most Americans want an unfair tax that benefits them and hurts everyone else.
It will also eliminate the tax shelters that allow rich liberals like the Kennedys to pay practically no taxes.
Yawn. Monthly post.
If a fire has oxygen and fuel and heat then, by difinition it won't die. This fire doesn't have some crucial components, including the fact that it's NOT a good idea (see my previous responses).
Moderator - Can we have an option to automatically re-post my tomes on the problems w/ this idea if these people keep resposting to "keep the fires alive"?
It eliminates the ability of the government to control freedom of speech by tax exempt organizations such as churches.
That's because it taxes Churches and removes any deduction for contributions. A Church can opt for that today.
If it taxes them, it taxes only on items that are purchased. Currently tax exempt organizations are allowed to purchase items tax free at the state level and I don't see that [portion changing. A good portion of a church's budget is towards missions and salaries.
And under the fairtax, church's would have to pay a 30% tax on those salaries as the consumer.
If it taxes them, it taxes only on items that are purchased.If they sell cakes at a bake sale or have a bingo game they have to remit 23% of the gross.
Nope. Nothing at all in HR 25 that says anything even remotely like that.
http://thomas.loc.gov/ Search for HR 25
If a church has to resort to bake sales to fund their missions, they are in trouble anyway.
Actually it does. If the end consumer is the church, they must pay sales tax on the purchace of those services. Only if the church sells those services would there be no tax due. There would have to be an exemption in the bill to exclude churches from such a tax, and the bill contains no such exemption.
Show me.
`(a) In General- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
Unless there is some exception for churches, there is a tax. The chuch is the consumer, and since they are not a business passing the tax on to someone else, they are stuck with the tax bill.
If a church has to resort to bake sales to fund their missions, they are in trouble anyway.And if they have to remit 23% of their take it won't make it any better either, will it.
Here is what I found:
SEC. 706. NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
`(a) Not-For-Profit Organizations- Dues, contributions, and similar payments to qualified not-for-profit organizations shall not be considered gross payments for taxable property or services for purposes of this subtitle.
`(b) Definition- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified not-for-profit organization' means a not-for-profit organization organized and operated exclusively--
`(1) for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes;
`(2) as civic leagues or social welfare organizations;
`(3) as labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations;
`(4) as chambers of commerce, business leagues, or trade associations; or
`(5) as fraternal beneficiary societies, orders, or associations;
no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
`(c) Qualification Certificates- Upon application in a form prescribed by the Secretary, the sales tax administering authority shall provide qualification certificates to qualified not-for-profit organizations.
`(d) Taxable Transactions- If a qualified not-for-profit organization provides taxable property or services in connection with contributions, dues, or similar payments to the organization, then it shall be required to treat the provision of said taxable property or services as a purchase taxable pursuant to this subtitle at the fair market value of said taxable property or services.
`(e) Exemptions- Taxable property and services purchased by a qualified not-for-profit organization shall be eligible for the exemptions provided in section 102.
And in Section 2 of definitions we find:
`(12) TAXABLE EMPLOYER-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `taxable employer' includes--
`(i) any household employing domestic servants, and
`(ii) any government except for government enterprises (as defined in section 704).
`(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `taxable employer' does not include any employer which is--
`(i) engaged in a trade or business,
`(ii) a not-for-profit organization (as defined in section 706), or
`(iii) a government enterprise (as defined in section 704).
And further:
`(14) TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE-
`(A) GENERAL RULE- The term `taxable property or service' means--
`(i) any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property) but excluding--
`(I) intangible property, and
`(II) used property, and
`(ii) any service (including any financial intermediation services as determined by section 801).
`(B) SERVICE- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `service'--
`(i) shall include any service performed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary by a taxable employer, and
`(ii) shall not include any service performed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary--
`(I) by an employer in the regular course of the employer's trade or business,
`(II) by an employer that is a not-for-profit organization (as defined in section 706),
`(III) by an employer that is a government enterprise (as defined in section 704), and
`(IV) by taxable employers to employees directly providing education and training.
There is. A church is not a "Taxable employer" as defined in the code.
I don't read that in the bill. See my post above as it defines "Taxable employer", "taxable property or service", and "not-for-profit organizations".
Have read most of Linder's rather thick bill. Had several positive thoughts and several negative.
On the positive side, the fact that no tax will be paid on used items would be a tremendous benefit to recycling and saving of resources. A call to Linder's office assured that this even applied to used houses.
A second positive would be the guaranteed up front rebate of the tax up to the poverty level which would give some stability to the very poor.
On the negative side, what is to prevent the very wealthy Kennedys, Kerrys, etc. from taking their untaxed money out of the country and buying homes, cars, land, etc. overseas, thus not paying any tax. This could be fixed by having an export tax on money taken out of the country. For example 23% on any money exported over the poverty level.
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.