Replies

You raise valid points. However, I am reminded of the fellow who would hit himself in the head with a hammer because it felt so good when he stopped. I am also reminded of hazing where past sufferers are intent on imposing the same pain on the next group.

I don't intend that as insulting to those in the position you describe but to point out that the problem lies with politicians and the present system, not with the NRST.

The way the present system became 60,000+ pages is by politicians trying to address a myriad of problems caused by a dysfunctional tax system, a system that starts in the wrong place, on income. That is the case with most liberal ideas. They call it unintended consequences and instead of admitting error they keep jumping through hoops trying to defray bad consequences.

When you say that the government promised you that... I am reminded of the 80's real estate bust and the S&L crash. That happened because the government changed the rules in the middle of the game. What had been passed to give incentives to investment was suddenly reversed. Did the government lie? I guess they just changed their mind.

The recent Enron, Global Crossing, etc., scandals resulted from Congress, Chris Dodd was the instigator as I recall, changing the generally accepted accounting rules. This allowed the shenanigans which followed and those kinds of shenanigans were purposely encouraged.

How is this relevant? Who is to say that if we stay with the present system that Congress won't change its mind on Roth IRAs or anything else? If we keep a Republican majority it is less likely but we can't be sure of that. If the Democrats win we can be sure that all of Bush's tax cuts will be repealed and an additional increase is also likely. Will they honor their commitment to the Roths? I wouldn't bet on it. That sounds like a good place to eliminate "tax havens for the rich".

The whole point is why stay with a failed system based on a past government promise? As I said, you really won't be taxed any more when you spend your money than you are being taxed now. The only difference is it will be called a tax rather than hidden as a price.

If you start exempting Roth or any other taxed money you have opened the door to all kinds of emotional appeals for other exemptions and the whole deal is dead.

The NRST is a better deal for America and everyone in it and we should all support it.

Oh, I get it now. Pardon me for being such a dunce.

Because, "the NRST is a better deal for America and everyone in it and we should all support it," I'm supposed to just bend over and take this abuse? I don't think so.

As I wrote earlier, I am firmly in favor of the NRST. But I feel a few expiring accommodations are in order. In fact I believe there are some in this plan.

For example, I was listening to Neal's radio program one day while driving in heavy traffic. I was concentrating on driving and couldn't listen closely to his program. I'm sorry I can't be more specific about this, but... There was a caller that owned a business and there was some obscure situation with his inventory that he explained. I don't remember the details but Neal said that there would be an exemption until he worked his way through the inventory. I remember thinking to myself, this exemption is being made to make the plan more palatable to this guy and others in his situation.

If this business man is going to receive a temporary exemption then there must be a way for him to report a beginning balance to determine the size of the exemption.

Going back to the Roth IRA idea, why couldn't a beginning balance be reported and then I receive a temporary exemption from the NRST on that amount? To keep it simple, this exemption could come in the form a lump sum payment that could be included in the monthly prebate check. Or for more flexibility, maybe a series of monthly payments.

There are many, many people in our country that have a bunch of money invested in Roth IRAs. Simply because of the tax advantage. If the pols want their support they'd best figure a way around this situation.

The NRST has many heavyweight enemies in the financial industry. Overcoming their objections is going to be a very steep uphill battle. IMHO, this may be the biggest political battle this country has ever seen. And you best believe the NRST opponents will be using this Roth IRA situation to their advantage.

I think we can win. But unfortunately, the days of folks having blind allegiance are long gone. These questions about the NRST need to be answered honestly, fairly and loudly or the NRST will never succeed.