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.

THE TAX DEBATE. TRUE FLAT Vs CURRENT Vs NRST -#3

Government Extended News Free Republic
Source: My Puter
Published: 8/15/2000 Author: Me
Posted on 08/15/2000 08:09:16 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park

TAXES DEBATE

THE BENEFITS OF A TRUE FLAT TAX OVER TODAY’S CORRUPTED TAX SYSTEM

Under the present income tax system, people are said to pay up to 32% of their “income” to the federal government for income taxes. They are said to pay additional taxes that takes the effective “income tax” up to 50% and even higher. With many though, especially those with the highest of “incomes”, deductions and/or exemptions make a mockery of even the “graduated” income tax. For instance, the President who made 250,000 dollars in his first year of the presidency paid between 25 and 26 thousand for his “income tax”, which works out to be about 10% despite the fact that he was in the 32% federal tax bracket. {WHAT did he deduct?} While at the same time, people who were not able or inclined to take deductions and/or exemptions, paid the full percentage mandated for their taxes.

The Present system punishes those who work hard to make more money, through the “progressive” aspect of the code. The code also allows for great abuse by hiding social agendas in the tax system itself with deductions and/or exemptions, that also allow for politicians to be able to buy votes by giving certain groupd tax breaks or preferrential treatment hidden i within the tax code.

The lowest percentage paid is I think{?} about 18% for people at the bottom of the income scale. Few if any deductions and/or exemptions {excepting children and wives or husbands} are available to these people due mostly to their inability to be able to afford the things necessary to trigger the deductions and/or exemptions.
------------------------------

A true flat tax with NO deductions and/or exemptions {except for the first ten thousand for each and every taxed entity} would lower the tax rate below the lowest percentage used in the lowest tax bite calculations. Lower paid workers would benefit more by this tax. Middle and Upper “class workers” would also benefit by this system. People who might {and that is an unlikely might} pay more, are those who have gigantic mortgages in comparison to their income, and have large deductions for mortgage interest payments. {this could be alleviated by a phase out of the mortgage deduction over say a twenty year period}. Those with a lot of investments and large incomes might have to pay more taxes if they had to pay the same percentage as everybody else. {This is I think{?} the real reason for the rabid opposition to such an equitable tax}. I also would tax every entity whether natural {man}, or godgov created and allowed {corporations and organizations} would pay the same percentage on their gross income. On the basis that individuals deserve the same representation as do godgov created corporate entities.
The arguement is that corporations will raise prices if they are “taxed twice” {I.Ee at the corporate level, AND the investment level}.

The flat tax that I propose would take three lines on a tax form {Plus an addition if involved in the interest deduction phase-in.}. I am led to understand that the percentage would be about 15% to run government including social security.

=========================
Line (1); Gross income without deductions and/or exemptions
Line (2); Percentage to be multiplied by line one.
Line (3); Amount of tax due government
Line (4); If necessary, phased in interest tax deduction to be subtracted
=========================

This would put a BUNCH of high dollar people out of work due to it’s simplicity. Another of the rabid opposition groups. Well funded too.
Another aspect of this tax, would be that “nonprofit organizations” would not be recognized. There is actually no such thing. Organizations either make enough money to pay their help, or they fold.
The idea though that all of the people who have high incomes either through hard work, or investment income having to pay the same percentage is one of the most important aspects of this tax code. Everybody would have the same incentive to keep the tax percentage bite as low as possible, and the people who have the resources and the time to pay attention would especially want to keep the percentage down.
Dick Armey’s “flat” tax retains many of the preferrential treatment aspects and thus the bribery aspect of the system today.

The true flat tax would allow for movement up the economic ladder through hard work, paying close attention, or even being in the right place at the right time {luck}, or down the economic ladder through the opposite actions {or bad luck} equally. Competition would prevail economically on an individual’s or corporation’s incentive to excell, or stagnate.
-----------------------------------

The difference between the NRST and today’s code

Today’s tax code concentrates the onus on the “middle” class working man. While Democrats fight to give special benefit to the poor and newly created {by Democrats} poor, Republicans fight to give to the “upper” classes, and newly created {by the Republicans} “upper” classes.

The NRST also focuses the onus of the tax bite upon the “middle” class while giving benefit to the poor, and giving great favor to the wealthy and their money handlers.

Example, Ross Perot is said to have an “income” of 60 million dollars a year. Supposing Ross pays ten million dollars for sales taxable service and goods to get by for the year. This gives Ross 50 million dollars as “disposable” income that can forever be “invested” {as long as it is in godgov approved “instruments” and accumulate untaxed income. This will happen EVERY year tax free forever. Every years “disposable” income will do the same, and be added to the untaxed income accumulating in Ross’ portfolio. ALL super wealthy people will have this preference over current tax policy {code}.
Ross will pay a yearly National Retail Sales Tax only on the 10 million that he spends for necessities. Maybe $2,300.

In our current corrupted tax code, Ross makes that 60 million dollars and pays {due to deductions and/or exemptions} about 7.5 million in taxes even though he is in the 32% tax bracket {the highest}.

Under “my” Proposed tax code, Ross would pay the same percentage as every single individual taxable entity. Approximately 15% on sixty million minus the 10 thousand deduction due every taxable entity, which would equal $8,998,500, and still have 51 million to play with, and make his own decisions on rather than having to invest his 60 million in godgov approved instruments in order to prove his sales tax bite. Either way, Ross’ money handlers will do extremely well moving his funds around at a “nominal” fee. But, with the NRST, the 60 million plus interest or return on investment that becomes “disposable” income every year will especially please his money handlers.

A person making 100 thousand yearly would pay 15 percent of ninety thousand ($13,500} under “my” tax code. And with the NRST whatever was left over after his “disposable” income had been separated. The money handlers would also have an appreciation of this guy too, but not as much as ol’ Ross.

A person making 20 thousand dollars a year would pay the 15% on 10,000, or $1,500 with “my” tax code, and about $2,300 or maybe a little better with the NRST.a And the money handlers would have little regard for these guys either.

In both Dick Armey’s “flat” tax and the NRST, the wealthy and the truly rich and their money handlers would have LITTLE interest in keeping the tax percentage low, when compared to the guys making $100,000 and $20,000 a year. And, it IS the wealthy and the rich and their money handlers who have a LOT to say and influence when it comes to tax rates.

Congress critters who set the tax rates have little or NO interest in keeping the tax rate down, because they give themselves raises as “necessary”. The wealthy and their money handlers have MUCH influence when it comes to keeping congress in check.

Now, These figures are off the top of my head from former numbers I have seen and/or heard. But, they are “fairly” calculated. I would appreciate any factual information that will change the figures. But anybody who thinks they are “anti-corporation”, or “communist” are silly in the extreme. And, folks who would sell that idea, can kiss my ass. Peace and love, George.

All, Above is the second thread discussing taxes. Does ANYBODY know how I can come up with gross income before "adjustments" for deductions and/or exemptions??? Us boneheads could use the help. Peace and love, George.

OH yeh. GO PAT GO!!! AND EZOLA TOO!!

1 Posted on 08/15/2000 08:09:16 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]

Taxing Times: sales "gross payment" tax questions that need answering.

2 Posted on 08/15/2000 08:42:16 PDT by lewislynn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

The income tax may be your friend George, it's certainly not mine. I note that Karl Marx, the communists, and socialists are all rather fond of it as well.

One should never forget the philosophical core and soulmate of the income tax, which can be found here: Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. Among their recommendations are these:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

The Original Intent of the "Income Tax"

"TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE
-by Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York & advisor to FDR on taxation.
January 1946 issue of "American Affairs"

"The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government's power to tax business. Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority. Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases.

There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed --- nor should it. The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?"

"What Taxes Are Really For
Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:

1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;

2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;

3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;

4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.

In the recent past, we have used our federal tax program consciously for each of these purposes. In serving these purposes, the tax program is a means to an end. The purposes themselves are matters of basic national policy which should be established, in the first instance, independently of any national tax program."

"These questions are not tax questions; they are questions as to the kind of country we want and the kind of life we want to lead. The tax program should be a means to an agreed end. The tax program should be devised as an instrument, and it should be judged by how well it serves its purpose."

"To Distribute the Wealth
The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax."

"PEACE AND LOVE" George? (of the grave maybe)

YOU sir, are certainly no friend of mine!

3 Posted on 08/15/2000 08:48:58 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

My" tax has only three lines with possibly two extra to phase in interest deduction removal.

Does ANYBODY know how I can come up with gross income before "adjustments" for deductions and/or exemptions??? Us boneheads could use the help.

Sure do George!

Double, even Triple taxation in some cases, because; Remember, You have stated a flat income tax, no deductions, no exemptions, no exceptions; the "accumulated income" of "all entities" will be taxed.

Gross Revenues, that's your definition of Income George.

How do I figure it to pay a tax on it from my business under you income tax system?

• I pay taxes on debt owed to me, that hasn't been paid yet

• I pay taxes on the costs of doing business from which I earn my personal income. I do take all profit from my business you know!

• You tax me on debt owed to me before those who owe that debt pay me.

• If the debt is uncollectable, the one who unable to pay me gets taxed for the income received in not being able to pay that debt, under penalty of hanging by your own words.

• You tax my business for the wage I pay my employee's as well as the income to myself.

• Then you tax those, individuals again for the same money as their income.

How much will it cost me to defend myself from your accusations of not having paid enough taxes, or declaring all my "income", which you have yet to completely define for me so I can figure out just what I do own in your tax system. Remember, you are holding a hangman's noose over my head if I don't guess right!

Appears to me you want to tax me twice, first for any income I make then when I take some of that and put it back into my business to provide the necessary liquid assets to operate my business you want to tax it again as income to the business, nor do you intend to allow me to deduct from my sale price of my product the amount of costs of producing my product including wages to my employees.

You are going to tax my business for the wage I pay my employee's as well as the income to myself? And the tax those, individuals again for the same money as their income?

Double, Triple taxation in some cases because; Remember, You have stated a flat income tax, no deductions, no exemptions, no exceptions; the "accumulated income" of "all entities" will be taxed.

4 Posted on 08/15/2000 09:04:12 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

This Study is describing the effects of YOUR Flat Income Tax, GEORGE!!!

http://www.cac.psu.edu/ur/archives/BUSINESS/flattax.html

• "A 'true' flat tax would eliminate all exclusions, deductions, exemptions, and credits,"

• "A 'true' flat tax would transfer substantial taxes from the rich to the poor."

• This "true" flat tax would likely hurt low-income families, provide tax relief for high-income families, and divide middle-income families equally between gainers and losers.

• "Under a 'true' flat tax of this sort, more families in the top group of income earners would profit from a lower tax rate than would suffer from the loss of loopholes,"

• The researchers' flat tax models eliminated tax free income, deductions, and credits and replaced multiple rates with a single rate.

• a "true" flat tax would eliminate every loophole for taxpayers, including the cherished personal exemption. The tax liability would then be computed by applying a low unitary tax rate to the complete income base for all individuals.

Meaning, poor people pay more in taxes, Rich people pay less in taxes than they do under the current system or under the Armey/Forbes et.al. Flat Tax.

A conservative estimate of tax paid on all reported family income is in the tax table below, it is actually lower than the Real Federal Tax burden we are actually saddled with more than the 24.2% representing the Federal tax paid on the total income of an average family.

What happens to the poor now paying 4.6% under current tax system,less than that under a Forbes flat tax, when they pay the same rate 24.2% as the average family under YOUR Tax.

What happens to the rich now paying more than 29.1% under current tax system,less than that under a Forbes flat tax, when they pay the same rate 24.2% as the average family under YOUR Tax.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0:

And that table does not even include the effects of the gift and estate taxes, nor the costs of tax compliance forced on us all through higher prices for goods and services. Thus grossly understates the true rate of tax burden on reported income.

Tell us what is your definition of income for a business George, their entire selling price of the product they provide so you can get rid of the tax accountant and lawyers necessary to figure out what income is to pay tax on?

http://www.losaltosonline.com/latc/arch/9528/TC63_-_flat_tax.html

"In a book titled "Costly Returns," economist James Payne estimates the nation's bill(1995) for tax record-keeping, audits, filing tax attorneys and accountants totals an astonishing $593 billion. To put it another way, that's more than twice as much as last year's entire defense budget and $240 billion more than all 1996 Social Security outlays."

That means those rates should be more than 1.3 times higher than expressed in the table George, to show the True burden of your INCOME TAX.

Or are you just going to keep the IRS around to make sure:

I will say again, the most equitable form of taxation would be a flat tax based on income from whatever source derived. And HANG ANYBODY that messed up those three lines or tried to get out of paying their "share" of running this country.

Perhaps, I should make a posting to that effect. Peace and love, George.

114 Posted on 08/01/1999 17:39:00 PDT "

Thats the ol' "Peace and Love",( peace of the grave[they just can't "belong"], hang em all) George. we have come to know.

5 Posted on 08/15/2000 09:22:14 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

LL, Thanks for the link!! I see the same 5 -9 rabid NRSTers were the main detractors. Would you by any chance know where I could get the figures for total gross income before deductions and/or exemptions, or other "adjustments"? I haven't been able to get IRS to give up the number. I think too many of even them depend on the cloudiness of the tax code for a living. Peace and love, George.

6 Posted on 08/15/2000 11:42:15 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]

"Gross Revenues, that's your definition of Income "

AG, YEH!! That's what I want. Before "adjustments"! And your income could be figured JUST as it is today. Except, it wouldn't be necessary to go through the rings and hoops. Though you could if you still wanted. Where do I get the figure?? Peace and love, George.

7 Posted on 08/15/2000 11:46:24 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]

"Tell us what is your definition of income for a business George, their entire selling price of the product they provide so you can get rid of the tax accountant and lawyers necessary to figure out what income is to pay tax on?"

AG, YEH!! That's it! Of course you could keep them on retainer if you were really "loyal". Peace and love, George.

8 Posted on 08/15/2000 11:49:32 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]

"a "true" flat tax would eliminate every loophole for taxpayers, including the cherished personal exemption. The tax liability would then be computed by applying a low unitary tax rate to the complete income base for all individuals.

Meaning, poor people pay more in taxes, "

AG, We've gone through this before. But, I will repeat. This particular Author seems to be in favor of Marx's progressive tax code. The ten thousand dollars that "my" code would deduct would make up for all but large families who might have to get help elswhere. Take a look at the example above where I use Perot and the president. Both would pay more, but neither would be hurt except possibly their feelings. I'm still wondering what Clinton took as deductions and exemptions to get his tax bite down to aprox 10% from the 32% that was his progressive tax rate. As president, I can't imagine expenditures for life sustaining "necessities" doing that. Peace and love, George.

9 Posted on 08/15/2000 11:59:36 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]

This particular Author seems to be in favor of Marx's progressive tax code

Sorry George but that author, says no deductions, exemptions, or exceptions for anybody, rich or poor. Flat % with $0 exemption (and that works out to be 24.2%) under the current national budget as the CBO table of % federal taxes vs gross(total) income indicates.

You exempt the first $10,000 of each entities income which halves the tax base and would make your 1st bracket rate of your Income Tax 48% or higher.

Your Income Tax is even more progressive than the current one we are under.

"Gross Revenues, that's your definition of Income "

AG, YEH!! That's what I want. Before "adjustments"!

Tell me George, what happens when a businesses costs exceeds your $10,000 and only makes a $10K actual income after business expenses of $50K. Who pays for the the tax of ($60K-$10K)*.48 = $24K, he only has $10,000 from his business.

You going to hang him because he didn't make enough profit to pay your tax??

10 Posted on 08/15/2000 14:53:18 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ]

Would you by any chance know where I could get the figures for total gross income before deductions and/or exemptions, or other "adjustments"? I haven't been able to get IRS to give up the number.

Why go to the IRS, they would probably just lie to yah!! Afterall, lewislynn doesn't report his income to them, nor does taxtruth, jedi, norraad ... they don't believe they owe income taxes cause they figure Income Taxes are unconstitutional and the 16th amendment wasn't ratified.

Course, your gonna hang them all, so you won't have to worry about their income being reported anyway.

Here's a larger number than the IRS will report as income and used by the Tax Foundation for calculating Tax Freedom Day;

How Tax Freedom Day is Computed
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

Tax Freedom Day, announced by the Tax Foundation each year for over 25 years, is used to illustrate the portion of the American budget that goes to pay for taxes. Once Tax Foundation economists project the nation’s effective tax rate, 33.8 percent[includes state, federal & local taxes but no cost of compliance] this year, it is applied to a calendar year to provide a graphic illustration of how long Americans work for government.

The income figure used in this formula is Net National Product (NNP), a component of the National Income Product Accounts (NIPA). Computed and compiled annually by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), NIPA data is the best measure of income available.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/dpga.txt
"109 ", 12,"Equals: Net national product ",
1999 = 8357.7 billion = National Income

Which is an accurate number as it goes, Unfortunately the actual taxbase you can collect an income tax from is somewhat smaller as you can expect have a bit of trouble getting taxes out of norraad, taxtruth, lewislynn; and other folks who tend not to tell the government what they do for a living or how much they get doing it. All of which cause the IRS's reported income numbers to be smaller and the tax rate calculations to be a bit higher for the rest of us.

Now for the Federal Spending Side:

Spending:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1999/guide/guide02.html#spending

As we have said, the Federal Government will spend over $1.7 trillion in 1999, which we divided into eight large categories as shown in Chart 2–6.

Note: In calculating Federal spending, the Government deducts collections (revenues) generated by the Government’s business-like activities, such as fees to national parks. These collections will total an estimated $210 billion in 1999. Without them, spending would total an estimated $1.9 trillion in 1999, not $1.7 trillion.

• 1999 National Expenditure(less fee financed expenditures) = 1733 billion
• 1999 Fee Financed Expenditures = 210 billion
• 1999 Total National Expenditure = 1943 billion

11 Posted on 08/15/2000 18:05:14 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]

Would you by any chance know where I could get the figures for total gross income before deductions and/or exemptions, or other "adjustments"?

George, I'm trying to figure out your real tax rate, but you have not told me who many "entities" you will be taxing, though you do say "all entities", need to subtract $10,000 for each "entity" from the 1999 NNP number of income ($8357.7 billion) so's we can calculate the lowest value the Bracket rate of your "Flat" income tax can take and support 1999 Federal Government obligations.

So how many entities qualify for your $10,000 exemption in your "Exemptionless" Income Tax.

12 Posted on 08/15/2000 18:23:46 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]

"Double, even Triple taxation in some cases, because; Remember, "

AG, Then 15% should be more than enough. Peace and love, George.

13 Posted on 08/16/2000 06:10:34 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]

'All, Above is the second thread discussing taxes. Does ANYBODY know how I can come up with gross income before "adjustments" for deductions and/or exemptions???'

NIPA publishes these numbers. In 1998 for instance, they showed the national income to be $7,036 Billion. $5,011 Billion was compensation & wages, $606 Billion was proprietor's income, $137 Billion for rental income, $846 Billion for coporate profits, and $436 Billion for interest.

14 Posted on 08/16/2000 06:25:47 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

" You exempt the first $10,000 of each entities income which halves the tax base "

AG, This does not halve "my" flat tax. Though, according to the NRSTers, it DOES halve their tax base. "My" flat tax is NOT "more progressive", it merely removes deductions and exemptions that make a farce of the current "progressive" income tax. And taxes everybody at the same rate based in their income from whatever source derived. "Projected" numbers, as "in today's money" don't mean much if anything to those of us who pay today's prices and yesterday's prices out of pocket. Peace and love, George.

15 Posted on 08/16/2000 06:27:58 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | Top | Last ]

Double and triple taxation is okay in your book?

MARXIST!

WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST THE IRS or Georgie for that matter!

16 Posted on 08/16/2000 06:28:12 PDT by CHIEF negotiator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]

AG, The amount of the national yearly expenditures divided by the gross income before adjustments will give us the percentage needed for the tax rate to be. If we give the $10,000 deduction to each taxable entity, we will have to know the number of heads {NRSTers tax base} of natural entities {man}, and the number of godgov created entities {Corporations and/or organizations} to add them together and multiply times $10,000 to subtract from the gross income from whatever source derived before "adjustments" before we divide yearly ependitures by gross income before "adjustments". We still need the number for total national gross income before "adjustments", and for the exemption, the number of taxable "heads" Including godgov created corporations and organizations. Peace and love, George.

17 Posted on 08/16/2000 06:44:22 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]

" So how many entities qualify for your $10,000 exemption in your "Exemptionless" Income Tax."

AG, Each and every one of them. Regardless of income before "adjustments". Unless you would go along with no exemptions a'tall. Works for me. Peace and love, George.

18 Posted on 08/16/2000 06:47:19 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]

"Double and triple taxation is okay in your book?
MARXIST!"

Chief, NO! Monarchist tyrant! Peace and love, George.

19 Posted on 08/16/2000 07:08:32 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | Top | Last ]

"In 1998 for instance, they showed the national income to be $7,036 Billion. "

AR, Do you have a URL for that? Government must have a MAJOR revenue source other than income taxes if the yearly budget was over 1.5 trillion, and we "had a surplus!" and "no deficit!". Looks like typical government lieing figures to me. Peace and love, George.

20 Posted on 08/16/2000 07:13:58 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | Top | Last ]

George I Know all entities, that is what you said, I don't know what you count as entities?

Individuals, and each association of individuals.

Does each member of a household count as an entity?, is each household another entity?, is each business comprised of individuals an entity?, is each corporation comprised of stockholders an entity?, is the government an entity?.

I asked you to give me a definition of entity and a number so I can apply it.

21 Posted on 08/16/2000 07:18:33 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | Top | Last ]

try browsing around http://www.bea.doc.gov/

22 Posted on 08/16/2000 07:27:52 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | Top | Last ]

George you have your numbers for 1999, justification for using them and links to them in post #11, if that isn't sufficient. FIND YOUR OWN DAMNED NUMBERS.

With $0 exemption, assuming everyone will report their income, including tax protestors, criminals, and kids mowing lawns.

Your True Flat Tax Rate with $0 exemption to pay the entire $1.9Trillion of government expense is 22.76%.

If you want figure in $10,000 expemption, and refigure how much higher the rate will be, That is your problem. You refuse to tell us what you define to be as a taxable entity for inclusion in the calculation.

23 Posted on 08/16/2000 07:31:19 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | Top | Last ]

Maybe now

25 Posted on 08/16/2000 07:34:23 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]

'Government must have a MAJOR revenue source other than income taxes if the yearly budget was over 1.5 trillion, and we "had a surplus!" and "no deficit!".'

Federal Taxes---------------1998---------------1999

Total-----------------------$1,750.7-----------$1,770.3

Income-----------------------$835.7-------------$847.3
Corporate Taxes------------$179.9-------------$183.2
Federal Reserve Banks------$26.6--------------$26.7
Exsice Taxes------------------$62.9--------------$63.1
Custom Duties----------------$19.6--------------$19.9
Social Insurance------------$611.2-------------$615.4
Others-------------------------$14.8--------------$14.7

26 Posted on 08/16/2000 07:36:43 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | Top | Last ]

try browsing around http://www.bea.doc.gov/

AR, I given george that link even to the table to use, as well as the number.

George doesn't trust godgov numbers, nor anyone elses for that matter.

Don't ask how he's going to come up with his tax rate. I assume it to be 0% myself as I won't be reporting income to his government or paying it.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/dpga.txt
"109 ", 12,"Equals: Net national product ",
1999 = 8357.7 billion = National Income

27 Posted on 08/16/2000 07:41:18 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | Top | Last ]

AG, THANKS! I think{?} you saved me about a weeks worth of looking through stuff that don't mean nuthin'. I read and absorb SLOOOW. Peace and love, George.

28 Posted on 08/16/2000 08:01:20 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | Top | Last ]

we will have to know the number of heads {NRSTers tax base}

The taxbase of the NRST is $265million, the population of the united states. Any individual capable of paying a nickel for a candybar in a grocery store.

To make it easy and a conservative (low) number for the bracket rate, we'll make corporations and businesses pay taxes on ALL income. Don't give em any breaks.

following your instructions: "add them together and multiply times $10,000"

(256,000,000+0) * $10,000 = $2560billion

We know we have:

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/dpga.txt
"109 ", 12,"Equals: Net national product ",
1999 = $8357.7 billion = National Income

So again following your instructions:

subtract from the gross income from whatever source derived before "adjustments"

$8357.7billion-$2650.0billion = $5787.7billion income(less $10K exemptions)

Spending:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1999/guide/guide02.html#spending

"As we have said, the Federal Government will spend over $1.7 trillion in 1999, which we divided into eight large categories as shown in Chart 2–6.

Note: In calculating Federal spending, the Government deducts collections (revenues) generated by the Government’s business-like activities, such as fees to national parks. These collections will total an estimated $210 billion in 1999. Without them, spending would total an estimated $1.9 trillion in 1999, not $1.7 trillion. "

• 1999 National Expenditure(less fee financed expenditures) = $1733 billion
• 1999 Fee Financed Expenditures = $210 billion
• 1999 Total National Expenditure = $1943 billion

We will pick the $1733billion value quoted as expenditure. Leaving $210 billion in Federal expenditures financed usage fees in place, to keep the tax rate as low as possible.

Again following your instructions:

"we divide yearly expenditures by gross income before "adjustments"(less the $10K exemptions)

100*$1733 / $5787.7 >= 29.994% bracket rate, with $10,000 entity exemption.

Now if you want to come up with the number number of godgov created entities {Corporations and/or organizations} qualifying for the $10K exemption we can calculate the even higher rate.

I presume you consider an organization as being any for profit entity >= 2 persons in size. There are at least 116million entities meeting the general definition of godgov certified and approved, for profit(income earning), organizations and associations according to Congressional Budget Office numbers and the IRS.

That would work out to be another $1160 billion to be substracted from the income base number of $5787.7. If you want to recalculate your real tax bracket rate as you have defined it, go for it.

29 Posted on 08/16/2000 08:29:43 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | Top | Last ]

I see the same 5 -9 rabid NRSTers were the main detractors.

Rabid? What was rabid about my thorough addressing of the author's concerns? (Ok, so maybe I should have proofread it better, but the content is the important part...)

The only rabid posts on that thread were the normal misinformation from Lewis and a few other anti-NRSTers who believe themselves to be well-informed while showing thaty have little to no understanding of the issue.

I guess "rabid" in your book means "well-researched and thorough"?

30 Posted on 08/16/2000 08:45:02 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]

AG, Each and every one of them. Regardless of income before "adjustments". Unless you would go along with no exemptions a'tall. Works for me. Peace and love, George.

It's your tax george, you are defining it.

At $0 exemption the rate is at least 22.76% assuming you can track down every kid mowing lawns, tax protester hiding out, drug pusher not reporting his sideline/hobby revenues.

At $10k exemption for human beings only, other godgov certified income producing entities have $0 exemption the rate is at least: 29.994%

If you provide $10k exemption to All enties, human and godgov certified income earning entities, the rate is at least 37.448%. (assuming you can track down every kid mowing lawns, tax protester hiding out, drug pusher, robber, prostitute, joe sixpack, not reporting his sideline/hobby revenues.)

You adjust the taxbase for unreported revenues of the kid mowing lawns, tax protester hiding out, drug pusher, robber, prostitute, joe sixpack, not reporting his sideline/hobby revenues and your rate pushes the 48% I told you about.

Ahhhh! What happend to your 15% George???

AG, Then 15% should be more than enough. Peace and love, George.

31 Posted on 08/16/2000 08:45:09 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]

Has the (((((lightbulb))))) come on yet?

32 Posted on 08/16/2000 09:01:47 PDT by CHIEF negotiator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]

Don't forget that since George's definition of "income" is revenue, that all sales are taxed at whatever rate (37+% or more), meaning that it is a VAT that cascades through all levels of production. Additionally, the VAT and the item are both paid for with income that has also been taxed at the same rate, for all income over his $10K exemption (in his "no exemptions" tax).

That's obviously so much better than a single-stage, single rate retail sales tax at 23%.</sarcasm>

33 Posted on 08/16/2000 09:05:38 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | Top | Last ]

Now that we have covered the Federal side of taxes, what do you intend to do about STATE taxes on top of that, You don't even exempt taxation of those state taxes by the Federal government in violation of the Constitution. Not even the present government does that(you can deduct your state taxes you know.)

34 Posted on 08/16/2000 09:08:48 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]

At $0 exemption the rate is at least 22.76% assuming you can track down every kid mowing lawns, tax protester hiding out, drug pusher, robber, prostitute, joe sixpack, not reporting his sideline/hobby revenues

Since the NRST is collected from said unsavory characters when they purchase goodies from their favorite K-Mart; And it is well established from the BEA statistics that less than 5% of income is saved and not spent on consumption. Adjusting that 22.76%*1.05=23.9% we note a strange correlation with the 23% of the NRST.

Note the NRST does not try to replace all Federal taxes, only 95% of them(excise taxes are not removed under HR2525) and it does not fund $8billion of the IRS expenditure. Thus the 22.76% is very close to the NRST 23% tax rate necessary for revenue neutrality with the current budget.

35 Posted on 08/16/2000 09:33:59 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]

"THE TAX DEBATE. TRUE FLAT Vs CURRENT Vs NRST -#3 "

The real tax debate, the one the government shills pushing the NRST don't want you to think about, is whether the income tax is legal in the first place, and should be scrapped WITHOUT replacing it with anything else!

Use your common sense, people. No normal, sane person likes a tax. Taxes are just part time slavery, in our case about 45% of your life is spent in slavery to this government. The only people who LIKE taxes work for that government, or are on welfare, lined up with the rest of the parasites to suck on your life's blood.

So when someone starts telling you what a wonderful thing this or that tax is, just imagine a giant leech, dressed in a cheap suit, with its suckers latched onto your throat for 5 months out of every year. Because that's what anyone who likes a tax is, a gigantic leech.

The real agenda of the NRST is an end run around the growing awareness that the income tax is illegal, because the 16th amendment that it is based on was NOT properly ratified. Secretary of State Philander Knox, one of the group of men that plotted to sell the United States into the clutches of the Federal Reserve, and coming to the end of his term of ofice anyway, appears to have pulled off one of the greatest swindles in history to enslave the people if this country to an income tax. The NRST folks are in a rush to switch the tax system to something NOt dependent on the 16th amendment before enough people realize what's going on and demand the income tax be repealed without replacing it with anything at all.

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series on the validity of the income tax.

By David Franke
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
July 9, 1999

WASHINGTON -- Evidence strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.

"If this evidence is true, the income tax is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," says Robert L. Schulz.

Schulz is head of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., a New York state-based organization that hosted a symposium in Washington last week on the topic, "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?" The foundation twice sent registered letters to President Clinton, Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, asking them to send representatives to the symposium who could explain the government's case for the legality of the income tax. They received no response, much less a speaker, but part of the conference was covered by C-SPAN and that resulted in hundreds of friendly responses from viewers.

A key speaker at the symposium was William J. Benson, author of a two-volume investigative report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment entitled "The Law That Never Was."

Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get his case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount," he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.

What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax -- the granddaddy of the state income taxes -- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.

That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.

In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."

All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.

The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here's the story:

Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.

Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.

Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.

Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.

And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.

Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Suppress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."

Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.

"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."

And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.

"I now have to use a cane and walker, and often a wheelchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."

An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeopardy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.

This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.

The latest chapter in Benson's saga is the counterattack.

"As soon as I get back to Illinois I'm suing them -- every one of them," Benson told WorldNetDaily -- and he started listing them: four U.S. attorneys, a first assistant U.S. attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. All except the judge, that is. "I could sue the judge -- no question -- but I'm not going to do that," Benson added.

"Fear is the worst thing you face," said Benson of his prison experiences. And now it's time for the prosecutors who were his persecutors to be afraid.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Editor's note: This is the second of a two-part series on the validity of the income tax.

By David Franke
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
July 13, 1999

WASHINGTON -- What should you do when your government oppresses you with illegal laws, illegally confiscates your money and property, and refuses to even justify its actions to you?

That was the dilemma facing the Founding Fathers, of course, and it was the dilemma facing a roomful of income tax protesters meeting last week in the nation's capital. The symposium was called by the We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., to discuss the topic "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?"

Friday's article in WorldNetDaily featured William J. Benson's research on the ratification -- "fraudulent," he says -- of the 16th Amendment, which established the income tax. Other speakers at the symposium included Joseph R. Banister, the former investigator and gunslinger for the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS who looked into the arguments of income tax protestors and decided they were right.

Originally the foundation had hoped to have an academic-type format, with arguments and counter-arguments presented on both sides of the issue. "The foundation itself has not taken a position on the legality of the income tax," explained We the People's Robert L. Schulz.

There was just one problem: Nobody in the federal government would send an authority to present the government's case -- if it has one -- for the legality of the income tax. Not the IRS, not President Clinton, not Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, not House Speaker Dennis Hastert. They all refused even to respond to their certified, registered and very respectful invitations to send representatives to the symposium.

"I consider this very newsworthy that they (the IRS) didn't show up," Banister said to the audience. "I somehow found my way from California to this meeting. They're two blocks away and couldn't spare one prosecutor. Is it that the IRS and the Treasury Department still don't have enough people to spare one for a couple of hours?"

"They're one short," shouted a member of the audience.

But Banister could not have been too surprised by the IRS's refusal to talk. The IRS treated him the same way when it was his employer. He had respectfully written to his superiors, explaining that he was concerned about some of the arguments and documentation he had received from opponents of the income tax, and might have to resign if he could not answer those arguments to his satisfaction. He asked for a meeting. Instead his firearm was taken from him, he was placed on administrative leave, and he received a written reply stating that "there is no reason to have a meeting. This will be the last time we will reply to your request." Then he learned from an office memo that his "voluntary resignation" had been accepted.

"Voluntary" -- there was that word again.

The IRS-maintained fiction that the income tax is "voluntary" was raised by a number of the speakers. Banister quoted former FBI Director William H. Webster's April 1999 review of the IRS's Criminal Investigation Division: "CID is staffed with approximately three thousand special agents for the purpose of influencing millions of taxpayers to voluntarily comply with their taxpaying obligations" [emphasis added].

"An IRS special agent," said Banister, who had been one, "is given firearms, pepper spray, and handcuffs. Why would that be necessary if payment is voluntary? Yet three IRS commissioners have stated that the tax system is based on 'voluntary compliance.'"

"One can plainly see there is more to the repeated use of the word 'voluntary' than the IRS wants to admit," Banister added.

"What we've got on our hands here," said Denver-based tax consultant William T. Conklin, "is an Orwellian situation where they say this is voluntary, but we'll prosecute you if you don't volunteer."

He received his first IRS audit notice, Conklin told the audience, three days after he wrote an anti-IRS article for a Denver newspaper. "I realized right then there was a huge problem," he said, "and that became my passion and my life's work."

So, back to the original question: What to do? Benson suggests widespread use of "jury nullification" to defeat tax prosecutions, while Conklin specializes in a Fifth Amendment defense against the income tax.

Variations of "write your congressman" would seem to be hopeless when only one member of Congress (Ohio's maverick Democratic, Rep. James Traficant) even responded to the seminar's sponsors. Still, We the People's Bob Schulz favors starting with that approach.

"I will recommend that our foundation's board urge Congress to hold hearings on this issue," Schulz told WorldNetDaily. "Congress could subpoena the IRS commissioner. After all, they are the people's representatives and that's the way the system is designed to work."

Assuming that doesn't work, though, Schulz feels the anti-IRS movement "should also try to get relief through the legal process. We could try the approach Vietnam veterans took with the Agent Orange issue. Hundreds of them filed individual lawsuits, which were then consolidated and heard by the D.C. circuit court. They eventually won in the Supreme Court."

"We should also consider taking a page out of Mahatma Gandhi's book," Schulz continued, referring to the Hindu nationalist leader in India. "He said it was necessary to have a militant, non-violent, mass movement -- and if any of those three elements are missing, you will fail. Martin Luther King wrote about that formula and employed it as well. Hopefully it will never come to this, but we too may have to consider some civil disobedience of this sort."
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]

An action career with the IRS?

Joe Banister

IRS special agent challenges system Agency illegitimate, tax law non-existent, he says

IRS special agent is right, says CPA - "We need to take next step"

Exposing the IRS fraud

The truth about the IRS

Clinton IRS abuse worse than Nixon ? - Watergate counsel says president's use of audits an impeachable offense

36 Posted on 08/16/2000 09:54:26 PDT by Michael Rivero
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

How many times do you have to be told -- the 16th Amendment is irrelevant in regards to income taxes. There were income taxes prior to the 16th Amendment, and the Supreme Court has held that the inomce tax is actually an exise tax (ancient_geezer can provide references).

37 Posted on 08/16/2000 10:02:47 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | Top | Last ]

"How many times do you have to be told -- the 16th Amendment is irrelevant in regards to income taxes. There were income taxes prior to the 16th Amendment, and the Supreme Court has held that the inomce tax is actually an exise tax (ancient_geezer can provide references)."

If the 16th amendment was not relevent to the income tax, why was it even passed by Congress?

The income taxes that existed prior to the passage of the 16th amendment were eventually all ruled unconstitutional. That's why at the time the 16th amendment was passed, there WAS no income tax.

Ancient Geezer is clearly pro-tax, and that right there tells us all who he works for.

The bottom line is that we are all over-taxed as it is and unless the American people find the gonads to do something about it, the sitation will only get worse.

38 Posted on 08/16/2000 10:13:07 PDT by Michael Rivero
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | Top | Last ]

Michael, the income tax isn't going to go anywhere without some form of replacement. Until there is a replacement of some form that eliminates the hidden, multiple, and cascading taxes, there will be no popular support for a significant reduction in the size of government, because the vast majority of the public has no idea what the real burden is.

The income tax is heinous for many reasons (especially in the abuse of personal liberty), but what keeps it alive is the fact that it does such an amazingly good job at hiding the real tax burden from those who are paying it. The main reason I support the NRST apart from the fact that I don't want a government agency prying into my personal finances is that it makes these taxes explicit. That will be the catalyst for change. Incrementalism got us a huge government -- we're not going to be able to tear it all down overnight. Let's take reasonable step toward that goal instead -- even if you did manage to get the income tax declared un-Constitutional, do you think that will change one thing in Washington? You'll see a properly ratified version of the 16th Amendment passed so fast your head would swim. And all the tax reform effort put into that would be wasted, leaving nothing for any true reform.

39 Posted on 08/16/2000 10:20:55 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | Top | Last ]

AG, THANKS! I think{?} you saved me about a weeks worth of looking through stuff that don't mean nuthin'. I read and absorb SLOOOW. Peace and love, George.

Now answer me George, why do you believe that evey man, woman and child in the United States should be required to report their business activities and finances to your Federal godgov to collect your tax:

At $0 exemption the rate has to be more than 22.76%"

When under the 23% NRST those folks don't bow down and report to your "godgov" with a gestop IRS, yet achieve the same and in fact better result for the economy; in more than 15% inceased standard of living; decreasing prices, and lower interest rates.

Under the NRST they have the Liberty to chose to invest or make true tithes and charity in God's name on behalf of the poor and needy instead of paying godgov taxes through consumption and worship of Mamon.

None of that can be realised under your system of the Mammon godgov you would have us all bowing and slaving to support under threat of force, with no deduction for charity, taxation on investment and saving, no relief to the poor($0 exemption to achieve 22.7% rate George) as well as unwarranted intrusion and violation of the 4th and 5th amendment protections that should be provide to all.

40 Posted on 08/16/2000 10:32:03 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]

"Michael, the income tax isn't going to go anywhere without some form of replacement. "

That is the big lie" right there, and the whole agenda of those who want to switch us from the income tax, based on the non-ratified 16th amendment, to an NRST which is on surer legal grounds.

It is quite possible to get rid of a tax without replacing it with anything. We did it in 1776, remember? If the amendment on which the income tax is based was not ratified in accordance with the Constitution, then the tax is illegal and needs to be repealed, and the people are not obligated to replace that tax.

It's amazing how proud you are to be a slave. When you were born, you were handed a bill for $60,000 in interest payments to the Federal Reserve. You never had a chance to vote on the law that resulted in that debt. You didn't borrow that money. You never had a choice whether to accept that debt or not. It was handed to you and you were told to pay it or else. Struggling through your life with a total tax burden of about 45% of everything that you do is not being a responsible citizen, it is being a sucker, a fool, and a slave. No normal human gets handed a bill for $60,000 in interest payments and told he has no choice but to pay it and likes that. Anyone who thinks this is a good system is either a government plant or should not be allowed to use heavy machinery.

As for your claim that there were income taxes prior to the 16th amendment, I repeat, they were all eve tually ruled unconstitutional. Here is a little history on the 16th amendment.

The History of the 16th

Amendment

by W. Cleon Skousen

Strange as it may seem, the Sixeenth Amendment (which gave the American people the affliction of confiscatory income taxes) was never supposed to have passed. It was introduced by the Republicans as part of a political scheme to trick the Democrats, but it backfired.

Here's the story:

The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

During the following decade, however, the complexion of the Court changed somewhat, and so did public sentiment. There was great social unrest and the idea of a tax to "soak the rich" began to take root among liberals in both major parties. Several times the Democrats introduced bills to provide a tax on higher incomes but each time the conservative branch of the Republican party killed it in the Senate. The Democrats used this as evidence that the Republicans were the "party of the rich" and should be thrown out of power, forcing President William Howard Taft to acknowledge in political speeches that income taxes might be all right "in principle", but it was well known among close associates that he was strongly opposed to such a tax.

The Bailey Bill

In April 1909, Senator Joseph W. Bailey, a conservative Democrat from Texas who was also opposed to income taxes, decided to further embarrass the Republicans by forcing them to openly oppose an income tax bill similar to those which had been introduced in the past. He introduced his bill expecting it to get the usual opposition. However, to his amazement, Teddy Roosevelt and a growing element of liberals in the Republican party came out in favor of the bill and it looked as though it was going to pass.

Not only was Bailey surprised, but Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Republican floor leader, frantically met with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachussetts and President Taft to work out a strategy to demolish the Bailey tax bill. Their own party was split too widely to permit a direct confrontation, so the strategy was to pull a political end run. They announced that they favored an income tax but only if it were an amendment to the Constitution. Within their own circle, they discussed how it might get approval of the House and the Senate, but they were quite certain that it could be defeated in the more conservative states-three-fourths of which were required in order to ratify the amendment.

Thus, the Democrats were off guard when President Taft unexpectedly sent a message to Congress on June 16th, 1909, recommending the passage of a consitutional amendment to legalize federal income tax legislation.

The strategy threw the liberals into an uproar. At the very moment when their Bailey bill was about to pass, the Republicans were coming out for an amendment to the Constitution which would probably be defeated by the states.

Reaction to the Amendment

Congressman Cordell Hull (D-Tenn., and later Secretary of State under FDR) saw exactly what was happening. He took the floor to excoriate the Republican leaders. Said he:

"No person at all familiar with the present trend of national legislation will seriously insist that these same Republican leaders are over-anxious to see the country adopt an income tax...What powerful influence, what new light and deepseated motive suddenly moves these political veterans to 'about face' and pretend to warmly embrace this doctrine which they have heretofore uniformly denounced?" {1}

He went on to expose what he considered to be a political trick. He needn't have been so concerned. The slogan of "soak the rich" automatically aroused Pavlovian salivation among politicians both in Washington and the states. The Senate approved the Sixteenth Amendment with an astonishing unanimity of 77-0! The House approved it by a vote of 318-14.

When Republican Congressman Sereno E. Payne of New York, who had introduced the amendment in the House, saw that this end run was turning into a winning touchdown for the opposition, he was horrified. He went to the floor and openly denounced the bill he had sponsored. Said he:

"As to the general policy of an income tax, I am utterly opposed to it. I believe with Gladstone that it tends to make a nation of liars. I believe it is the most easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the hardest to collect; that it is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of rascals; and so I am opposed to any income tax in time of peace...I hope that if the Constitution is amended in this way the time will not come when the American people will ever want to enact an income tax except in time of war." {2}

The end run of the Republican leadership did indeed backfire. State after state ratified this "soak the rich" amendment until it went into full force and effect on February 12, 1913 (Ed.note: Mr. Bill Benson, in his book "The Law That Never Was" has since documented massive...and outcome changing...federal interference in the certification of the votes of the individual state legislatures. The votes for and against from Kentucky, for instance, were switched by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.) More at http://www.cats.org/articles/16hist.html

Left unmentioned in the above article is that Philander Knox was part of the group that wanted to create a fiat money system for the United States, to remove from Congress the power to regulate money and place it in the hands of a private banking cartel. An income tax on the people was the necessary mechanism to ensure vast sums of cash flowing into the private bank. That's Knox' motive for the swindle; to set the tax stage for the creation of the Federal Reserve, which was voted into existance on Chistmas eve that same year, while those congressmen who opposed the Federal Reserve were on Christmas vacation with their families.

41 Posted on 08/16/2000 10:33:41 PDT by Michael Rivero
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | Top | Last ]

You're purdy dadgum close ole ancient one...

Calculating the Tax Rate

In the previous section we defined the total consumption tax base for the national sales tax in calendar year 1995 as $5,978 billion. Now we ask, What rate of sales tax would need to be imposed to collect the same amount of revenue that was gathered from the income tax? Table 2 shows the total amount of federal revenues collected from taxes that would be replaced with the national sales tax. In fiscal year 1995 those revenues amounted to $803 billion ($1,293 billion if payroll taxes are also included).

Putting together the information in Tables 1 and 2, we discover that an NST with no rebate could collect the same amount of revenue ($803 billion) as the current income tax regime with a tax inclusive rate of 11.8 percent, as shown in Table 3. This tax inclusive rate with a rebate to fully protect the poor from the tax (as discussed below) would bring the rate to 14.2 percent. Throughout this study we use a rate of 15 percent, which would offset any losses from tax avoidance beyond the amount that occurs with the current income tax.

Table 2
Tax Revenues to Be Replaced by National Sales Tax, 1995 (billions of dollars)

Table 3
Calculation of National Sales Tax Rate

The rate of 23 percent would offset any losses from tax avoidance beyond the amount that occurs with the current income tax.

42 Posted on 08/16/2000 10:39:05 PDT by CHIEF negotiator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | Top | Last ]

{?} you saved me about a weeks worth of looking through stuff that don't mean nuthin'.

Just because you do not have a personal or immediate use for it, or it doesn't address your agenda, does not mean it "don't mean nuthin'" George. It all means something and has a usefulness to someone, even if it isn't you.

43 Posted on 08/16/2000 10:43:15 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]

The main reason I support the NRST apart from the fact that I don't want a government agency prying into my personal finances is that it makes these taxes explicit.

That raises a question. What part of your (legal) finances is not part of public record?

By law your wages and self employment income are to be reported, and guess what, you can both, earn wages and self employment income...many do that have small businesses as a side job.

A part of the sales "gross payment" tax bill is the explicit and more impotant to the subject, implicit financial intermediation service fee tax, in other words everytime you apply for a loan or make an interest payment, or receive an interest payment, a tax is imposed on your behalf...hence a record of the transaction including the gross amount...

Do you think the sale of a "used" house, including the purchase price VS sales price, will go unrecorded?- Do you think the "Know your customer law" or the law that requires the reporting of cash deposits of $3,000 or more will be repealed-Do you think someone reporting wages from a fast food job, then buying a $300,000 house, used or otherwise will go un-recorded- un-noticed?...it'll never happen.

The point is, just because it's not reported to IRS doesn't mean it's not a matter of public record...What other good reason would there be to tax "implicit financial intermediation"?

44 Posted on 08/16/2000 10:56:21 PDT by lewislynn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | Top | Last ]

. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

That is a incomplete and erroneous characterisation of the Supreme Court's analysis before, in Pollock, and later as well. That simply does not fly with the facts found in the actual text of the CaseLaw.

I Suggest you read the actual cases, instead of taking the word of someone with an agenda, before the Courts hand you your head on a platter.

Constitution for the United States of America:

• Article VI "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

• Article I Section 8. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
  to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
  but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107

• "This tax, it is expressly stated, is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year, this is the measure of the tax explicitly adopted by the statute." *** In other words, the tax is imposed upon the doing of business of the character described, and the measure of the tax is to be income, with the deduction stated, received not only from property used in business, but from every source."

• "The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."

• "As we have seen, the only limitation upon the authority conferred is uniformity in laying the tax, and uniformity does not require the equal application of the tax to all persons or corporations who may come within its operation, but is limited to geographical uniformity throughout the United States. This subject was fully discussed and set at rest in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, and we can add nothing to the discussion contained in that case."

• "It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1,17 (1916)

• "the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"

• "in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 601, 635 ), its[the income tax] validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. "

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"

Therefore Congress operates on the basis:

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

• "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

45 Posted on 08/16/2000 11:00:27 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]

That raises a question. What part of your (legal) finances is not part of public record?

Lewis, there is a considerable distinction between having things on the public record, where someone else would have to explicitly collect all the information from various sources, and compelling me, as an individual or a business owner, to provide a complete acocunbting of my finances under penatly of perjury. I hope that even you can appreciate the difference.

Besides, there are still many things not on the public record. Retail (and non-retail, for that matter) purchases can be kept anonymous in most cases if one prefers to use cash instead of a traceable form of payment (check or credit card). Gifts, both personal and charitable, aren't traceable unless you want them to be. I'm sure there are many other ways to avoid doing things on the public record.

But more importantly, with income no longer being used as a tax basis, there is no need for the government to go through the hassle of collecting all of this information from the varied sources involved, not to mention that such data mining is expressly prohibited for federal agencies.

in other words everytime you apply for a loan or make an interest payment, or receive an interest payment, a tax is imposed on your behalf

Yes, no, and no. You have been repeatedly corrected on this. Applying for the loan is a service that is indeed taxable, but interest payments (either outgoing or received) are not taxable. As such the rest of your misinformed opion on this subject is not even worth commenting on, as it comes from a (yet another) fallacial assumption on your part.

46 Posted on 08/16/2000 11:12:29 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | Top | Last ]

Ancient Geezer is clearly pro-tax, and that right there tells us all who he works for.

Nope, Just ANTI lies, and ANTI-Fools. Myself I don't pay individual income taxes, haven't for years out of protest and choice(keep my income below the tax brackets and I don't feed the dragon nor do I worry about the Gestapo banging on my door sometime.) and I won't be paying or reporting for income taxes in the future.

Just how much have you sacrificed in protesting the income tax!!

The income taxes that existed prior to the passage of the 16th amendment were eventually all ruled unconstitutional. That's why at the time the 16th amendment was passed, there WAS no income tax.

Wrong , Congress wanted to tax stock dividends and rents from land; and The Supreme Court did not ever find all income taxes unconstitutional. It voided 1 income tax law, The only section declared unconstitutional was when the SC found rents from land and stock dividends could not be taxed with apportionment.

To quote the Supreme Court:

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1,17 (1916)

"in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( Pollock, 158 U.S. 601, 635 ), its[the income tax] validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. "

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged,

So I invite you to explain it all to the Courts Michael, maybe they'll listen to you, though it didn't do much for these folks:

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the District of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified lawfully.

United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

I'd spend a bit more time in objective research if I were you instead of spouting of other peoples non-sense.

47 Posted on 08/16/2000 11:29:42 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]

By law your wages and self employment income are to be reported, and guess what, you can both, earn wages and self employment income...many do that have small businesses as a side job.

Only under the current tax system Looey.

Under the NRST If you wish to give up SS/Medicare benefits, just don't report your wages or self-employment income to the Social Security administration, and don't get a social security number. No problem at all.

48 Posted on 08/16/2000 11:35:41 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | Top | Last ]

Oh! Michael I though I had best warn you.

George hangs non-filers and income tax protestors

Thought you might like to know. I just argue with them.

49 Posted on 08/16/2000 11:39:28 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | Top | Last ]

The bottom line is that we are all over-taxed as it is and unless the American people find the gonads to do something about it, the sitation will only get worse.

Yes we are over taxed, and as long as half the people are being hoodwinked into believing they pay little federal tax a change for smaller government is not what people want, over half of all voters don't perceive they are pay too much. (take a look at polls indicating that 60% don't find the current rate of too high. Of course they do not perceive the total bill laying on them any more than you do.

Most of the real tax bill is hidden in the prices of goods and services, and as a Social Security retirement "payment"(aka Tax).

Most VOTING folks only perceive this:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0:

How do you intend to cause that bottom 60% to want to change anything, They are fat, dumb and happy living of the other half.

That Michael, is the purpose of the NRST, is to make the real cost of government apparent even to that bottom 60%, so maybe change can happen.

50 Posted on 08/16/2000 12:25:23 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | Top | Last ]

Hello, Karl Frm G00rky Park, still sneaking around with your turnover tax I see. You don't seem to realize that this was given up as a failed experment 200-250 years ago by several countries who'd tried it. You want us to do the experiment all over again and fail again despite all the information you've been given to show you how grossly distorted and unfair this notion really is?

Do you somehow think that trying "just one more time" will make your dream come true?

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

51 Posted on 08/16/2000 14:28:38 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]

Er - ah - Karl Frm G00rky Park, hate to break it to ya', but there is no $10,000 exemption in the NRST. In fact, no exemption at all. So what you say is an outright lie.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

52 Posted on 08/16/2000 14:33:21 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]

Well, let's see Karl Frm G00rky Park, there are about 260 million folks plus about 30 million "other" entities so that would be 290 million. Multiply that by $10,000 and you have ... ah heck, you figger it out. That number should cover your "per" deduction.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

53 Posted on 08/16/2000 14:38:30 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | Top | Last ]

Hey, Rambo, why are you still using pore ole Philander Know as a punching bag? Won't do a bit of good. He's been dead for 50/60 years.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

54 Posted on 08/16/2000 14:44:24 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]

Do you ever have any lucid moments when we might talk Karl Frm G00rky Park ???

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

55 Posted on 08/16/2000 14:47:09 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ]

Yeah, that's right - hang 'em ... the ORIGINAL head tax.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

56 Posted on 08/16/2000 14:48:26 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | Top | Last ]

You can say that again, Karl Frm G00rky Park ... and in spades!!!

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

57 Posted on 08/16/2000 14:55:57 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]

He'll hang the entire state!!

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

58 Posted on 08/16/2000 14:59:38 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | Top | Last ]

The 16th amendment was passed (Ihappen to know for a fact) specifically to creat a TP industry and give a bunch of ne'er so wells a place to hang out so they wouldn't keep robbing the little Girl Scouts at their Girl Scout Cookie sales.

Think on it, Rambo. Beats your "death to the tyrants" mantra all to pieces.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

59 Posted on 08/16/2000 15:03:23 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | Top | Last ]

Careful there, Looey. If Karl Frm G00rky Park hears you talkin' like that, he might hang you. (Course he may be too busy carrying on a conversation with the Benedictine Monks in his head).

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

60 Posted on 08/16/2000 15:07:06 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | Top | Last ]

Great post, Geez!!!

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

61 Posted on 08/16/2000 15:08:41 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | Top | Last ]

The 16th Amendment, ratified or not, changed nothing. The Congress has always had the power to tax (derived from the Constitution), but that power is limited. The basis for the income tax in this country is the income tax code, 26 USC.

What you need to understand from reading the 16th, the statutes and regs is that "whatever source" does NOT mean "any and all." Laws are purposely written, every word in a law is relevant, has meaning, etc.

Income is taxable, but for it to be so it must first be derived from a specific source. The statutes and regs define these sources, and I'll wager $1 you have never earned income (through job/employment/labor) that came from a taxable source.

The IRS does NOT determine tax liability. It relies solely on the information returns (such as W-2 or 1099) sent into it from employers/payors. According to the statutes, employers/payors are supposed to know whether or not they pay taxable income ('gross income') but of course most just assume they do, when in fact most do not.

To date, the IRS has not been able to refute the 'source' argument. Because it can't, especially when one properly follows the administrative process and hold the IRS to the Rule of Law.

Now, would it be great if we didn't have to put up with the IRS at all? Of course. Would we all like to see the IRS go away and have its employees/thugs find real work? Yes. Do we want to replace the present system where there is no legal liability for the educated with one imposing a legal liability? Not me, but it is definitely worthy of discussion.

I've been intentially brief, but socialism is still voluntary in America. If you want to know more about my side, including actual tax refunds, visit www.nite.org (I've been a member for about fourteen months).

62 Posted on 08/16/2000 16:15:42 PDT by Thornton
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]

"Now, would it be great if we didn't have to put up with the IRS at all? Of course. Would we all like to see the IRS go away and have its employees/thugs find real work? Yes. "

That the IRS would go away is another of the NRST "big lies". Someone has to enforce the sales tax and look out for those who attempt to bypass it. The agency may be under a different name, but it will be the same people and the same mindset. All that will change, to judge by the experience in Australia, is that there will be more opportunities for the tax enforcers to solicit bribes to look the other way.

The whole debate over which tax system to use obscures the fact that we are all taxed way too much right now. We should work to eliminate taxes, not just swap one for another. Nobody alive today voted for the people who voted in the Federal Reserve and its huge debt. Yet we are handed the bills and ordered to pay them without choice, and if that isn't a dictatorship then what is?

63 Posted on 08/16/2000 16:36:37 PDT by Michael Rivero
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | Top | Last ]

Someone has to enforce the sales tax and look out for those who attempt to bypass it.

You figure K-Mart is going to let you walk out of their store without paying the sales tax? Dream on Michael.

The agency may be under a different name, but it will be the same people and the same mindset.

Well, seeing as 48 states already do that with much more complex sale tax codes than the NRST by a long shot dealing the same folks they already license and collect State Sales Taxes from no IRS or additional appratus required.

Say goodby to the Federal IRS, Michael, there is no function for a Federal IRS to perform under the NRST, unless you figure them States who get paid by the Fed's to collect and administer the Federal Sales tax right along with their own State sales taxes will need some thumping from Goons to write a check to the U.S. Treasury.

64 Posted on 08/16/2000 17:02:46 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | Top | Last ]

Nobody alive today voted for the people who voted in the Federal Reserve and its huge debt.

Seeing as more than 80% of that debt has accrued in the last 20 years I rather doubt that. You want to go thump on your parents and grandparents, they voted in the numbskulls that built that debt.

65 Posted on 08/16/2000 17:05:56 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | Top | Last ]

To date, the IRS has not been able to refute the 'source' argument.

What's to refute, Thornton, the income tax is an excise on activities that Congress has elected to lay and collect a tax on under Article I Section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution:

Constitution for the United States of America:

• Article VI "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

• Article I Section 8. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
  to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
  but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

Sources are taxed "activites" Thornton.

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

• "the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17]   of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"

• "in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( Pollock, 58 U.S. 601, 635 ), its[the income tax] validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. "

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"

Therefore Congress operates on the basis:

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

You have a slight problem in interpretation, since the courts clearly do not agree with you.

United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the Sixteenth Amendment only allows taxing income from "sources," not persons,

Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any privilege from a governmental agency.

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are "natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from an agency of government."

66 Posted on 08/16/2000 17:34:19 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | Top | Last ]

You've been reading too many Looey Lies, Rambo. With the NRST there is very little "enforcement" since the merchants collect the tax as you buy things. The merchants then forward the collected tax to the state, and both the merchant and the state are paid for that work.

Choosing Australia's GST is a lousy example since it is a VAT plus an income tax and not remotely like the US NRST. Had you been paying attention, a poster very faimiliar with Australia dna the GST called Looey on the carpet for his attempt to fool people into thinking otherwise.

And it's not swapping one for the other since the NRST will reduce both consumer prices AND government spending.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

67 Posted on 08/16/2000 17:36:19 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | Top | Last ]

Don't get yourself too far into that area of unbelief about "income" and "sources". I've read the stuff on the TP website you mention plus its predecessor and find the information wanting. I'm not to here to try to convince you of the fallaciousness of their arguments, but you might consider this:

""Gross income" (which is the beginning point to determine what is "taxable income") is defined as "income from whatever source derived," but "income" itself is not defined. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress intended to tax everything within the Constitutional meaning of "income," and so the Internal Revenue Code taxes everything that could be called "income." See, Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955). "

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

68 Posted on 08/16/2000 17:59:22 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | Top | Last ]

Guys, using the figure 9,371.1 billion found in section 109 line 27 found HERE and 1.7 trillion as expenditure, I come up with something like 18.2% for "my" flat tax base percentage. This does not include "non-profit organizations that I would also tax. As I cannot see any such thing existing. If employees are paid, there had to be income. If not, the "business" goes bust. Peace and love, George.

69 Posted on 08/17/2000 07:55:10 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | Top | Last ]

If employees are paid, there had to be income.

Wrong. This is the point we've been trying to hammer into you -- there has to be revenue (or the company is running on cash reserves), not necessairly income. Can't you see that declaring all revenue is income for your tax means that every transfer of money is taxed (which cascades like a GST or VAT, but is worse because they at least only tax a subset of transactions) in addition to having an individual income tax.

Even if the rate is less than the NRST on paper, the effective rate of such a system is much, much higher. It's also an economic disaster in the making -- the independently wealthy will simply hold onto their money rather than investing in the capital that creates new business (and jobs). As a result, the bulk of the taxes will be paid by those who must continue to earn income.

70 Posted on 08/17/2000 08:09:33 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | Top | Last ]

Oh, and by the way, let's say your tax rate is (tax-inclusive) 17%. That means that the tax-exlcusive rate is about 20.5%. A business would have to mark up prices at least 20.5% over cost, just to pay the tax you're imposing with you hidden VAT, leaving zero profit.

71 Posted on 08/17/2000 08:14:03 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | Top | Last ]

'Choosing Australia's GST is a lousy example since it is a VAT plus an income tax and not remotely like the US NRST.'

Personal and Government consumption accounts for about 85% of our GDP. That only leaves 15% for business to business transactions. So the big difference between GST and a VAT is the GST taxes about 15% fewer sales.

72 Posted on 08/17/2000 08:16:02 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | Top | Last ]

'So the big difference between GST and a VAT is the GST taxes about 15% fewer sales.'

It should have said:

'So the big difference between Austraila's GST and a NRST is the GST taxes about 15% fewer sales.'

73 Posted on 08/17/2000 08:30:55 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | Top | Last ]

The NRST taxes 15% fewer sales. These acronyms are killing me.

74 Posted on 08/17/2000 08:32:08 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | Top | Last ]

Not all consumption is taxed under the NRST, as some of that personal consumption is resale, not retail, consumption.

75 Posted on 08/17/2000 08:58:18 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | Top | Last ]

Be sure and post all of your detailed figures and calculations, Karl Frm G00rky Park, as I'm sure there many people who would like to see them.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

76 Posted on 08/17/2000 09:32:27 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | Top | Last ]

No, kevkrom, the poster does not realize that he is actually proposing what's called a transfer tax which was rejected several hunderd years ago by every country who had used it - for the obvious reasons that you cite.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

77 Posted on 08/17/2000 09:36:23 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | Top | Last ]

No, that's not the "big difference". And I'm not agreeing with your figure, either, but just pointing out that the big difference is that a true tax on consumption (the NRST) is a single rate, single stage tax whereby a VAT (and the income tax also) is a multi-stage, multi-rate tax that cascades from business to business as things go along the chain from production through distribution to consumption, cascading and building non-productinve costs which are embedded into consumer prices.

That's perhaps the big difference.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

78 Posted on 08/17/2000 09:42:45 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | Top | Last ]

Tell me about it. Let's look at something simple, using a mere 17% (tax-inclusive) rate, investing in a business. I invest $1000 in a business, but since that would be business "income" by George's definition, only $830 of that money goes to the company in question -- the rest goes to the government. The company must then repay me $1205 (since I will have to pay $205 tax on the "income" I get back) just for me to break even on my initial investment, meaning my real investment must appreciate nearly 50% before I receive any real profit.

I assume George would also be taxing chruches and charities 17% of the "income" they receive in donations, in addition to the 20.5% price increase (minimum) from the "income" tax levied on the goods and services they buy with that already taxed donation (which was made with already-taxed money from the person who was paid by his employer with already-taxed money, ad infinitum).

79 Posted on 08/17/2000 09:44:48 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | Top | Last ]

'And I'm not agreeing with your figure, either, but just pointing out that the big difference is that a true tax on consumption (the NRST) is a single rate, single stage tax whereby a VAT (and the income tax also) is a multi-stage, multi-rate tax that cascades from business to business...'

Austraila's GST tax isn't a VAT either. It is a gross sales tax. Just because the GST has one characteristic like a VAT, doesn't make it a VAT. The GST is very similar to the NRST, except that it does to business to business sales. NIPA's numbers on consumption are a bit ambiguous, but I would bet business to business sales of goods and services are about 15% of the total.

80 Posted on 08/17/2000 10:02:38 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | Top | Last ]

Guys, using the figure 9,371.1 billion found in section 109 line 27 found HERE and 1.7 trillion as expenditure, I come up with something like 18.2% for "my" flat tax base percentage.

By the way, the National Income numbers do reflect income to non-profits George. NNP is an economics statistic, not the limited definition of income as would be defined under the under current tax system.

Ohhh! You didn't tell us you intend to Tax the Government Revenues which are included in your Gross Domestic Product number as well as the NNP. (Net[less government revenues] National Income).

Tell me just who gets this tax you are taxing the government???

ROTFLM(_|_)O!!!!!!

81 Posted on 08/17/2000 10:15:59 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | Top | Last ]

P.S. Giving money to the government then taxing that again to give back to the government don't fly George. It's called spinning your wheels. Who do you take the tax from, and who do you pay it too.

The NNP number is the income of all people and businesses, government cannot be counted into the equation of "Net Income" that would be double counting.

GNP/GDP,GNI/GDI numbera are simply the sum of all cash "flows" outof/into government + business + individuals and not a particularly useful number except as an indicator of total financial activity. The certainly do not reflect income that can be taxed

The Tax Foundation uses the NNP number for the Tax Freedom Day calculations George. NNP is the gross amount income to businesses and individuals. The GNI GDI numbers have no meaning for your purposes.

Sorry George, but 22.79% is the tax rate with $0 exemption, which is a highly regressive tax, multiplying the tax burden the poor by a factor of Five Times what they currently pay.

82 Posted on 08/17/2000 10:37:54 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | Top | Last ]

'Tell me just who gets this tax you are taxing the government??? ROTFLM(_|_)O!!!!!!'

The last time I checked, the NRST is also taxing government sales....

83 Posted on 08/17/2000 10:43:37 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | Top | Last ]

Austraila's GST tax isn't a VAT either. It is a gross sales tax. Just because the GST has one characteristic like a VAT, doesn't make it a VAT.

Definition [ http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13330.html ]:

value-added tax
levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production of a good or service, and based on the increase in price, or value, added to the good or service by each level.

Because all stages of a value-added tax are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, it has been described as a hidden sales tax. Originally introduced in France (1954), it is now used by most W European countries.

Please explain how the Australian GST differs from the definition of a VAT. (Cite and link to your references)

The NRST taxes 1 stage (Retail Sales) providing a reciept to the customer of the amount of tax Charged.

What additional(all) stages of production are being taxed by the NRST, what is hidden from the customernot itemized on the receipt) that would make it a VAT. (Cite and link to your references)

84 Posted on 08/17/2000 10:50:46 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]

86 Posted on 08/17/2000 10:55:16 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | Top | Last ]

'Please explain how the Australian GST differs from the definition of a VAT.'

Because the GST isn't based on 'added value'. No source required.

87 Posted on 08/17/2000 10:58:58 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | Top | Last ]

George is taxing income, the government does not tax it's own receipts, so far as I have heard. The Government generally does end up what it pays it employees, but it doesn't tax its own receipts an additional time, under the NRST or any other tax.

George intends to tax government receipts explicitly, as well as taxing the income of its employees which payed out of government revenues.

The NRST taxes government purchases for final consumption(paper and paper clips for bureaucrats in non-production, non-business only.)

88 Posted on 08/17/2000 11:06:26 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | Top | Last ]

And all gvmnt employees that buy new goods and services.

89 Posted on 08/17/2000 11:11:27 PDT by CHIEF negotiator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | Top | Last ]

P.S., the NRST does not tax tranfer payment, wages/salarys paid employees, or many of the other plethora of non-consumption payments.

90 Posted on 08/17/2000 11:12:53 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | Top | Last ]

'paper and paper clips for bureaucrats in non-production, non-business only.'

What business is the government in? Seems like most governmnet purchases are for final consumption. Computers, buildings, vehicles, etc.

91 Posted on 08/17/2000 11:14:23 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | Top | Last ]

"P.S. Giving money to the government then taxing that again to give back to the government don't fly George. It's called spinning your wheels. "

AG, Government DOES tax income, and takes it away from its employees. That is a part of the whole that has to be paid for government yearly expenditures. As I have written before though, ALL of those moneys received by godgov in wages and contracts come from the private sector taxpayer, including the taxes they pay. Leaving this distortion in place makes for easier computation. But, if you don't want to tax government employee's wages, we could change all their pay rates by the needed percentage and lower their wages. They wouldn't miss it, because they now would not be taxed, and wouldn't be able to complain about taxes they don't pay already. Peace and love, George.

92 Posted on 08/17/2000 11:16:52 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | Top | Last ]

What business is the government in?

For example, a government printing office that provides (for a fee) printed copies of government publications and records. Their overhead purchases (printers., copiers, binding materials, telephones, accounting equipment, etc.) are all "business" expenses, and are untaxed. The publication itself would be taxed, if my reading og the bill is correct.

93 Posted on 08/17/2000 11:22:06 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | Top | Last ]

Seems like most governmnet purchases are for final consumption. Computers, buildings, vehicles, etc.

Try wages to employees, transfer payments from its programs, government loans, interest payments on the national debt, etc which comprise the bulk of government expenses. NRST is based on Personal + Government Consumption expenditure.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/dpga.txt

• 307 15: 1999 Federal Defense Consumption Expenditure = 56.1billion
• 307 24: 1999 Federal Non-Defense Consumption Expenditure = 162.3billion

• Total Federal Consumption Expenditure subject to NRST = 218.4 billion

Out of 1900+ billion total expenditures(including fee financed.)

Under the current income tax structure

• all Federal purchases include embedded federal taxes and tax compliance costs;
• all federal wages/salaries include federal tax to be paid.

Under George's $0 Exemption 18% income tax, the Government and State total receipts would be taxed explicitly as "income" to the government (a taxable entity in George's sytem.)

94 Posted on 08/17/2000 14:01:21 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | Top | Last ]

The Australian GST is very much a VAT with an income tax and is much more similar the Canada's VAT plus income tax than it is to the NRST. The VAT is a multi-stage and frequently multi-rate tax passed from one level to the next in the production and distribution chain adding to prices as it goes. It's surprising you don't know this since it has been discussed many times, and as such it is nothing at all like the US NRST which is a single rate, single level tax applied only upon final consumption.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

95 Posted on 08/17/2000 14:05:53 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]

You need to read up on the definition of a VAT.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

96 Posted on 08/17/2000 14:07:42 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | Top | Last ]

Doesn't matter ... if those poor turkeys can't pay, Karl Frm G00rky Park'll just hang 'em. That way they won't bother us too much in the future.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

97 Posted on 08/17/2000 14:10:07 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | Top | Last ]

AG, Government DOES tax income, and takes it away from its employees. That is a part of the whole that has to be paid for government yearly expenditures. As I have written before though, ALL of those moneys received by godgov in wages and contracts come from the private sector taxpayer, including the taxes they pay. Leaving this distortion in place makes for easier computation.

NNP already counts wages/salaries and payments to individuals and corporations from the government.

The 9+Trillion GNP/GDI number is government receipts(net taxes and fees collected) plus the NNP, Your 18% tax not only taxes government employees and businesses contracting with government as in your statement. You would be taxing the government explicitly on the tax receipts it takes in as "government income". Can't be done George.

Where will the money come for Government to explicitly pay an 18% tax on Government revenue when government receives it as its income without getting more from individuals and corporations to cover that tax payment to itself? And

when it gets more taxes from individuals and corporations to cover the tax payment to itself, since that is income to the government as well, the government will have to pay 18% on that amount collected.

Again it will have to extract more taxes from individuals and corporation for the government to pay 18% taxes on that additional amount collected.

Again it will have to extract more taxes from individuals and corporation for the government to pay 18% taxes on that additional amount collected.

Again it will have to extract more taxes from individuals and corporation for the government to pay 18% taxes on that additional amount collected.

Again it will have to extract more taxes from individuals and corporation for the government to pay 18% taxes on that additional amount collected.

Again it will have to extract more taxes from individuals and corporation for the government to pay 18% taxes on that additional amount collected.

ad infinitum .............................................................

Where is the simplification in computation George???? Who's paying all the taxes George??

WHAT RATE ARE THE PEOPLE GOING TO PAY GEORGE????

98 Posted on 08/17/2000 14:21:06 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | Top | Last ]

ad infinitum

The series is infinite, but it does at least converge, right? :)

99 Posted on 08/17/2000 14:28:41 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | Top | Last ]

Shhhh! I want George to figure that one out!!! Hehe(22.79% paid by the individual and corporations).

100 Posted on 08/17/2000 15:02:00 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | Top | Last ]

Because the GST isn't based on 'added value'. No source required.

What makes you believe you can blow hot air through your hat an not get caught AR???

No source required indeed. That's because you didn't have a source to back you up!!!!!

Note the following commercial website in Australia discussing the Australian GST and providing services to businesses being affected by the Australian GST.

http://www.gstsolutions.com.au/fundamentals/defn_terms.htm

Goods and Services Tax (GST)

The GST is a tax on goods and services, (10 percent), based on the value added at each point in the production chain. It is
passed down the chain to consumers who ultimately bear the tax, while business gets input credits or refunds of GST paid.

It will replace many taxes including WST. Under the GST goods
and services will be either taxable, input taxed or GST-free.

Definition [ http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13330.html ]:

value-added tax
levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production of a good or service, and based on the increase in price, or value, added to the good or service by each level.

Because all stages of a value-added tax are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, it has been described as a hidden sales tax. Originally introduced in France (1954), it is now used by most W European countries.

101 Posted on 08/17/2000 15:07:32 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | Top | Last ]

Sorry about that... just trying to proactively prevent a lewislynn-type word twisting where he will claim that your math is "wrong" because it would eventually involve a tax rate higher than the amount transfered. (Because, as we all know, lewislynn is a mathematical genius and has never miscalculated anything...)

102 Posted on 08/17/2000 16:34:27 PDT by kevkrom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | Top | Last ]

You mean like Always Wrong(aka Always Right) does when he claims some thing like:

Always Right #80:
"Austraila's GST tax isn't a VAT either. It is a gross sales tax."

---

Ancient_Geezer #84:
"Definition [ http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13330.html ]:

value-added tax
levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production of a good or service, and based on the increase in price, or value, added to the good or service by each level.

Because all stages of a value-added tax are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, it has been described as a hidden sales tax. Originally introduced in France (1954), it is now used by most W European countries.

Please explain how the Australian GST differs from the definition of a VAT. (Cite and link to your references)"

Always Right #87:
"Because the GST isn't based on 'added value'. No source required"

Ancient_Geezer #101:
http://www.gstsolutions.com.au/fundamentals/defn_terms.htm

Goods and Services Tax (GST)

The GST is a tax on goods and services, (10 percent), based on the value added at each point in the production chain. It is
passed down the chain to consumers who ultimately bear the tax, while business gets input credits or refunds of GST paid.

You know, don't you? Always Right believes his unadorned opinion is the supreme authority in all things.

I wonder if Always Right will disagree with the Australian Senate too?

Parliment of Australia: Senate Committee:
GST Main Report:
Chapter 1

[ http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/gst/main/chapter1.htm ]

Changes to indirect taxes

• "1.7 A multi stage value added tax on goods and services (GST) is proposed to be introduced on 1 July 2000 at the rate of 10%, excluding goods which are exported or services which are consumed outside Australia."

103 Posted on 08/17/2000 17:49:02 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | Top | Last ]

Austraila's GST tax isn't a VAT either. It is a gross sales tax.

Australia's GST is a "Goods and Services Tax" which is a VAT according to the Australian parliment AR.

I would suggest that you start researching instead of spouting off the half baked misinformed and un-informed opinions you have been handing people as authoritative.

It's so easy to use search engines and encyclopedias to check things out before sticking your foot in your mouth, why don't you try using them occasionally.

104 Posted on 08/17/2000 18:35:59 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]

The GST is very similar to the NRST

The GST taxes businesses and passes the burden down to the customer hidden within the price of goods and services.

The NRST taxes the Customer, the final Consumer at only one stage, the Retail Sales point and is itemized as a separate item on the receipt totally separated and visible from the price.

The only similar is in laying a tax associated with goods and services. Beyond that they are as different as night and day.

105 Posted on 08/17/2000 18:43:38 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]

NIPA's numbers on consumption are a bit ambiguous, but I would bet business to business sales of goods and services are about 15% of the total.

Your betting average is lousy AR, your shooting in the dark again.

The numbers used to determine the NRST taxbase are personal consumption based with corrections for foreign tourist purchases, and other non-domestic sources of consumption within the U.S., Corporate and Business consumption is a separated item under the NIPA.

When are you going to start researching instead of guessing?

106 Posted on 08/17/2000 18:51:37 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]

The following are the actual figures used to calculate the tax base for the '97 versions of the NRST. The 1999 bill uses more uptodate values of the data to establish the HR2525 tax rate.

Cato Policy Analysis No. 272               April 15, 1997
EMANCIPATING AMERICA FROM THE INCOME TAX
by David R. Burton and Dan R. Mastromarco

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html

Table 1
Tax Base for National Sales Tax (billions of dollars)

Description of Taxable Item		Tax Base (1995)
Personal consumption expenditures		$4,924.9
Purchases of new homes		156.4
Improvements to single-family homes		73.9
Imputed rent on housing		-534.3
Additional financial intermediation services		53.0
Foreign travel by U.S. residents (one-half)		-26.4
Expenditures abroad by U.S. residents		-2.7
Food produced and consumed on farms		-0.4
State and local government consumption		682.6
State and local government gross purchases		159.1
Federal government consumption		453.8
Federal government gross purchases		62.7
Less: Education expenditures		-97.5
Plus: Expenditures in U.S. by nonresidents		73.1
NST Base		$5,978.2
Source: National Income Product Accounts, Survey of Current Business, August 1996.

"The NST plan must avoid cascading to ensure the same effective tax rate across all types of property and services (horizontal equality), irrespective of the number of companies or stages of production that were necessary to bring the good or service to market (vertical equality).

With a cascading tax, the effective rate increases, depending on the number of times a good changes hands before it is purchased by a consumer. There is thus a major incentive for vertical integration and for firms to perform as many functions in-house as possible, reducing economic efficiency and distorting the marketplace (largely to the detriment of small firms that do not have the capital or other resources necessary to source everything in-house). The number of firms involved in getting a product to the consumer should be thoroughly irrelevant to how heavily the good is taxed.

A sales tax is not a value-added tax (VAT). A value-added tax is levied at each stage of production on the value added by the firm. Value added is typically defined as gross receipts from sales less purchases from other businesses. In Europe, VATs are levied by imposing a tax on sales, whether to consumers or businesses. Businesses are then allowed to add up the taxes paid on their inputs and receive a credit for taxes paid against tax due. "

107 Posted on 08/17/2000 19:12:41 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]

'Value added is typically defined as gross receipts from sales less purchases from other businesses.'

But that is not what Australia does. Australia's GST is 10% of the gross price. Australia uses a tax credit scheme so that each time an item is sold between business to business, the buyer can claim a tax credit for GST paid to the other business, eliminated the cascading effects of a VAT. The end result is that the final product only has a 10% tax effect in the final cost of the product no matter how many stages of resale the item goes through.

The result of the GST is identical to the NRST except the tax doesn't show up on the receipt, thus it is hidden in that respect. You can continue to be anal retentive about this, but the GST effects on price are identical to the NRST system, except Australia's GST has more reporting involved.

BTW, can you guys can never debate without the personal insults? I admire the guys who constantly put up with your crap.

108 Posted on 08/18/2000 06:13:36 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]

Zero compliance costs, right?

109 Posted on 08/18/2000 06:21:07 PDT by CHIEF negotiator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | Top | Last ]

'Zero compliance costs, right?'

No tax scheme has zero compliance costs.

110 Posted on 08/18/2000 06:24:10 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | Top | Last ]

This requires _{deep thinking} AR....of the two, which would have greater compliance costs? Where does that money come from?

111 Posted on 08/18/2000 06:40:19 PDT by CHIEF negotiator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | Top | Last ]

Australia's GST system has more reporting then the NRST, but it is not like companies don't have to track their expenses under any system. Australia's sytem has fewer grey area's than the NRST system. I can see huge potential for people to try to scheme their way out of paying sales tax under the NRST, by trying to claim all sorts of personal purchases as business purchases.

112 Posted on 08/18/2000 06:58:40 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | Top | Last ]

BTW, can you guys can never debate without the personal insults?

Debate??? You do not have the slightest inkling of debate, you do no reseach, your opinions are ill formed, lacking substance or basis. You are argue only to make your self appear right, not because you are.

You insult our integrity and intelligence every time you play your bull headed little ego trip. Is it now wonder that after a time others interacting with you lose any respect for your ideas? You do it to yourself.

I have patiently provided quotations, links tables, information of all types and nature to you, which I have gone to considerable effort to track down and provide just so you and others and myself may learn. Why do you not avail yourself of them, instead of blindly blathering on baseless opinion?

Instead all you can do is continue to spout your personal uninformed opinon against all solid authoritative and factual information to the contrary.

I have shown you respect up until your ego and bull headness, the same displayed in the reply this is in answer to, overshadowed any reasonable person's sensibilities. What do you expect to happen me to make happy faces and kiss you when you refuse to accept anything outside the confines of your own imagination?

Forget it buddy this is the real world, not the public school system where others will agree 2+2 = 5 because they don't want to hurt your feelings and stunt your growth and don't care to take the time to instruct you.

But that is not what Australia does. Australia's GST is 10% of the gross price. Australia uses a tax credit scheme so that each time an item is sold between business to business, the buyer can claim a tax credit for GST paid to the other business, eliminated the cascading effects of a VAT.

That is how VATs work. DO SOME RESEARCH. Cascade means to collect a tax at multiple stages, rebating(through a horrendous bureaucracy) credits to the business paying the tax. It does not mean compounding or tax on tax unless the business is not aware they may claim a tax credit because of the many exceptions and exemptions, and special rules built into the VAT system. It is as bad or worse than the Internal Revenue Code for generating such exceptions. And worse in that it pretends not to compound when in reality it cannot help to do so as a consequence of its complexity.

You either end up compounding taxes, or paying very heavy compliance costs through a fleet of accountants and lawyers. You get your choice of which you want to do.

The result of the GST is identical to the NRST except the tax doesn't show up on the receipt, thus it is hidden in that respect.

The NRST taxes the end Customer directly, and only. It is a single stage tax independant of however many stages of production were involved in its production. It's compliance costs and reporting requirements are nil, as compared to the GST.

Top500: GST Australia Web Presentations

You can continue to be anal retentive about this, but the GST effects on price are identical to the NRST system,

Except that Australia's GST has more reporting and direct interaction with the taxing authority(i.e. Bureaucracy) thus more Cost of Compliance and headaches on the part of business to understand and comply. Thats why the Link above, to consulting firms of accountants and lawyers in Australia who have sprung up in response to the "GST/VAT" It is an entire new bureacracy, of the same or more complexity than the IRS and tax consultants in this country.

http://www.gstsolutions.com.au/fundamentals/defn_terms.htm

Goods and Services Tax (GST)

The GST is a tax on goods and services, (10 percent), based on the value added at each point in the production chain. It is
passed down the chain to consumers who ultimately bear the tax, while business gets input credits or refunds of GST paid.

Parliment of Australia: Senate Committee:
GST Main Report:
Chapter 1

[ http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/gst/main/chapter1.htm ]

Changes to indirect taxes

• "1.7 A multi stage value added tax on goods and services (GST) is proposed to be introduced on 1 July 2000 at the rate of 10%, excluding goods which are exported or services which are consumed outside Australia."

---

KPMG International is an International Business Consulting firm based in Australia.

http://www.kpmg.com.au/gst/work.html

GST & PROPERTY

What is a GST and how does it work?

The proposed GST is a value-added tax, its basic structure being similar to those in force in New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, South Africa, The United Kingdom and other European Union (EU) countries. Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka and Vietnam will adopt a value added tax within the next 12-18 months. The terminology Goods and Services Tax or GST is in line with that used in New Zealand and Canada.

Of the Asia Pacific region, Australia, Hong Kong and Malaysia stand out as the only major economies that have not adopted a value-added tax as their main indirect tax system.

How does it work?
The GST is charged every time a business supplies goods or services in the course of its business activity. A purchaser of the goods and services is not able to claim an exemption from the tax on the grounds that the goods or services are to be applied to a particular manufacturing or other business purpose.

The essential design feature of a GST is that tax paid by a business on the purchases of goods and services is credited to the business and, in some cases, can be refunded. The aim is that no part of the tax represents a cost to the business.

The effect of the crediting system is that the tax rolls forward at each transaction to the point of sale to the end consumer.

113 Posted on 08/18/2000 07:47:38 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | Top | Last ]

Australia's sytem has fewer grey area's than the NRST system.

Tell that to these folks:

Top500: GST Australia Web Presentations

They don't seem to agree with you.

I can see huge potential for people to try to scheme their way out of paying sales tax under the NRST, by trying to claim all sorts of personal purchases as business purchases.

Any tax system is going to be tested for its limits, what do you want the gestapo at your door, confiscating silver dinnerware and art objects out of you home as a tax payment? State Sales tax systems have been dealing with these problems for years, that is why the are the natural agencies for the NRST to utilize in administration of the retail sales tax.

Take a real look at the GST through the links provided and you will see an entirely different perception of that system than you want to portray it being in these threads.

114 Posted on 08/18/2000 07:59:09 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | Top | Last ]

You can bastardize the dabate anyway you want to with your endless links, irrelavent tables, and name-calling; but the Australia GST adds 11% of tax to the final cost of the product, and the NRST adds 29.8% of tax to the final cost of the product. The end result is the same. The BIG difference between the NRST and the GST is who submits the check to the tax collectors. Granted, the NRST system has much less reporting, but that is the only real advantage.

115 Posted on 08/18/2000 08:22:53 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | Top | Last ]

I can see huge potential for people to try to scheme their way out of paying sales tax under the NRST, by trying to claim all sorts of personal purchases as business purchases.

They don't under a VAT? There is even more of an underground economy of barter and direct sales builds up in skirting the same VAT systems as the Australian GST existing in europe and elsewhere in the world.

http://www.kpmg.com.au/gst/work.html

GST & PROPERTY

What is a GST and how does it work?

The proposed GST is a value-added tax, its basic structure being similar to those in force in New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, South Africa, The United Kingdom and other European Union (EU) countries. Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka and Vietnam will adopt a value added tax within the next 12-18 months. The terminology Goods and Services Tax or GST is in line with that used in New Zealand and Canada.

Of the Asia Pacific region, Australia, Hong Kong and Malaysia stand out as the only major economies that have not adopted a value-added tax as their main indirect tax system.

The one of the main points of the NRST is to make the cost of govenment as visible in the everyday life of the individual as possible to encourage changes toward smaller less expensive government, not the growing of endless bureaucracies the VAT encourages. When people do not see the tax burden levied on them how hard do they fighting to reduce government programs?

Government should feel the pain when it grows too far out of bounds and is too costly. In my book 23% is too costly, yet that is but a portion of the tax burden we bear now under the system of income and payroll taxes we pay now. You look at a VAT to be a better alternative? Not in my book it isn't.

People should know where the costs are in their lives so they have an opportunity to address and correct the problem. You seem to want to bury the problems out of sight of the Voter, instead of rubbing the Voter's nose in the problem of too much cost government as well as too much government period. Problems only fester and grow worse when you bury them from direct view of the electorate.

If you want the intusive and extensive types of bureacracies of Europe and England you are welcome to them. That is the consequence of hidden tax systems, runaway socialism.

116 Posted on 08/18/2000 08:24:28 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | Top | Last ]

You , as ancient_geezer says, need to do more research. Here's the description of a VAT from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"value-added tax

government levy on the amount that a business firm adds to the price of a commodity during production and distribution of a good. Three major types of value-added tax have been identified, depending on the deductions allowed, but only one--called the "consumption" type--is widely used today.

Calculation of the value-added tax of the consumption type can be made in any of three different ways, but virtually every country imposing the tax uses the "invoice," or "credit," method of computation. Using this method, each seller (the party responsible for collecting the tax and paying it to the government) first calculates the sum of all the taxes that he has collected on goods sold; he then totals the sum of all the taxes that he has paid on goods purchased. His net tax liability is the difference between the tax collected and the tax paid.

It is generally assumed that the burden of the value-added tax, like that of other sales taxes, falls upon the final consumer. Although the tax is collected at each stage of the production-distribution chain, the fact that sellers receive a credit for their tax payments causes the tax, in effect, to be passed on to the final consumer, who receives no credit. The tax can be regressive (i.e., the percentage of income paid in tax rises as income falls), but most countries have at least partly avoided this effect by applying a lower rate to necessities than to luxury items.

In 1954 France was the first country to adopt the value-added tax on a large scale. It served as an improvement on the earlier turnover tax, by which a product was taxed repeatedly at every stage of production and distribution, without relief for taxes paid at previous stages. Although easier to administer, such a tax discriminated heavily against industries and sectors in which products were bought and sold several times, encouraging an undesirable concentration of economic power.

In 1968 West Germany adopted the value-added tax, and since then most other western European nations have followed suit, largely as the result of a desire to harmonize tax systems. All members of the European Union are required to implement value-added taxes that conform to a model prescribed by the union. Many countries in South America, Asia, and Africa have also adopted the tax. The U.S. state of Michigan used a value-added tax from 1953 through 1967 and again from 1975."

Perhaps you'll note here that the tax burden is passed on to the consumer while the business receives some relief from that benefit (in theory). In actual practice, the flat-VAT income tax is merely a way to TRY to make an income tax simulate a true consumption tax such as the NRST. If fact it falls short of even this goal and often ends up as a hotbed of fraud with ever-growing compliance costs. The NRST is nothing like that and, because of the cascading effect of the VAT which is passed on to the buyer at all levels, it ends up raising the levels of consumer prices.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

117 Posted on 08/18/2000 08:47:30 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | Top | Last ]

The Australian GST retains its income taxes and the program which the GST is part of actually creates several new taxes in their system besides. The 10% is only a very small portion of the Federal total tax burden that the Australian people are burdened with.

and the NRST adds 29.8% of tax to the final cost of the product.

That is where you are deliberately being deceptive in that the NRST repeals taxes burdening the price of products and the incomes of individuals then replaces 95% of all Federal taxes with an up front single visible tax.

The cost of goods and services will decrease an amount at the least similar to the tax collected. The overall total of the bill paid at the Retail counter will be very much the same and many economists expect lower than it is today.

Your attempt to mischaracterise the NRST as adding to the "price" we see today is totally fallacious and you know it.

Granted, the NRST system has much less reporting, but that is the only real advantage.

You are also not taking into account in your statement of a tax exclusive rate, that the individual will see his full wages for the first time in many peoples lives, with no extractions for Federal income tax witholding or FICA/SS/Medicare taxes.

You totally ignore the the Family Consumption Allowance paid to every citizen that applies for it to each man woman an child in a household to compensate for the tax burdens up to the poverty line of consumption.

At minimum it is expected that people will see a 15% rise in standard of living as a consequence of getting rid of the complexities of the income/payroll taxes and the costs attendant with compliance with them.

If you figure there is no advantage in the NRST over the system now in place in this country, or the total system now in place in Australia you simply have no understanding or appreciation for what the NRST is or what Australia's or even the American tax system is about.

118 Posted on 08/18/2000 08:49:17 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | Top | Last ]

You offer more baseless and counter productive opinion as always, AR. Your credibility and statements have zero capacity to convince as they are patently deceptive, incomplete, and wrong as a consequence.

You had better start looking for concrete studies and evidence to back you up, as your guesses, feelings, and impressions do not constitute a viable statement that stands up against research and logic.

You are full of hot air, and vaccuous mouthings of platitudes, and half truths of no substance. The pure demagogue at work.

119 Posted on 08/18/2000 08:59:37 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | Top | Last ]

'You offer more baseless and counter productive opinion as always, AR. Your credibility and statements have zero capacity to convince as they are patently deceptive, incomplete, and wrong as a consequence.'

As are your overblown claims. If you really think it matters whether the government uses an income tax, a retail sales tax, or a valued added tax, you are mistaken.

The biggest advantage of the tax system you propose is it is the easiest and most visible way for the government to suck the money out of the economy.

The biggest drawback of the tax system you propose is that it is the easiest and most visible way for the government to suck the money out of the economy.

120 Posted on 08/18/2000 10:01:19 PDT by Always Right
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | Top | Last ]

The biggest drawback of the tax system you propose is that it is the easiest and most visible way for the government to suck the money out of the economy.

I have yet to see any tax system you offer that will not suck money out of an economy. Your vaunted GST/VAT is among the worst drains there are. Hiding the entire burden from the VOTER behind the facade of price inflation.

The NRST is supposed to be the easiest(least costly) and most visible by design, so all Voters can perceive the true federal tax burden they are laboring under.

How would you go about educating and electorate to the real burdens when over half believe they can live off the other half with no cost to themselves.

Under the current system, over half of the Voters think they pay less than 5% in federal taxes and FICA is a payment into a retirement account.

You are a real fool if you believe that a change is going to occur towards smaller government under those conditions or under a VAT, especially when it is clear that more than 60% of the people in this country don't perceive any significant problems with the tax rate they think they are currently paying.

A GST/VAT would totally hide the cost of government(29.89% in addition to current takehome pay) behind a facade of inflation and "retirement payments". Or worse totally behind a wall of price inflation.

As long as over half the electorate can vote for what they believe someone else pays for, government will continue to grow.

Again, your comments amount to little more than incomplete thinking, and uninformed personal opinion, and outright deception.

121 Posted on 08/18/2000 10:41:16 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | Top | Last ]

"...but the Australia GST adds 11% of tax to the final cost of the product, and the NRST adds 29.8% of tax to the final cost of the product. The end result is the same. The BIG difference between the NRST and the GST is who submits the check to the tax collectors. Granted, the NRST system has much less reporting, but that is the only real advantage."

How soon we forget...The NRST will cause prices to drop from 20-40%. Now go refigure your calculations.

122 Posted on 08/18/2000 11:03:07 PDT by CHIEF negotiator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | Top | Last ]

As are your overblown claims.

What overblown claims are those? Be specific.

All I ever claim:

• The individual will receive all of what he only now sees as gross pay on tha pay slip. No deductions for federal income tax, no deductions for FICA/SS/Medicare

• Every individual will receive a Family Consumption Allowance equal to the tax he would pay on the poverty-line of consumption.

• Every individual will be able to perceive the cost of government in his everyday life as 23% of his expenditures, the same percent across the board for richman , poorman, black, white, or green.

• Every individual will be free of the mandate to report all income and assess tax against himself under penalty of law, and free the tender mercies of the IRS.

• Every individual will have a greater share of liberty and protection against government intrusion into his financial affairs.

Now what specifically is overblown in any of these claims.

123 Posted on 08/18/2000 11:18:59 PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | Top | Last ]

Can you really see no differences between the three tax types you mention???

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

124 Posted on 08/18/2000 12:55:48 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | Top | Last ]

New Thread!!!.

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

125 Posted on 08/18/2000 16:09:54 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | Top | Last ]

New Thread!!! (with link).

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

126 Posted on 08/18/2000 16:13:08 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | Top | Last ]

George seems to be suffering from the misconception that the Income Tax is the problem and that the not to be sufficiently damned IRS is just some benevolent government agency on the periphery.

FACT:

Most wealthy Americans who leave the United States and (since 1996) take ALL of their wealth with them, cite the "not to be sufficiently damned IRS" (NOT the Income Tax) as their primary reason for leaving.

An associate of mine, who now lives quite well in another country, said it best.  He told me that, making over two million dollars a year, he could easily pay even a million dollars in tax every year.  His problem was with the not to be sufficiently damned IRS.  He said that, because of the not to be sufficiently damned IRS, he spent over $100,000 on lawyers and accountants the last year he lived in the United States, not to pay less taxes, but just to make sure that he had not inadvertently violated some obscure rule that would bring down the wrath of the not to be sufficiently damned IRS.  His statement was, "I can afford to pay a million dollars a year in taxes.  But, I won't risk losing all $20,000,000 of my wealth because some bureaucrat noticed that I didn't dot an 'i' or cross a 't'."

His sentiment is one that I have run across many times in my business travels abroad.  Wealthy Americans use every legal way they can to lower their taxes.  And, as a result, many pay substantially less tax than most who make much less.  It is not the Income Tax that is driving native capital out of the United States at ever increasing rates.  It is not the Income Tax that they are afraid of.  They have many ways around that.  The problem is the type of intrusive government agency that any type of Income Tax (progressive or flat) requires.

The problem is the not to be sufficiently damned IRS.

Even a Flat Tax will require an intrusive agency like the IRS, even if you call it by a different name.  And, as long as such an agency exists, the government will continue to pass punitive laws to make it difficult for people to avoid their intrusive oversight.  And, every time they pass another one of those laws, another group of wealthy Americans see the government control gun aimed squarely at them and do what so many other before them have done - ESCAPE.

"ESCAPE"

That's the term that those Americans who are planning on leaving or have already left, use to refer to their departure.  Most Americans think of people "escaping" Nazi Germany or "escaping" Communist China.  But, who would use the word "escape" to describe the act of leaving the United States?  The answer to that question should be obvious.  Those who have been persecuted would use that term.

It's a sad state of affairs that the popular term for leaving the United States has become "escape".  But then, when you consider that the wealthy are being persecuted more and more every year and their total wealth (not just part of it) is threatened, the word "escape" doesn't seem so inappropriate after all.

Go ahead.  Continue with an income based tax.  Whether it's a progressive tax or a flat tax, it will have the same effect.  Native capital will continue to leave the United States.  For a while, foreign capital will replace it.  But, foreign capital is fickle.  As long as investing in the United States is more profitable than any other place, that foreign capital will be available.  But eventually, a new hot spot will emerge and that foreign capital will quickly move over there, to take advantage of greater opportunity.  When that happens, the United States, by that time having only limited native capital, will not be able to absorb the withdrawal of foreign capital.  Even if the United States can avoid complete economic collapse at that time, our position as "THE" world leader will forever be lost.

Then, of course, you must consider the effect on taxes.  If just the top 1% of taxpayers should leave, our tax base will be reduced by one-third and everyone who is left will have the privilege of paying a 50% tax increase (see "TICK-TICK-TICK - The Economy Bomb").  But, it doesn't stop there.  Less capital means less jobs, which means that those who still have jobs will have the additional privilege of supporting those who have lost their jobs.  That would add an additional 5% or 10% to the taxes.  Of course, such large tax increases, that are for the purpose of just staying even, will mean more lost jobs and more tax increases.  Is a picture beginning to develop here?

On every trip that I make out of the country, I meet more millionaire expatriates.  The numbers are growing fast.  We have many American millionaires who want to invest in our offshore companies, as a way to be prepared, should they soon decide that it's time for them to leave.  This is common across America.  So far, the number of wealthy Americans who have left is still relative small.  But, the numbers are growing rapidly and most American millionaires are structuring their finances for the eventuality that they will decide to leave.

If America chooses to stay with an income based tax, even if it is a flat tax, then expect the worst.  If you have any money, then I strongly suggest that you check out the links page on the Action America site at http://www.actionamerica.org/ for places to get a second passport.  You may not need one.  But, on the other hand, if the economy collapses, you don't want to be caught without one.  Just a word of caution to the wise.

Only a tax system that eliminates the not to be sufficiently damned IRS can turn this trend around.

At this time, only the NRST offers such a system.

Anything less is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

127 Posted on 08/20/2000 04:14:34 PDT by Action-America (jgaver@gurusinc.com)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

"not to be sufficiently damned IRS "

AA, Are they to be blamed, or their asters who make the rules by which they play. I say the masters be damned. Peace and love, George.

128 Posted on 08/20/2000 05:41:14 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | Top | Last ]

Is it reading or comprehension you have the biggest problem with, Karl Frm G00rky Park???

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

129 Posted on 08/20/2000 14:27:09 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | Top | Last ]

"Is it reading or comprehension you have the biggest problem with, Karl Frm G00rky Park??? "

PD, SCREW your dictates that I obey. NO thanks!! Peace and love, George.

130 Posted on 08/21/2000 06:34:43 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | Top | Last ]

Whatsup George,

Perhaps IRS are not the key villains in this play. Anyhow, bad laws would probably attract the worst human element to get busy at enforcing them. I think this is the case with IRS, that institution probably deservers all the abuse heaped upon it. (The only qualification would be: they still do not get enough of the mentioned abuse.)

Few would be personally interested in keeping bad laws in effect to the extent that the IRS agents are. Anyhow, we do know that it is up to the Congress etc. to change the laws.

Your pal Pat etc--nice people. But the 'flat' income tax will not do in my estimation. Please take no offence; there is plenty good in your pal Pat etc. otherwise.

But we must get rid of the income tax (and of IRS).

There are no peace and love possible when we are being oppressed and forced to pay for the expense of the same oppression on the top of it. No income tax in any shape please. Regards..

131 Posted on 09/13/2000 00:56:10 PDT by Boomerang@no-income-tax.com
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | Top | Last ]

"But we must get rid of the income tax (and of IRS)."

Boomer, My problem with that is that as far as I have been able to figure out, a true flat tax based on income is the most equitable form of taxation ever devised. It allows for ease of payment to be equal throughout the "classes", and puts no more heavy a burden on any individual taxable entity. It allows for the growth of personal income to be equally accessable to all due mostly to personal decisions and choice. NONE are favored above others. Unless of course, we do exempt the first ten thousand dollars of income for each and every taxable entity. Again, this does afford some help to those who truly need it, without harming those who don't. As far as the IRS, SOMETHING will take its place. I DON'T want the true revenuers {BATF} to have that job. And as far as the government knowing how much one makes, the government WILL do that one way or another. I understand a company today says they will introduce "The Smart Card" in the U.S. of A. That means that if you happen to run into a farmer with fresh vegetables, you won't be able to buy them for your children. ONLY government approved merchants will be the licensed middlemen who can make transfers of wealth however small. Peace and love, George.

132 Posted on 09/13/2000 07:18:42 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | Top | Last ]

Hmmm, Karl Frm G00rky Park, I guess you've demonstrated that it is mainly the comprehension you have the biggest deficit on since you apparently at least partially can read some of the replies.

If you could comprehend what you have read on these vanity threads you have done, it should certainly be apparent to you that your idea of an "ideal" flat tax (now there's a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) is totally screwed. Not only will it not provide sufficient revenue for the government to operate (and you certainly have not shown to the contrary), but it is still an income tax and leaves the IRS intact and functioning along with the entire lobbying industry - probably even enlarges these last two groups in fact. You would accomplish zippo at best, and probably only make things worse. One of the dumber tax ideas ever presented on these threads (and there have been plenty of other crackpot ideas to compete with yours).

Get real!

Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".

133 Posted on 10/12/2000 16:56:00 PDT by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | Top | Last ]

"but it is still an income tax and leaves the IRS intact and functioning along with the entire lobbying industry".

PD, The only need in the IRS would be for about three "interpreters" of tax law. And, the lobbyists would not be able to lobby Congress or anybody else for preferrential treatment in the tax code for their employers. Most of the IRS and lobbyists could go out and get real jobs. Maybe, with their intelligence they could even come up with new ideas for people to make money other than at the tit of godgov. Peace and love, George.

134 Posted on 10/13/2000 05:57:38 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | Top | Last ]

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.

[ Top | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC