To: Willie Green
Yet the NRST goes a long way toward implementing the first priority on Marx's list by redefining real property as a consumable good, then taxing the living hell out of its acquisition.
That's pretty funny, WG... not only do you contradict yourself (there wouldn't be any tax to collect unless the property could be acquired), but you also seem to forget that private property is still private, regardless of whether or not it is owned for end use or commercial use.
As for "taxing the living hell out of" buying property, why do you think that a 23% tax on property (or anything else) is any worse than having to buy property with less money to start with (income taxed before it is spent), at higher interest rates, and no distinction as to whether the property had even been taxed before?
In other words, why is the income tax preferable to a sales tax, in terms of the ability of individuals to buy property? You assert that this is true, but repeated assertions do not a solid argument make. Chief has posted a thorough analysis of housing prepared by AFT -- why not try to counter that (with facts, not simply your opinions) rather than simply repeat the same diatribe over and over?
59 Posted on 12/20/2000 14:11:31 PST by kevkrom
To: Willie Green, pigdog, ancient_geezer
I paste it repeatedly because it's concise and irrefutable no matter the quantity of garbage the shills post to divert attention.
Uh huh. Well, I've paged pigdog and ancient_geezer, who can counter your "irrefutable" so-called analysis with their own cut-and-paste job. At least Lewis occassionally changes tack when he's (repeatedly) shown to be wrong -- you're still stuck on your single, discredited note.
I referred to you as 'kornkob' in recognition of your apparent membership in the "NRST Uber Alles" cult. Only fruitcakes would continue to support such a tax proposal that is so fatally flawed at a fundamental level. They deserve the same respect for persistance that I would give a snake-oil salesman at a carnival sideshow. Don't take it personal.
Oh, the sincerity is overwhelming. Trust me, I don't take it personal; and I've been insulted far worse by other anti-reform people in response to my stance for personal freedom, the abolition of the IRS, and a tax system that places the government on full and immediate accountability for every tax dollar they extract. I never took it personally then, either. I see the ad hominem attacks launched by your ilk as a sign of desparation on your part -- why should it bother me when i am winning the argument?
I support the NRST because it's sound policy and it supports the principles of freedom. I've been a proponent of the sales tax since before I ever heard of AFT, the FairTax, or HR 2001 or 2525. I am no "cult" member, but rather someone who understands that the Marxist income tax system has to go, and that a sales tax system is not only Constitutionally sound, but is a smart and self-limiting way of providing the necessary evil of government revenue.
There is no such "fatal flaw" in the NRST as you so claim. Your concept of the "land grab" is laughable on its face (there is no incentive for the seller to choose an investment buyer over an end-use buyer, as his proceeds remain the same either way; and the tax on rent offsets the investment advantage of the tax-free purchase in terms of the marketplace of rent vs. purchase... perhaps you and Muttley ought to chat about "intrinsic value" sometime, as you seem to be coming from different ends of the spectrum), and you have never provided any supporting evidence other than "proof by repeated assertion" of your claims. You expect us to bow simply to your self-expressed "expertise" simply because you say so?
On the other hand, AFT has spent years and millions of dollars putting together a solid package of legislation and economic analyses that show the the NRST is not only good for tax policy, but for economic policy in general. And at the same time, it eliminates the most oppressive and ever-present agency of the government in one fell swoop.
Whom should I believe? I think I'll stay on the side that not only makes sense, but has real facts to support its case. That means (and I have to make this statement because Lewis might be reading, and being overly explicit is the only chance, however small, one has at explaining anything to him) the AFT and the FairTax.
67 Posted on 12/20/2000 15:20:01 PST by kevkrom
To: CHIEF negotiator
You never quit, do you?
The NRST is an end run around the growing public awareness that the 16th amendment, on which the present income tax is based, was never properly ratified according to the requirements set forth in the Constitution. Secretary of State Philander Knox, a pro Federal Reservist, lied to all America when he claimed that the amendment was ratified (in light of recent political events, lies by such a high official is not such a far-fetched idea). As just one example, Philander Knox reported that Kentucky ratified the amendment by vote of 22 to 9 in favor. However, examination of a certified copy of the actual Bill of Ratification from the Kentucky State Archives shows that the vote was actually 22 to 9 AGAINST ratification.
More on the failiure of the 16th amendment to be ratified and the false claim to the contrary can be found at
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
The reason for a rush to a NRST isobvious. Once the tax system is switched over from an income tax to asales tax, the non-ratification of the 16th amendment becomes little more than an historical curiosity, and tax revenues stay right where they are.
A genuine tax reformer would frst demand that the United states prove that the 16th amendment was legally ratified (beyond simply claiming that Philander Knox sez so), and when the ratification comes up short, simply abolish the income tax without replacing it with anything.
However, there is another good reason to avoid the NRST.
Oonce we are all paying a sales tax (and there is no gaurentee that the income tax would not remain anyway, government promises to the contrary notwithstanding), the government can raise tax revenues any time it wants, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, by creating conditions which will raise consumer prices for items we mus buy in order to survive.
Two recent examples suggest how easy this might be to accomplish. When Bill Clinton created the Grand Staircase Escalante Monument, closing off the only domestic supply of clean coal in the United States, he forced users of coal to purchase coal from the Lippo Group. This raised the price of every product produced with or from that coal. In all cases where a sales tax was applicable to those products, that sales tax also increased! Consumers were paying MORE tax, without congressional review, on command from the White House.
Recent laws have been passed limiting domsetic fishing areas. This has driven the price of fish at the market up, dragging the sales tax with it. Again, without congressional approval, the tax being paid by citizens is driven upwards.
With a total government debt of $14 trillion, do you think the government will hesitate to drive prices up using regulatory tricks, in order to get more tax revenues from you? hardly.
NRST is a bad idea, if for no other reason than that it motivates the government to use any tricks it can to increase prices for the necessities of life.
69 Posted on 12/20/2000 15:42:32 PST by Michael Rivero
To: Willie Green pigdog
...Yet the NRST goes a long way toward implementing the first priority on Marx's list by redefining real property as a consumable good,...
You're just not seeing the whole picture, Willie Green.
As it is today, a homebuyer pays FAR more federal tax on the purchase of a primary residence than they would under any sales tax plan.
To be able to purchase a $100,000 home, I would have to EARN $112,360 (assuming an effective income tax rate of 11%).
Of the $100,000 purchase price, $25,000 is embedded federal taxes. Those are the taxes that disappear under the sales tax.
So, under today's system (the system you assert has no taxes on home ownership) to buy the $100,000 home I would pay $37,360 in federal taxes.
Also noted is that currently, investors (landlords) can deduct 100% of all taxes, interest, and repairs on their rental homes.
In summary, today's system provides a deterent to home ownership and an incentive to be a landlord.
Under the sales tax, I would have to make $97,500 to buy the same home (including tax). I would pay $22,500 in tax (40% less federal tax).
So first of all, homes are taxed in today's system - and taxed heavily. To assert otherwise is ignorant.
Second, homes would be taxed far less under the sales tax. This analysis doesn't even take into account the immediate 25% reduction in interest rates that would occur under a sales tax. THAT would make homes even more affordable.
82 Posted on 12/20/2000 17:00:33 PST by Principled
To: Willie Green
Read the link and learn dammit!:
Corporate Income Taxes:
In 1996, federal, state, and local governments collected over $201 billion in corporate income taxes, or the equivalent of $760 a person. Many individuals believe that figure represents $201 billion that the rest of us don't have to pay. Some critics claim that corporations should pay even more in taxes.
On the surface, taxing corporations instead of people may sound appealing. However, it's not that simple, since corporations are people working as a legal entity. In addition, when the government imposes corporate income taxes, the potential responses include:
1. Raising prices
2. Lowering payments to stockholders
3. Reducing employee compensation and capital investment
Under any of the three options, Americans end up paying the tax either through lower wages if they work for a corporation, poorer performance if they own a mutual fund, or higher prices when they buy a product. But this tax burden doesn't show up on any pay slip or price tag.
Hidden corporate taxes impose an even greater burden because they represent double-taxation. When a company earns a profit, it pays taxes on that money. When it pays its stockholders a dividend, that same money is taxed again. This double-taxation discourages much-needed investment. Harvard economist Dale Jorgensen calculates that double-taxation reduces our national wealth by about a trillion dollars.
Everyone who owns a mutual fund or IRA, or who participates in a 401(k) or typical pension plan, is penalized by this double-taxation. Even relatively low-income Americans increasingly rely on stocks for a portion of their savings. According to the Federal Reserve Bank, from 1989 to 1995 the share of stocks as a percent of total assets doubled for families with incomes under $25,000.
Proof that Principled was absolutely correct! Now tell me Willie, where is your proof that this is incorrect. Please provide something other than your misinformed opinion...Thanks.
87 Posted on 12/20/2000 17:22:43 PST by CHIEF negotiator
To: Principled
The idea behind the sales tax is to:
1) eliminate hidden federal taxes
2) make all individuals keenly aware of the federal tax burden
Here's a hidden federal tax:
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `taxable employer' includes--
`(i) any household employing domestic servants, and
`(ii) any government except for government enterprises (as defined in section 704).
----------------
`(2) CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.
The cost of government, hence the size of government will increase with your plan, the 30% sales "gross payment" tax imposed ON "any government" "wages or salaries" is in addition to their already bloated "wages and salaries" ...
The employer (government) will collect it through higher fees that will also be taxed again, then remit it to itself.
Want another one?:
`SEC. 703. GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.
`(a) GOVERNMENT PURCHASES-
`(1) PURCHASES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT- Purchases by the Federal Government of taxable property and services shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 101.
`(2) PURCHASE BY STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS- Purchases by State governments and their political subdivisions of taxable property and services shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 101.
And then another 30% tax ON everything they we buy... Gee, where will they get the extra money to pay themselves the tax they imposed on themselves?...After all don't they consider every dime they spend "an investment"?
Want another?:
`(3) IMPLICITLY CHARGED FEES FOR FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION SERVICES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `implicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services' includes the gross imputed amount in relation to any underlying interest-bearing investment, account, or debt.
`(B) GROSS IMPUTED AMOUNT- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `gross imputed amount' means--
`(i) with respect to any underlying interest-bearing investment or account, the product of--
`(I) the excess (if any) of the basic interest rate (as defined in section 805) over the rate paid on such investment; and
`(II) the amount of the investment or account; and
`(ii) with respect to any underlying interest-bearing debt, the product of--
`(I) the excess (if any) of the rate paid on such debt over the basic interest rate (as defined in section 805); and
`(II) the amount of the debt.
In other words you'll be paying a sales "gross payment" tax on interest you pay (that's the 'purchase price' for borrowing buying money) and then through higher service fees you'll be paying the sales "gross payment" tax on interest you earn (reimbursement for taxes the financial institution pays)....
And, don't forget the 30% "gross payment" tax ON the service that pays you the interest that you pay tax on...
`(b) SELLER OF FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION SERVICES- For purposes of section 103(a), the seller of financial intermediation services shall be--
`(1) in the case of explicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services, the seller shall be the person who receives the gross payments for the charged financial intermediation services;
`(2) in the case of implicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services with respect to any underlying interest-bearing investment or account, the person making the interest payments on the interest-bearing investment or account; and
`(3) in the case of implicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services with respect to any interest-bearing debt, the person receiving the interest payments on the interest-bearing debt.
90 Posted on 12/20/2000 18:00:36 PST by lewislynn
To: Michael Rivero
NRST is a bad idea, if for no other reason than that
it motivates the government to use any tricks it can to
increase prices for the necessities of life.
You really should do a bit more investigation before making
unsupportable assertions. Shall we take a quick look at what the
income tax does to the price of goods and services today under
the corporate and payroll sides of the current income tax.
Dr. Walter E. Williams, March 2000:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b6487a1fb0.htm
The average taxpayer now pays more than $8,000 a year,
working from January 1 to May 8 to pay federal, state, and
local taxes. In addation to the out-of-pocket cost,
Americans spend 5.4 billion hours each year complying with
the federal tax code-roughly the equivalent of 3 million
people working full time. If it
were employed in productive activity, the labor now devoted
to tax compliance would be worth $232 billion annually. The federal cost of hiring
93,000 IRS employees is $6 billion. If these Americans
weren't fooling around with the tax code, they could produce
the entire annual output of the aircraft, trucking, auto, and
food processing industries combined..." Emphasis
added
American General Contractor's Association
http://www.agc.org/Legislative_Info/Members_Testify/testimony_04-10-00.asp
To this we must add the shear wastefulness of the colossal
compliance costs of the current tax system. To administer the
tax laws, the IRS directly employs about 112 thousand
employees. The IRS budget is about $8 billion. However,
direct expenses of the IRS are not the central compliance
problem; rather, it
is the expenses that are pushed forward on the taxpayer to be
tax collector, tax accountant, and record-keeper.
According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation in 1997
Americans spent no less than $225
billion complying with the income tax.
The most recent projections made by the IRS of tax returns to
be filed in Calendar Year (CY) 1999 indicate that the grand
total, or sum of all major tax return filings, will be 228.2
million. This number is then expected to grow at 1.24 percent
annually until CY 2005, when the grand total return count is
expected to reach 245.2 million. This does not include the 1
billion information returns that will be filed. In addition,
more than 8 billion forms and instructions are sent to
taxpayers each year, enough to encircle the globe several
times.
Paperwork is the most visible compliance cost, but it is clearly not the only,
and perhaps not the largest compliance costs. Return
processing, determining liability, recordkeeping and other
burdens are an estimated 19 to 33 % of the total revenue
raised by the income tax system and 2.0 to 3.5% of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP)[an additional 3% of GDP1999
= $279Billion].
We waste money each year on seeking to avoid taxes,
avoid trouble with the IRS, interpret the laws or determining
the best course of actions with the laws.
Who pays these compliance costs? You do. The
hardest hit segments of our economy are middle
income wage earners and business owner. Small
corporations in particular endure compliance costs estimated
to be several multiples of the tax actually collected.
Although duly included in the National Income Product
Accounts (NIPA), payments made to tax lawyers, accountants,
IRS agents and other tax professionals do not really improve
our collective standard of living. These compliance costs are
wasteful expenditures, which absorb so much time and energy
of American people that they roughly approximate in costs the
assets of the entire building industry. None of this is
necessary.
Adding to the costs and to unfairness, our tax laws are so
complicated not even the common tax lawyer can understand
them. There are a number of ways of measuring complexity; one
of which is the number of penalties issued and then abated
for reasonable cause. There are more than 34 million
civil penalties issued each year; more than a third of all
small firms receive payroll tax-related penalties alone. More
than 50 percent are abated.
The tax system is now so monstrously complex that it is
beyond the ability of any one person to understand it.
Understanding the system is certainly beyond the reach of
most mere tax lawyers, accountants and tax administrators. A
system that is so complex must be administered in an
arbitrary and unfair way. If no one really understands what
the law is, it is impossible to administer fairly and
uniformly - and of course, it is not so administered.
Our government embroiled its citizens in more than 35,000 litigation
actions. Taxpayers sustained more
than 3 million levies. As long as we insist upon an
income tax system, the system needs to be complex. The system
needs to be enforced with a heavy hand. The system needs to
have all of the 34 million in civil penalties. The system
needs to be intrusive. It is the price we have to pay for an
income tax system.
Perhaps most troublesome, we have gotten little in
return for this payment because our current tax system has
inspired an increasingly lower level of compliance. Despite
the costs of enforcing and maintaining our system, tax evasion is at an all time high.
Today's income tax system has invited massive noncompliance.
According to the IRS own statistics, only about 80
percent of taxes owed are voluntarily paid -- $200 billion are not.
In 1992, the tax gap was estimated to be $127 billion. Taxes
evaded continue to be in the range of 22 to 23% of income
taxes collected. These IRS figures did not include
taxes lost on illegal sources of income. Evaded
taxes increased by 67% in the decade between 1982 and 1992.
As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), tax evasion
has reached 2.0% compared to 1.6 % in 1991.
Our current system is also problematic because much
of the burden of the current system is hidden from the
American taxpayers. Most taxpayers have been taught
that an amorphous entity - business -- must pay its fair
share. However, they do not understand that businesses are
merely a collection of individuals engaged in a productive
enterprise. When businesses are taxed, the taxes result in
fewer businesses, lower wages or higher priced goods and
services if the taxes can be pushed forward. In some
businesses, taxes cannot be pushed forward and the owner must
endure these taxes. Businesses don't pay taxes,
people do; however, the corporate income tax and the
employer share of payroll taxes perpetuate this myth.
It is not a harmless myth. The hidden cost of our tax
system ensures that Americans
remain ever ignorant of the increasing proportion of federal
taxes they pay. Taxes are now more than
20 percent of Gross Domestic Product, and despite the claims
of tax cuts, Americans pay more now than we have in the
history of our nation, including the height of World War II. Upstream taxes only ensure that
taxpayers cannot see the true cost of our government, raise
the costs of goods and services and ensure more taxes in the
future.
There is another problem with hidden taxes. Apart from
ensuring the system lacks integrity, hidden
taxes buried in goods and services reduce exports, and result
in lower profits, lost productivity and a competitive
advantage to foreign commodities.
Taken altogether, the true tax burden impressed upon us all
through higher prices and loss of productivity exceeds the mere
revenue collected by the govenment by substantially more than the
$593 billion
estimate of James Payne in 1995:
Town Crier Staff Writer
Clyde Noel : http://www.losaltosonline.com/latc/arch/9528/
"In a book titled "Costly Returns," economist James Payne estimates
the nation's bill 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."
And that was 5 years ago, I hesitate to guess what it is
today, all due to the current income/payroll tax system.
Adding those Government mandated Compliance costs onto the
Federal revenues collected shows the real Federal Tax burden to
be at least 33% more than the raw government statistics of
revenue lead one to believe.
Depressing, ain't it?
Furthermore, taking these statistics into account and the text
of the NRST bill HR2525 we can determine the impact of the NRST
as a replacement to the income tax.
I suggest we start with takehome pay as our reference, as that
is indeed what each and everyone of us actually relate to. We can
allocate taxation with reference to that basic number and then
determine the degree of any relief in tax burden of any
particular income group where the NRST is concerned versus
Consumption expenditures as they exist under the current income
tax system.
Of expenditures that people currently make from takehome
pay(i.e. after tax dollars), more than 95% goes towards
consumption expenditures(mortgage & personal loan interest,
goods & services), and less than 5% toward savings and
investment. This is especially true for lower income bracket
below the middle decile.
Of the consumption expenditures Under the 23% NRST of HR2525:
1) Loan rates are expected to fall to less the 75% of
current loan rates under the income tax due to the
differential between taxed interest and untaxed interest
under the income tax;
2) Prices for goods and services are expected to drop more
than 22%, due to corporate/business income taxes, Social
Security payroll excise taxes, Medicare excise taxes, Federal
unemployment taxes, costs attributable to business income an
payroll tax law compliance.
We Note that under HR2525, the Corporate/business taxes and
costs above and the taxed vs untaxed interest differentional will
be eliminated by repeal of Federal income, payroll, and estate
taxes.
Taken together we will assume the more conservative number
that the overall drop in consumption prices will be to 78%(a fall
of 22%) of current consumption spending out of a persons takehome
pay.
We know that in order to calculate the NRST gross payment
amount for taxable consumption prices, we simply multiply the
price (Pincometax *(1-0.22))*1.2987 giving us a value
for equivalent gross consumption expenditure under the NRST as Pnrst
= (Pincometax *
1.012986)
That is 22% decrease in posted prices at the retail level,
and retail loan interest rates.
29.87% tax exclusive NRST rate of posted retail prices.
Thus we notice an overall increase of gross payment of
consumption expenditures of less than 1.3% after payment of all
Federal income and payroll taxes under the NRST.
Actually that would work out to be less than 1.23% =
1.3%/(1.05) of the income tax takehome pay assuming a savings
rate of 5%.
That is 1.23% of After tax pay after the income tax currently
in place
Under the NRST that takehome pay will increase by the
effective Federal Individual Income Tax rates +
SS/Medicare/FederalUnemployment payroll tax rates on wages. A
percentage substantially more than the 1.23% for anyone who has
earnings subject to taxation under the income tax.
The NRST differential is +1.23% of current aftertax pay
applied to Federal taxes.
Under the NRST every individual would receive their full Gross
Pay instead of that aftertax pay they now receive, plus the
Family Consumption Allowence.
It appears to me that everyone in the Country would
benefit from the NRST
EXCEPT:
- those groups of persons who pay no Federal Individual
Income/Payroll Taxes now and
- do not wish to tell the government where they receive
mail so they can receive the FCA due them.
I leave it to the reader to decide who those persons may be.
92 Posted on 12/20/2000 18:36:52 PST by ancient_geezer
To: all
Folks, just think about it for a moment. Isn't the normal human reaction to want to get rid of taxes? We already spend about 45% of our lives in economic slavery to the government, and they are STILL $14 trillion in debt.
You have to wonder at the real motives of anyone who comes in so eager and ready to try to sell you on another tax. Why waste all that time and energy if you wind up paying the same (or more) money? It just doesn;t make sense.
As I pointed out above, a sales tax gives the government the ability to raise tax revenues without legilslative oversight simply by regulatory tinkering with the price of consumer necessities. I've already provided examples where the White House has driven up the cost of goods and services without congressional approvals. Were there an NRST, we would be paying MORE taxes as a result of the mandated higher prices. Do you really want the government to have that kind of power? Does anyone here think that the government would not use this mechanism to oncrease tax revenues, especially as the economy stagnates?
The normal human instinct is to say, "Get rid of taxes".
Theres something weird about all theser guys saying, "Let's try this here new tax".
The shills pushing this latest in a long line of swindles kep promising that the IRS will go away. That's nonsense. Someone has to administer the NRST. Guess who that is?
Likewise, there is no way to gaurentee that once the NRST was in place that the income tax would go away. This government is not a truthful one. We were promised a lot of things, like the boys would be home from Bosnia before Christmas (a few years ago). Those promises are never kept.
The track record of this government, especially concerning tax legislation, is not a good one.
The first income tax, later struck down as unconstitutional, was implimented as an emergancy measure. But with a total state and federal government debt of $14 trillion and the economy headed into a severe slowdown, there will be an emergancy justifying the continuence/reinstatement of the income tax. Remember, to create the illusion of prosperity these last 8 years, Clinton doubled the Federal debt and still had to loot the Social Security trust fund to balance his books. Does this sound like a government that's not going to find itself in an emergancy in the very near future?
The government is bankrupt. Do we want to continue to throw away good money after bad? Do we want to give this desperate government a reason to force consumer prices higher and higher just to increase its own revenues?
I don't think so.
97 Posted on 12/20/2000 19:49:09 PST by Michael Rivero
To: Willie Green
!!! The price of a home is more often determined by
its location than its actual construction costs!!! A $200k
home can very quickly become a $75k home sitting on a $125k
lot!!!
You have your brain in the income/capital gains tax box, I suggest
you let it out. Land by is very nature, is a non-consumable and
an investment as opposed to a consumption item. It can no more be
taxed under the NRST than the aquistion of stock in a
corportation.
Secondly, by the fact that all land currently held in private
hands has been taxed previously in the same manner as on old car
has been through federal income taxes on the funds expended to
purchase such.
As a consequence of both conditions land is ineligible to be
taxed under the NRST legislative language of HR2525.
However, you had best realize that that new house, which you
so blythely state as $75k had better be is composed of materials
and labor less than that amount or you as a business person will
find your self in violation of HR2525's tax law. Remember service
and materials go into the building of that house, and that sir is
separable from any price attributable to the land per-se. When
you sell that new house you will be facing a state taxing
authority that knows the appraised value of that land, as well as
what the taxable value of that building and supporting
infra-structure actually is.
You may try to fraudulently misrepresent it if you wish, but I
sure wouldn't care to try it in my state.
103 Posted on 12/20/2000 23:15:23 PST by ancient_geezer
To: Michael Rivero
"You have to wonder at the real motives of anyone who comes in so eager and ready to try to sell you on another tax. Why waste all that time and energy if you wind up paying the same (or more) money? It just doesn;t make sense."
History Lesson #1:
According to the Tax Foundation, in a report last year:
"From 1981 to 1999, [in a short 18 years] the federal government increased what it collects per person more than 45 percent,"..."Americans will spend more money per capita in 1999 on taxes ($10,298) than on food ($2,693), clothing ($1,404), and shelter ($5,833) combined".
Even with the GOP in charge of the nations pursestrings spending has increased!
This chart does not look very promising
for the future
financial well-being of our offspring..
does it?
TAXES
You can continue to rant, rave and kick your feet about the 16th never being properly ratified, but your methods have not worked, have they? So unless you have some ~~~magic~~~ wand that will lower spending, in another 18 years, expect you children/grandchildren to spend over $20,000 per year to feed the beast!
"As I pointed out above, a sales tax gives the government the ability to raise tax revenues without legilslative oversight simply by regulatory tinkering with the price of consumer necessities. I've already provided examples where the White House has driven up the cost of goods and services without congressional approvals."
Certainly under the income tax system, the government can hide and disguise taxation by taxing business more heavily. These are the corporate income taxes and compliance costs we've been discussing that are embedded in the price of everything you buy...but the FairTax eliminates these "hidden" taxes and will reduce compliance costs by 90%. Once the FairTax is the law of the land, consumer products will decrease by as much as 20-40% due to lowered costs and competition for your business. The FairTax will effectively slam the door shut on the lobbyists who garner favor for their clients through the tax code. The FairTax folks copied the idea from a bunch of old dead white guys who believed that "Excise taxes should be uniform". As the bill is written, there will be no exemptions, exclusions or loopholes. Can they change the bill to allow exemptions? SURE! Can they simply increase the NRST rate? SURE! But either action would mean political suicide, because it would affect every single voter!
"Were there an NRST, we would be paying MORE taxes as a result of the mandated higher prices."
See above
"Do you really want the government to have that kind of power?"
As stated above, the government has that power today and the FairTax will assist on reining in that power.
"Does anyone here think that the government would not use this mechanism to oncrease tax revenues, especially as the economy stagnates?"
I'd call these polidiots "One-Termers" because we'd vote the fargin icehole bastages OUT! Manditory reading:
The Fairtax: Good for Taxpayers, Good for Businesses, Good for the Economy
104 Posted on 12/21/2000 01:38:52 PST by CHIEF negotiator
To: Willie Green
The investment buyer can outbid the end-use buyer every time because the investment buyer does not pay NRST. It's a two-tiered system where the investment buyer can own the property for less money out of pocket than the end-use buyer. Period.
Firstly, you avoided the real point -- the seller has no incentive to choose one over the other
Secondly, you really have no concept of economics, do you? Just because the investment buyer can buy it for less out of pocket than the end-use buyer, it doesn't mean it makes economic sense to do so. If the investment buyer pays more for the property in order to acquire it, he will either have to charge more for rent, or settle for a lower return on investment. In the former case, higher rents would make the market for end-use purchase better; in the latter, it may not be enough of a return to justify the risk of investment. Remember that since rent is taxed, the incentive for people to buy (new) property for end use rather than rent will be the same (comparitively) as today, as both activities would be taxed equally.
If anything, the NRST would discriminate against the investment owner, because they would be at a disadvantage in buying previously-taxed property. It would be far less expensive for someone to buy used property for end-use (with no tax) than it would be to pay the rent (including tax) on the same property, meaning that there would be a reduced market for used-property rentals.
108 Posted on 12/21/2000 08:41:37 PST by kevkrom
To: Willie Green
Wake up ro the real world WG, land is not taxed, a new house built on that land is. If you want to stay in business you will conform. If not, get a 9-5 job and quit belly ach'n as being in business gives you that tax free environment you complain is a disensentive to the home owner vesus the investor/contractor. You can't have it both way Willy. But then again I you like filling out income tax forms and deduction schedules, as well as all the rest of the filing and return accounting that goes along with income/payroll/estate taxes.
Under the NRST selling price of the house is the factor, if you choose to take a loss because you won't do the accounting to look after your own interests, well you won't be in business for long and you won't have to worry about it.
If you fraudulently try shifting dollars from house to land trying to create a tax evasion mechanism for your customer, guess who gets hit. You the seller, who is necessary to the scheme. Guess what you take the risk for the dishonesty in such activity, it you who looses the contractors/brokers licence that allows you the business tax relief in the first place.
That's life bucko, so lump it.
122 Posted on 12/21/2000 10:44:50 PST by ancient_geezer
To: Willie Green
Guess you never learn, do you Willie? You keep posting the same misinformed trash time after time - maybe in hopes of folling someone.
There are any number of things wrong with your arguments as posters would know if they have
followed your "progression" through several threads now. First of all, though, let me express the
objection I have to your use of inflammatory statements such as your lead in on your reply where
you say:
"Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab" where business
interests are favored over individuals purchasing for their own use: "
It is not "posing as tax reform" but it is a for real flesh and blood tax reform in bill form being
considered by the House of Representatives. It has many economic advantages for this country in
addition to eliminating the income tax and the IRS. Nor is it a "land grab favoring business interests
over individuals as you state. You would have known that had you taken advantage of some of the
links proponents have provided, but you haven't even been intellectually honest enough to read the
HR2525 bill itself.
This sort of demagoguery severely detracts from your position as do the facts. With the NRST as
the tax law prices of homes (and most other things as well) will be lowered considerably and lower
interest rates, when combined with a buyer being able to make use of untaxed income, will make
home ownership easier to achieve than under the income tax system. A landlord/investor (who you
have described before as "landed gentry") is not able to "exploit the business exemption" since there
is no such exemption. Things are not taxed under the NRST until they are sold at final consumption
and they are taxed only once. This means that the landlord does not pay the tax when he buys the
property as an investment but that it is paid by the renter as a part of his rent.
Under the income tax presently, the landlord-business enjoys a much greater benefit in relation to
the renter in that 100% of the price of the property is written off in depreciation as well as many
other business expenses that the individual home buyer cannot avail himself of. In spite of this
100% price advantage (using your peculiar logic), there are still ample homebuyers and always will be particularly when they
will be greatly aided in home buying under the NRST. To see why, read
This Paper.
Because of the advantages enjoyed presently by a landlord wishing to purchase a house to rent, it is
nothing but misinformation to try to describe the situation under the NRST as a "price advantage" to
the landlord. As just pointed out under the present income tax, the landlord has a much greater
advantage since not only may he take the entire price off of his taxes over time, but he may also
deduct any interest paid as one of his business expenses (in addition to many others - such as
landscaping or minor improvements, for example) while most homebuyers can not only deduct the
purchase price of the home from their taxes, they cannot even make use of the mortgage interest
deduction if their AGI is not sufficiently "up there".
In addition to all that the home buyer presently must make any purchase with money that has
already been taxed both with payroll taxes at 15.3% and with income tax of at least 15%. This paying
with after-tax money also applies to closing costs, and any other furnishings or home improvements
that might be necessary.
The landlord presently has far more "advantages" than does the homeowner. With the NRST, things
are a lot more helpful for the home buyer. In short, the poster is merely making the common (and
shortsighted) analysis of trying to make an economic determination by looking at one side of the
situation; that of the taxation of a house used for different purposes - by the landlord as an
investment and by the homebuyer as a domicile. In either event the home buyer is much better off
under the NRST than under the income tax (which the poster is forced to pretend does not exist in
order to present his biased - and erroneous - analysis). He also takes no note of the fact that under
the NRST what was a $200,000 house will drop in price to something like a $130,000 to $150,000
house due to the removal of hidden taxes and costs that the NRST brings about. This makes his
sales tax figures greatly inflated when they would be $29,900 to $34,500 for the case just cited.
Since this poster has a huge bias against any NRST, his presentations are dramatically different
from the truth. Please stop and think about not just his presentation, but what presently occurs under
the income tax - he is only presenting one side of the full story and then with language intended to
inflame.
This must be the umpteenth time you have posted that self-same reply. Repeating a lie does not
make it the truth; not even if your initials are WJC (or WG).
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
127 Posted on 12/22/2000 13:44:00 PST by pigdog
To: lewislynn
Wrong again, Looey. Seems like you're a neverending source of bum information, doesn't it?
Aside from the fact that all of your garbage about taxing interest, etc. is completely wrong and the fact that you've never bothered to find out that the term "gross payments" is clearly defined in HR2525 and means nothing like your attempt at mischaracterization of it, there is another big point you're trying to slide over to misinform.
That large point is that the $154,000 home you're bitching about WAS a $200,000 home under the income tax and it required you to earn something like an extra $100,000 or more in additional taxable income to pay for it since not only were the wages subject to income tax but also to payroll taxes and financing the mortgage caused you to pay many extra thousands in interest caused only by the fact in the present income tax that a lender must charge higher interest to "cover" his presumed taxes and still allow a reasonable return. (That's one of those "hidden tax" things you don't think exist).
None of those things are true under the Fair Tax. So you see the $154,000 home which (in your definition) "costs" $200,000 under the FairTax actually, when under the status quo, costs something like $350,000 or more. We know of your "little problem" with numbers Looey, but most people easily recognize that 350,000 is more than 200,000.
Too bad you don't!!
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
130 Posted on 12/22/2000 14:06:15 PST by pigdog
To: Cato
Has it not been said by the legislature, and agreed to by the courts that income is not the subject of the tax? And, if not, what is the subject?
Tell me.
One’s status.
I am against the income tax and want what the founders wanted to raise revenue. Tariffs!
I agree. And, a lot of American jobs would return. But, that’s not good for the United Nation’s globalization plans to enslave you.
Remind me what the subject was of the income tax. I haven't visited this topic in awhile and I haven't read Schiff's books in about a year. Please.
Something about an excise tax on the profits of a corporation?
Sorry Irwin! Wrong answer. No cigar! Go to jail again: Do NOT pass go! Do NOT collect your liberty.
Again, the correct answer ISSSSssssss,.... "One's Status."
Figure out the artifice and you're a freeman, can make millions on a book, get murdered by the bankers for your efforts, and then spend eternity watching how long it takes others to think simply, read and comprehend at a 8th grade level.
Regards,
I. M. Freeman
173 Posted on 03/17/2001 12:34:32 PST by imfreeman
To: Cato
Again, the correct answer ISSSSssssss,.... "One's Status."
Status?
I suppose by that you mean anyone who earns money?
No. I mean, for examples, A citizen of the United States;
A citizen of the United States who claims residency within one of its jurisdictions;
A resident alien;
A non-resident alien;
That would make it a capitation tax or direct tax and there are not supposed to be direct taxes, DS!
Capitation or direct taxes are a thing of the past since the bankruptcy of the sovereign states in 1938. The states no longer deal in silver or gold, and by constitutional restraints, they cannot make anything else a tender in payment of these kind of taxes.
Something about an excise tax on the profits of a corporation?
What about it? If we are talking about the income tax, yes, the courts and legislature have admitted it is an excise or duty tax, and income is the reference by which it is measured.
To my mind, the question then becomes, “How did I, a flesh and blood individual freeman in my sovereign capacity, become a corporation or commercial entity liable for income tax?
I think you need to check out the original Supreme Court rulings on income.
I have checked out some, and agree with them, so what is the court’s answer to the last question above?
More constitutionally stated, “How did I, a citizen of the United States, or freeman with common law unalienable rights, who has voluntarily waived none of them for any cause or reason, become liable for a constitutionally legal commercial excise tax?” It’s all in their scriptures to read for those who have eyes to see.
This brings us full circle back to status.
If you would like to read more about this line of thinking, rather than take the time to post it here, please surf to the article, “Tax Season Triggers Debate Over Legality of Income Tax," Post 22, on this web site.
175 Posted on 03/22/2001 12:47:33 PST by imfreeman
