The Last Days of the Income Tax System

There is nothing to debate because its over SHILL!

tariffs ... and the founding fathers.

But not in isolation of of other forms of taxes such as internal consumption taxes on goods, and occupations. Property taxes in the form of direct tax levies, And use taxes such as those levied on personal carriages.

The founders used a plethora of revenue sources and did not focus only on external tarriffs, and in fact recommend against the use of tariffs alone as they could lead to a severe problems in trying to collect sufficient revenues when shipping and imports were at risk from economic or trade considerations, or in the case of hostilities with other nations such a tax would place the Treasury in severe jeopardy.

Hamilton, Federalist #35:

"if the jurisdiction of the national government, in the article of revenue, should be restricted to particular objects, it would naturally occasion an undue proportion of the public burdens to fall upon those objects. Two evils would spring from this source: the oppression of particular branches of industry; and an unequal distribution of the taxes, as well among the several States as among the citizens of the same State."
"The maxim that the consumer is the payer, is so much oftener true than the reverse of the proposition, "

"When they are paid by the merchant they operate as an additional tax upon the importing State, whose citizens pay their proportion of them in the character of consumers. "
"Suppose, as has been contended for, the federal power of taxation were to be confined to duties on imports, it is evident that the government, for want of being able to command other resources, would frequently be tempted to extend these duties to an injurious excess. There are persons who imagine that they can never be carried to too great a length; since the higher they are, the more it is alleged they will tend to discourage an extravagant consumption, to produce a favorable balance of trade, and to promote domestic manufactures. But all extremes are pernicious in various ways. Exorbitant duties on imported articles would beget a general spirit of smuggling; which is always prejudicial to the fair trader, and eventually to the revenue itself: they tend to render other classes of the community tributary, in an improper degree, to the manufacturing classes, to whom they give a premature monopoly of the markets; they sometimes force industry out of its more natural channels into others in which it flows with less advantage; and in the last place, they oppress the merchant, who is often obliged to pay them himself without any retribution from the consumer. When the demand is equal to the quantity of goods at market, the consumer generally pays the duty; but when the markets happen to be overstocked, a great proportion falls upon the merchant, and sometimes not only exhausts his profits, but breaks in upon his capital."

Hamilton, Fedralist #30:

"The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution ...qualify ... by a distinction between what they call INTERNAL and EXTERNAL taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities.
"To say that deficiencies may be provided for by requisitions upon the States, is on the one hand to acknowledge that this system cannot be depended upon, and on the other hand to depend upon it for every thing beyond a certain limit. "

Hamilton, Federalist #31:

"A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."
"As revenue is the essential engine by which the means of answering the national exigencies must be procured, the power of procuring that article in its full extent must necessarily be comprehended in that of providing for those exigencies."
"As theory and practice conspire to prove that the power of procuring revenue is unavailing when exercised over the States in their collective capacities, the federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes. "

Hamilton, Federalist #35:

"The maxim that the consumer is the payer, is so much oftener true than the reverse of the proposition, that it is far more equitable that the duties on imports should go into a common stock, than that they should redound to the exclusive benefit of the importing States. But it is not so generally true as to render it equitable, that those duties should form the only national fund. When they are paid by the merchant they operate as an additional tax upon the importing State, whose citizens pay their proportion of them in the character of consumers. In this view they are productive of inequality among the States; which inequality would be increased with the increased extent of the duties. The confinement of the national revenues to this species of imposts would be attended with inequality, from a different cause, between the manufacturing and the non-manufacturing States."

No debate is over till the Fat Lady Sings, TT.

I note you are still shilling for your TP guru Kotmair.

What did you say you paid for your membership TT?

And did you by any of that holy oil he was selling his flock to support his scams?

S.A.P. and the Taxtruth message that must be disclaimed right out of the shoot?

"I AM NOT A LAWYER, CPA OR ENROLLED AGENT LICENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE IRS."

"I DO NOT GIVE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE, SO PLEASE DON'T ASK FOR ANY. ANY QUESTIONS? CLICK HERE

"TaxTruth4u never, EVER!, offers advice of any kind - tax, legal, financial, or otherwise - or even so much as suggests the undertaking of any particular course of action.
In other words, it is YOUR sole responsibility - not ours or anyone else's - to understand the Law for yourself, to understand your own obligations and responsibilities under the Law, and to decide upon any course of action you may or may not wish to embark upon as a result of that newly gained understanding.
Therefore please take notice:
* If you understand the Law to say it requires you to file returns and pay income and employment tax, you should do so.
* If, on the other hand, you have concluded that the Law does NOT apply to you in your current situation and circumstances and you decide to stop filing (and paying) , you should be prepared for the consequences - i.e., you could lose everything you own and become a guest at "Club Fed"."

Because:

40.01 GENERALLY
Tax protestors have developed numerous schemes to evade their income taxes and frustrate the Internal Revenue Service under the guise of constitutional and other objections to the tax laws.
***

"SECTION 6673. SANCTIONS AND COSTS AWARDED BY COURTS
(a) TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS

(1) PROCEDURES INSTITUTED PRIMARILY FOR DELAY, ETC.
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that--

(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless , or
(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies,

the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000."

26 USC 7206(2) 26 makes it a felony to:

Willfully aid[] or assist[] in . . . the preparation or presentation under . . . the internal revenue laws . . . of a return . . . which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return . . . .

This statute is known as the Internal Revenue Code's aiding and abetting provision, and applies not only to tax return preparers but to anyone who causes a false return to be filed. United States v. Sassak, 881 F.2d 276, 277-78 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Hooks, 848 F.2d 785, 789 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Williams, 644 F.2d 696, 701 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 841 (1981).

[skipping some]
For example, in United States v. Causey, 835 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction of the defendant for causing 18 individuals to file false tax returns claiming refunds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2. The defendant argued that the government failed to establish that the persons actually submitting the false claims knew they were false. The Ninth Circuit distinguished the two subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and found that under subsection 2(b) a person "may be guilty of causing a false claim to be presented to the United States even though he or she uses an innocent intermediary to actually pass on the claim to the United States." 835 F.2d at 1292.
The court then held that in a section 2 prosecution for violation of section 287, the government does not need to allege or prove that the person actually submitting the claims knew them to be false. Id.

Tax protestors who cause third parties to prepare and file false returns may be charged under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). See United States v. Holecek, 739 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 (1985) (return preparation); United States v. Kellogg, 955 F.2d 1244, 1249 (9th Cir. 1992) (defendant assisted in preparation of returns filed by others); United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 240 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985) (preparation and mailing of false Forms W-4); United States v. Erickson, 676 F.2d 408 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 853 (1982).
Providing advice and material to taxpayers, who in turn file false returns, is sufficient to sustain a section 7206(2) conviction. See United States v. Kelley, 769 F.2d 215 (4th Cir. 1985). In Kelley, the defendant argued that he could not be lawfully convicted of violating section 7206(2) because "he . . . did not actually participate in the preparation of any of the forms [Forms W-4] but only gave advice that his listeners were free to accept or reject." Kelley, 769 F.2d at 217. Rejecting this argument, the court said:

The contention ignores reality, for he did participate in the preparation of the forms. He told the listeners what to do and how to prepare the forms. He did so with the intention that his advice be accepted, and the fact that the members paid him for the advice and promised assistance warranted an inference of an expectation that the advice would be followed. Moreover, he actually supplied forms and materials to be filed with W-4 forms. He did not take his pen in his hand to complete the forms, but his participation in their preparation was as real as if he had.

For which sage and worthy advice you may purchase at bargain rate prices:

" (12 HOUR VIDEO SERIES ON INCOME TAX LAW AND RELATED ISSUES) $230.00. (or $199.95 in *certified funds)"
" (12 HOUR AUDIO VERSION) $80.00. (or $64.95 in *certified funds)"
" (12 HOUR VIDEO SERIES ON INCOME TAX LAW AND RELATED ISSUES) $230.00. (or $199.95 in *certified funds)"
" (12 HOUR AUDIO VERSION) $80.00. (or $64.95 in *certified funds)"

So that you to can become one of many SAPs:

A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court:

"Save-a-Patriot" (John B. Kotmair) In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94);
("we have come to understand that ‘patriot’ may be a buzz-word for ‘tax protester’.")Kotmair v. CIR (6/19/86) 86 TC 1253;
(awareness by perp that founder Kotmair had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95);
("Save-a-Patriot" organization cited for contempt of court for its interference with a bankruptcy court proceeding) In re Weatherley (ED Penn unpub 7/15/93);
(organization forbidden to accept money for its amateur advice to a litigant in bankruptcy court) In re Weatherley (Bankr. ED Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427;
(in perhaps its only court victory, the organization described itself as a church, and claimed to possess a vial of holy oil from the Temple in Jerusalem, to perform weddings, (allegedly) subsidize incarcerated members who have "resisted and delayed the tyrants at every step through the criminal investigation and all other agency and court proceedings", sell tax-dodge publications as holy scriptures, and (generously) support Kotmair as their cleric, etc. Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695;
Kotmair refused give testimony voluntarily for one of his followers who was prosecuted for multiple tax evasion. US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);

Yep, "SAP" is certainly an excellent acronym for anyone associated with Mr. Kotmair and his organization. Note the court decision Mr. Kotmair got paid on(Managed to call themselves a tax exempt "church", or was it by chance an unrelated factor of IRS misbehaviour?

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:

Posing?

H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

Sure looks like tax reform to me.

Willy, how many years you going to continue with the same wornout irrational diatribe?

You continually throw it out inspite of the fact it has been totally refuted everytime you have posted it to wit with attribution out of respect of its dominant user:

Homebuilders and the FairTax

Homebuilders Will Reduce Costs and Increase Profits

Like other firms, homebuilders will enjoy a zero corporate tax rate under the FairTax. Also, shareholders will not be taxed on dividends received from homebuilders or on capital gains from their investments. Partnerships, limited liability companies and sole proprietorships will also not be taxed on profits because of the repeal of the individual income tax.
Overall compliance costs of the current income tax system will be reduced. These costs, which are estimated conservatively to be $225 billion¹, are partly borne by homebuilders (discussed below).
All purchases by homebuilders of building materials will be free of sales tax. Business to business sales is not taxed under the FairTax. Moreover, since all producers of these materials will be operating free from income tax and with dramatically lower compliance costs, material (wood, sheet rock, nails, etc.), prices that now contain these costs will fall significantly. This will allow homebuilders to sell their products at lower prices while maintaining their current profit margins.
Current research by Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of the Department of Economics at Harvard University, and one of the country's leading economists, show that producer costs in the construction industry will decrease in the first year by as much as 25 percent. Economic output in the construction industry during the first year of implementation of the FairTax is expected to increase by more than 50 percent. The huge boom in this industry will be due largely to a significant rise in the demand for all investment goods. Dr. Jorgenson's research shows these increases will continue well into the next quarter century with the 25 year outlook still showing a 13 percent increase in output.²
As an immediate compliance savings, there will no longer be any need for homebuilders and other employers to maintain the distinction between employees and contract labor for tax purposes. This will also result in a substantial labor cost savings, because homebuilders and other employers will no longer need to collect payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (including the employer portion and FUTA) will be repealed. The repeal of this tax will also fuel the economy. Consumers will have more money in their pockets and, therefore, more money to spend, save or invest.

The Demand For New Homes Will Increase

Demand for new homes will increase due to at least two factors. First, most economic projections predict a much healthier economy under a consumption tax. People are willing and able to purchase more and better homes in a healthy economy. Typical estimates are that the economy will be 10 to 14 percent larger than it would have been under the current income tax system within 10 years, and consumption will grow very substantially.³ Some studies show the potential gains to be much higher.⁴ These studies typically do not account for the productivity gains that will be achieved due to lower compliance costs.
Second, discretionary income will increase. Consumers will see their paychecks increase by over $1.5 trillion because income and payroll taxes are eliminated (estimated for 1999). This increase in disposable income will help to generate both consumption and savings.

Interest Rates Will Drop

Under the FairTax, conservative estimates predict that mortgage interest rates will fall by 25 to 30 percent or about two points on a 30-year conventional mortgage.⁵ For example, for a $150,000 thirty-year home mortgage at an interest rate of 8 percent the monthly mortgage payment would be $1112.64. On that same mortgage at a 6 percent interest rate the monthly payment would be $907.64. The two-point decrease in interest rates in this instance would result in a $73,800 cost savings to the consumer.
To illustrate the source of the reduction in interest rates it is useful to examine the bond market. Current taxable interest rates include a tax premium. The cost of this premium can be determined by comparing the interest rates on taxable bonds to the interest rates on tax-exempt municipal bonds of comparable risk and term. The difference on the return to investment between a taxable bond and a tax-free bond of comparable risk is about 30 percent. Interest rates will decline due to the elimination of this tax premium because interest earnings will no longer be taxed.
With lower interest rates, more consumers will qualify for new home purchases, and will refinance to obtain equity from older homes.

Homeownership Under the FairTax Will Be More Affordable

Under the current income tax system a home must be purchased from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars. Under the FairTax, a home is purchased from income dollars that have not been taxed, as taxation occurs at the time of purchase. A consumer may choose to roll the sales tax into a mortgage payment just as state sales taxes on most purchases are today. The home mortgage interest deduction available under the current income tax system only has value when an income tax liability exists. Under the FairTax, there is no need to mitigate income tax liabilities as none exist.

Homebuilders' Compliance Costs will be lower:

Instead of having to comply with the complexities of the income tax and the payroll tax, there will be one sales tax on all goods and services. A firm will simply need to calculate on a monthly basis its total retail sales of new homes.
The homebuilder will receive an administration fee of ¼ of one percent for complying with the sales tax.
No more uniform inventory capitalization requirements.
No more complex rules governing employee benefits and retirement plans.
No more tax depreciation schedules.
No more capital gains tax and depreciation recapture.
No more tax rules governing mergers and acquisitions.
The firm's accounting, tax and personnel (human resources) departments will shrink dramatically.

1 Compliance Costs of Alternative Tax Systems II, Arthur P. Hall, Ph.D., Senior Economist, The Tax Foundation, Special Brief, House Ways & Means Committee Testimony, March 1996.

2 The Economic Impact of Taxing Consumption, Dale W. Jorgenson, Ph.D., Harvard University, Testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, March 27, 1996.

3 Ibid. The Economic Impact of Replacing Federal Income Taxes with a Sales Tax, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, April 15, 1993, Cato Institute Policy Analysis.

4 Looking Back to Move Forward: What Tax Policy Costs Americans and the Economy, Gary Robbins, Aldona Robbins, Policy Report No. 127, September 1994, Taxation Analysis, The Institute for Policy Innovation.

5 Effect of a Consumption Tax on the Rate of Interest, Dr. Martin Feldstein, Ph.D., Working Paper 5397, December 1995. The Flat Tax, 2nd Edition 1995, Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka, The Hoover Institution Press.

Hardly a disadvantage for homeowners.

49 Posted on 09/10/2000 05:59:59 PDT by CHIEF negotiator

Landlord/investors enjoy a 23% discount compared to the individual personal home buyer.

Individual personal home buyers must pay 29.87% more than landlord/investors.

This a significant inequity between individuals trying to buy their own new homes and landord/investors looking to buy the same single family dwelling as a rental investment.

ROTFLM(_|_)O!

Still playing rich man against poor man aren't you Willy.

You do know of course, that investors are home buyers and renters too, don't you?

Why don't you mention:

The base prices for building or renting a home are expected to drop by at least 22%.

The takehome pay(from which one purchases a home) of the home buyer will rise by more than 30%.

The mortgage interest rates that the homebuyer's pay will fall to 75% of their current levels making payments much more affordable and allowing much lower total payment for houses.

These factors more than overcomes any imagined advantage of investor over the homebuyer so that all homebuyers can become an investors too.

But then good socialists never consider becoming investors themselves now do they W.G.

Now, lets take a look at your specifics and see how they hold up:

A family purchasing their own new ~~home~~ house(residential land is not taxed) for $200,000 pays NRST at a tax-included 23% rate. This means that of the $200,000 paid, $154,000 goes to the seller, and the Gov't receives $46,000 in tax.

A typical family purchasing their own new house today has 25% or more of their gross income extracted by the Federal government before they even think about buying a new or even an older house. That is not even counting the tax costs and costs of compliance placed on businesses of an additional 20 to 30% and embedded in the price of the new house.

A landlord/investor can exploit the business exemption of NRST and purchase the same new single family dwelling tax free as a rental investment for only $154,000. Tenants pay NRST on rent and Landlords act as tax collectors for the government

Of course that landlord/investor also pays the same tax on the house he lives in or rents before he can ever become an "investor/landlord" in the first place. Or do you figure such folks live in NY allies and sleep on park benches.

Additionally, a buyer of an older home, is not charged the NRST, which is the case of most first time buyers of homes.

The $154,000 vs. $200,000 purchase price advantage that landlord/investors enjoy over individual personal homebuyers can be expressed two ways:

Landlord/investors enjoy a 23% discount compared to the individual personal home buyer.

Actually not, as the Landlord/invester pays the 23% tax on the home he lives in whether rented or purchased, the same manner as any other individual.

Individual personal home buyers must pay 29.87% more than landlord/investors.

Again untrue, the landlord/investor pays the same tax on the home he rents or buys new for his personal use. All individuals are treated the same under the NRST. Infact, because the individual receives the full benefit and control of his gross income, as opposed to merely after tax income under the current system. That plus the NRST prebate paid to ALL households provides an enhanced opportunity for everyone to become investors.

Under the current Income/Payroll tax system, the total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for taxes alone. Including cost of compliance at around $600billion/year, increases that percentage to about a 47% total burden with respect to current family consumption expenditure caused by the federal tax system as it exists today.

I'll be happy to pay 23% of the total payment for new goods and services, or as you would put it (30% added on) to the tax free price any day. Considering that I have available my full gross pay from which to accrue tax free growth of my savings and investments.

Compared to what we are hit with now:

We must . . . End Tax Slavery Now; Nov '97
by Jarret B. Wollstein

HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY PAY?
     According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes - 34.2% total.
     But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:

Compliance costs - record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.
Enforcement costs - IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.
Emotional, moral and cultural costs - families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.

     For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:
Federal taxes              22.4% of income
State & local taxes      11.8%
Compliance costs        22.2%
Regulatory costs         12.7%
70.1% of your income is now consumed by government

I have removed the particular phrasing of the line Willy Green objected containing with reguards "resurrect a ghost".

I respectfully submit, the rebuttal in reply #64 and would expect it to stay in place for it is a proper a truthful rebuttal to be used as regards Mr. Green's wornout piece of doggerel.

If this rebuttal is to be banned from use, then Mr. Greens demogogurey must be disallowed as well. To let a lie stand uncontested with the proper response would be unconscionable.

If this rebuttal is to be banned from use, then Mr. Greens demogogurey must be disallowed as well.

Cool it shill.

My "canned" replies are in response to the constant deluge of "canned" NRST propaganda that plagues this forum.

It has been impossible for ANYBODY to enter into a serious discussion of income taxes (flat tax, exemptions, credits, etc.) without the thread being totally spammed with your garbage for over 3 years.

Your canned replies are just that. A tool to espouse your agenda through the use of misrepresentations.

Bye Bye, Willie, I'll let the administrators and Jim Rob determine what is to be done as regards both your canned comments and the specific and historical reply to it.

It has been impossible for ANYBODY to enter into a serious discussion of income taxes

I have yet to find anyone shy, unwilling or unable to ever enter into serious discussion or debate tax issues in any thread I have participated, and have repeated praise for providing the information I do.

In point of fact most threads in which my responses are to be found generally tend to have a very wide participation and vigourous debate.

I have on the otherhand also had numerous gripes from those who find the historical excerpts disturbing to their unsupport opinions an sparse information.

I note which catagory you are in.

Your canned replies are just that. A tool to espouse your agenda through the use of misrepresentations.

LOL!!! My agenda???

I'm certainly opinionated and have my favorite issues, but I'm just a solitary individual who participates in numerous different topics on this forum.

The ONLY reason that I have focused on analyzing and repeatedly pointing out the NRST's fallacies and weak points is that you shills REALLY pi$$ed me off with your constant barrage of spam!!!

That makes to opinionated indivduals in debate now doesn't it Willie Green. Makes for a vigourous time of it.

Though I do not you have a problem taking the heat when you reply's are shown to be less than accurate.

AG: "I have my representation and associates in Washington. It is more important for me to reach and educate individuals."

Subject: Re: 27 Benefits From the Fair Tax

Just how much you gett'n paid to confuse the issue? Clinton's pay'n me 1700 a month.

Sent 11/28/99 16:49:38 PST by ancient_geezer
[ Reply | Delete ] "

The ONLY reason that I have focused on analyzing and repeatedly pointing out the NRST's fallacies and weak points is that you shills REALLY pi$$ed me off with your constant barrage of spam!!!

I see, You are just a disinterested person who does like to read supporting evidence. Thus you take it upon youself to demogogue an issue to try and kill the ongoing communications so you don't have to be bothered.

Spam, Willie Green is in the eye of the beholder. What I provide is information from which to make a reasoned judgement as opposed to mere unvarnished personal opinion. The information is available to all, and any are encourage to refute any part of what is provided. I enjoy reasoned debate you see, based on substantiate information.

I abhor baseless opinon and uncontested statements. I enjoy your introductions when they occur, unfortunately your to busy being defensive and trying to find "fallacies and weak points" to actually benefit from the discussion and move on to addition areas to investigate.

I any case your replies help keep the thread going, and provide opinion on which to comment and expand the discussion.

Whether or not a particular individual's contribution is wholly accurate, missleading or even lies, is of no significance in the end. It all is evaluated by the readers of these threads with as broad a span of information as is possible to build deeper understanding and more solidly based opinion on. That is what it is ultimately all about.

My main focus in this forum are taxes,

first the NRST because I really do believe it hold the best potential for moving toward a better economy and more informed public as regards the true cost of government in their lives.

Second tax history and law, to provide a counterpoint and information as regards what fails in law and hopefully somebody will come up with something that can actually work to kill the income tax for real instead of just put good folks in jail at worst, or confiscating their wealth through perpetual legal actions with an uncaring bureaucracy.

Unfortunately you never seem to be really interested in learning or even advancing you views into accurate and substantive points, you only stick with a very small handful of comments, never changing or getting more accurate or better. You really do a disservice to yourself and everyone else in remain on such a narrow range.

You should be challanged to refine your presentation Willie, but all you do is repeat you same old score then gripe when another such as myself provides the same old rebuttal. It's a perpetual merry-go-round that cannot end for inaccuracies must be answered.

Find better arguments based on solid information that we all can appreciate Willie, and support them with something other than just more spin. That does not good for yourself or anybody for that matter.

The Last Days of the Income Tax System

Could you wrap it up in the next 38 days or so?

Absolutely lewislynn, I do know one or two people in Washington, and they do help represent my views their. A couple of them are my Congressional representatives, as well as Taxman who works in the area.

So what's your point?

To: lewislynn
Just how much you gett'n paid to confuse the issue? Clinton's pay'n me 1700 a month.
Sent 11/28/99 16:49:38 PST by ancient_geezer

You never did answer the question lewy. However I note you don't pay much attention to the addendum that goes along with that bare statement in challenge to your beliefs either.

You are another of those persons who figures a quick spin or comeback somehow answers something.

I'll let you know once more, you pay me as well lewislynn just as you and every other TPr continues to pay every disabled veteran out there. It sticks in Clintoon's craw too and I'm happy to notice you and he are both choking on it.

Everyone who purchases goods and services today unknowingly pays the full burden of the income/payroll tax system whether they file tax returns or not.

That individual income tax return that captures everyone's attention each April, is nothing more an accounting sheet the government cons individuals, held at ransom, into filling out. It puts a blinder on the eyes of the voter, and totally distorts their perceptions as to the real impact of taxation in their lives.

The tax system is actually fuelled from the dollars we spend which pays gross wages, and investment returns to individuals who are the ultimate purchasers of goods and services, hence the payers of all taxes.

We spend "disposable income", (i.e. "aftertax" income) which finances all income that is taxed. Viewing from the perspective of consumption dollars, where it is all generated, we get an entirely different perspective on what is being done to us. Between business income taxes and payroll taxes, the burden on citizen as reflected through higher prices, lower wages, and lower return on investements are indeed horrendous.

The following article covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.

DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation

The percentage used in the above article is somewhat off target in that it is based on a percentage that excludes the Individual income tax and SS/medicare contribution extracted out of individual wages & salaries. The 24% in the article considers only those factors actually paid to government out of impositions on the business in complying with the income, payroll, excise & tariff tax laws.

The total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone. Why? Because wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipt to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure). If we add in the cost of compliance of more than $600billion/year, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income payroll tax system increases to about a 47% of family consumption expenditures.

Total fed taxes as reflected through gross family income is 23.5% (taxfoundation)
Total state taxes reflected through gross family income is about 10.2% (taxfoundation)
The current net personal savings/investment rate is about 1.2%.(BEA)

Federal Tax as % of current family retail expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =

23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%

Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $600billion(Paine '97, Pilla '95, AGCCA 2000, Williams 2000) additional dollars are passed on in consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.

Percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+600)/1900 = 47.36% as passed through consumption prices.

Choke on it lewislynn, you are paying for my puppy dog's chocolate bon bons, and she loves every one of them. The fun part is she thinks they come from me, and you don't even get the credit for it.

In any case your replies help keep the thread going, and provide opinion on which to comment and expand the discussion.

That's why I post them. I paid my dues actually attempting to discuss the NRST. All I got in return was convoluted arguements and personal attacks whenever I disagreed or pointed out fallacies. My posts reflect that extensive experience, and hopefully, will enable others to more quickly see what a farce the NRST actually is.

My main focus in this forum are taxes,

I know. A "shill".

BTW, the subject of your sentence (focus) is singular,
to be in agreement, the verb used should be "is", not "are".
(It would probably be better to change the object from "taxes" to "taxation" as well.)

A family purchasing their own new home house(residential land is not taxed) for $200,000 pays NRST at a tax-included 23% rate. This means that of the $200,000 paid, $154,000 goes to the seller, and the Gov't receives $46,000 in tax. ...and the buyer just paid $200,000 for a $154,000 home

I thought you were pounding your chest about presenting facts..."residential land is not taxed" is a blatant lie and the rest of your garble is conjecture at best, not fact.

Let's play your little game.

For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:

Federal taxes.....22.4% of income
State & local taxes....11.8%
Compliance costs.....22.2%....WAIT! Which is it 65% or 22.2%?
Regulatory costs.....12.7%

70.1% of your income is now consumed by government,

Your total is actually 69.1%..another sign of pi$$ poor math or just a little fudge? Aside from that, how does your "revenue neutral" tax plan pay for that AND the elimination of taxes passed from corporations directly to the consumer?....

Here's how:

the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. ....would all increase by 30% under your tax as they are all subject to your sales tax

Fed. sales tax...23% (of the gross payment)
State and local ...11.8% + 30%=15.34% (part of the "gross payment", it's subject to your ~~sales~~ "gross payment" tax).
Compliance costs...22.2% + 30%=28.86% (your "compliance" is nothing more than bookkeeping "service"/ cost)

Regulatory costs...12.7% + 30%=16.51%(regulatory "fees"/ costs are subject to your tax AND they're included in "the gross payment")

Your "sales tax" would cost 83.71% of our income. "And even that figure doesn't include the 30% inflated cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations."

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was asking about simplicity and how do we understand all of this. Let me read a memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation . This ought to be simple enough for the gentleman to understand.
The memorandum is in response to their request for an estimate of the budget neutral tax rate for H.R. 2525. That is the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER), a bill to replace the current U.S. corporate and individual income, estate and gift and Federal income contributions act, payroll taxes, with a flat tax on retail sales of all goods and services.
Then on the second page it has a little chart here, neutral over 5 years, 59.5 percent. That is what they want to do, neutral over 5 years, national sales tax 59.5 percent. I believe the American people can understand that.

lewislynn: "residential land is not taxed" is a blatant lie

1) Residential land can only be taxed as a direct tax by apportionment under the Constitution.

2) The NRST, is a "National Retail Sales Tax", imposed only on the use or consumption of taxable property and services.

3) It is not a tax on property levied on the owner, it can only tax the sale of taxable property and is levied on a purchaser before he can aquire title.

4) If the land in question is not in use for business purposes on the day prior to implementation of the act, (i.e. the NRST), it is residential and the sale of it cannot be taxed by the NRST act.

Thus residential land, is not taxed under the NRST which is an indirect tax and thus is incapable of legally tax owners for the property they possess.

The most that can be taxed under the NRST HR2525, as regards residential property, is the sale of a new construction house. And once taxed by the NRST, it cannot be taxed again in future resales of the same house or property it sits on.

Refer: definitions and implementation of the sales tax sections in:

H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

Your arithmetic is totally flawed.

How can what you admit is a "revenue neutral" tax. impose more than the total current federal tax system does on gross income (23.2% according to the national tax foundation)? Sorry lewis but your attempts at spin are pathetic.

Especially using the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus as you source, when even he disagrees with your numbers while he is demogoguing against a bill to set a sunset date to end the income tax.

Man you are really reaching for straws.

The NRST is 23% of the total payment for taxable goods and services. That is shelf price plus the amount of NRST in the payment. It is not calculated with the inclusion of other taxes for those taxes are not use or consumption of taxable property or services as specified in the bill.

FROST's recitation of rates are based on a tax that excludes products and does not tax services and infact is not in anyway based upon the language of HR2525. He is using a study that uses parameters not even close to what is implement by the HR2525 NRST.

If you have information to the contrary, provide a link to the study that establises the values you are using so all can evaluate the validity of the numbers while checking against the content of HR2525.

Your total is actually 69.1%..another sign of pi$$ poor math or just a little fudge? Aside from that, how does your "revenue neutral" tax plan pay for that AND the elimination of taxes passed from corporations directly to the consumer?....

They are not my numbers lewislynn, that is an article discussing tax rates, costs of tax compliance, and cost of regulation imposed upon us now through both state and federal taxation.

Read the material lewislynn, the statment is income consumed by government.

Not tax revenues, but all costs imposed upon us by government at all levels state and local under the totality of all tax systems now in use.

The NRST, has nothing to do with "regulatory costs". The NRST does away with over 90% of compliance costs, and even then pays for the remaining to compensate the business for those costs. That puts compliance cost in the price of things to 0 as such is provided for in the tax itself.

State taxes are not part of the equation either, as The NRST is only with regard to Federal taxes. and the Federal rate is 23% of expenditure (less state & local taxes) as expressly stated in the bill. And replace 94% of all federal taxes now imposed on us.

That leaves all your contorted figuring out in the boonies lewislynn. Sorry about that, but you are blowing the same old hot air you always do.

Gee lewislynn why didn't you cite your little quote from MR FROST so we all could find out about Mr. Frost, and his statement.

Here at least is the link you should have provided or at least cited as your source.

Refer: 12. DATE CERTAIN TAX CODE REPLACEMENT ACT, House Congressional Record April 13, 2000 pages H2259-H2282; speaking of a memo regarding the Joint Tax Committee's assessment of the total Federal tax rate as a percentage of family consumption expenditures based on Clinton administration expectations for government growth in program funding.

I'm sure folks will be reassured that your cited hero "Mr. Frost" is none other than the Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

You know, like in Republicans want to throw old people in the streets and starve babies DEMOCRAPS, arguing against throwing out the INCOME TAX.

Analyzing to statements of Rep. Frost(D-Texas) and other House Democratic Caucus members, the House Democratic Caucus hoped to be able raise total federal taxes across 5 years to 59.5% of family consumption expenditures. That indicates a whopping 37.3% of gross family income, more than 1.5 times the effective total federal tax rate(24.2%) born by the nation's familys in 1999 as estimated by CBO.

59% over five years(11%/annum) is the increase in tax rates that the DEMOCRAPS (read Joint Tax Committee) want fool.

It is not the tax rate of the NRST, nor will it ever be.

What Rep. Frost doesn't say is he and his Folks want to increase the income/payroll tax enough to ensure they have that much. The chart he is referring to reflects Democrap hopes for us.

But of course you knew that before you posted it didn't you?

Tell us lewislynn, if every voter is required to pay the same tax rate without exception, just who is going to support any Congress Critter with the temerity to propose a 60% tax rate on every person in the country?

Get real lewislynn, you're showing your liberal colors."

In response to your and the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Represetative FROST (D), shall we see what the Republican, side of this issue is? Since we have clearly seen where you and the DemonCraps lie..

I believe we should hear "the rest of the story."

Rep Linder, a Republican supporting the repeal of the income tax, Refer: 12. DATE CERTAIN TAX CODE REPLACEMENT ACT, House Congressional Record April 13, 2000 Page H2266

   "Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
   Mr. Speaker, the IRS has made criminals of us all, and it is time for it to go away. And that is what this is about, scrapping the code. This is real. Now, it may be a joke for Democrats, who have spent 40 years building up this monstrosity, but this is very real.
   And there are some very real proposals to replace it, proposals that have been studied for years. My proposal, which has been ridiculed today, has been studied for over 3 1/2 years, with $15 million spent in universities from Harvard to Boston College to MIT to Stanford to Rice, and none of them came up with a 60 percent tax rate.
   Guess who did? A committee whose members have their entire political capital invested, or their intellectual capital invested in the Tax Code. They would lie to get this thing defeated, because we have depreciated their intellectual capital if we get rid of all the income taxes and all the difficulties and the taxes are transparent and easy to understand. They will not be needed any more.
   If we get rid of this Tax Code with a single transparent, straightforward, simple sales tax, Americans will know what it costs every time they buy something, what it costs for government. What they are not telling the American public is that currently, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, we know that 22 to 25 percent, according to various studies, of what taxpayers currently pay for at retail is the current embedded cost of this tax system.
   They would rather have a hidden tax than a transparent tax because they know, if taxpayers saw how much government was costing them, they would rebel and ask us to reduce the role of government in their lives. We are currently paying it. It is hidden. They like that.
   This income tax was originally intended and promised to only tax the top 2 percent of the income earners in America. That was the promise that was made in 1913. And indeed, if we think back to the last two tax increases, 1990 and 1993, the promise was made we are only going to raise the taxes on the top 1 percent. Well, guess what? In 1990, the top 1 percent paid $106 billion in taxes. And after the tax increase on them, the following year they paid $100 billion. Because rich people are often smart people, they can find ways to rearrange their income.
   But each of these tax increases, that these folks so love, reverberates through the system and we all pay. We all pay. All we want is to get rid of a monstrosity that no one understands; that confuses every taxpayer and keeps hidden what the actual cost of government is, and then let us have a debate on what to replace it with. It may not be my tax bill; perhaps it will be the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARMEY) or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT) or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. TAUZIN). But it will be simpler, more understandable, and it will be fairer.
   One of my favorite stories about the 1913 debate on the 16th amendment to impose the income tax was that one of the Senators was ridiculed and laughed off the floor of the United States Senate for saying something absolutely
[Page: H2267]
outrageous. He said this: ``Mark my words, before this is over, the government will be taking 10 percent of everything you earn.'' It was considered so outrageous by his colleagues that they ridiculed him off the floor of the Senate.
I feel certain that is what gave fresh meaning to my favorite country western song, ``If 10 Percent Is Enough for Jesus it Ought to be Enough for Uncle Sam.''

SEE: Democrats Planning for Rise of Total Federal Tax Rate to 37% from current 23%

Refer: House Congressional Record; April 13, 2000

I must certainly thank FR member, lewislynn for his quotations (Reply #39 above) from last session's Congressional Record, in reply to me, that led to my locating the critical information that allowed a determination of the ultimate increase in tax rates the House Democrats led by Dick Gephard and other big government spenders tell us they plan pull us into should they gain sufficient control to implement their expressed desires of higher taxes.

DEMOCRATS PLANNING FOR RISE OF TOTAL FEDERAL TAX RATE TO 37%

I note with alarm, recent reports on the newswire services stating the personal savings savings rate is near zero heading for negative territory.

If that is true, it becomes clear that the tax burden, as it is reflected through family consumption, (the ultimate engine from which virtually all income is derived and from which taxes are paid), is in fact currently exceeding 32% of family consumption expenditure¹ (i.e. personal discretionary income[gross minus taxes]). Regardless of who remits federal taxes, it is the individual American family that must bear that ultimate burden financed through their consumption expenditures and lower returns from investments(principally retirement & insurance plan assets).

1) determined from effective Total federal tax rate (24.2%) of the CBO gross family income for 1999.

According to statements of Rep. Frost(D-Texas) and other House Democratic Caucus members,

(refer: DATE CERTAIN TAX CODE REPLACEMENT ACT, House Congressional Record April 13, 2000 pages H2259-H2282; speaking of a memo regarding the Joint Tax Committee's assessment of the total Federal tax rate as a percentage of family consumption expenditures based on Clinton administration expectations for government growth in program funding)

The House Democratic Caucus hopes to be able raise total federal taxes across 10 years to 59.5% of family consumption expenditures. That indicates a whopping 37.3% of gross family income, more than 1.5 times the effective total federal tax rate born by the nation's familys in 1999 as estimated by CBO.

If we assume the increases in taxes are not to be implemented, due to political considerations, in the "Individual Income Tax" we can surely expect a constant unchecked inflationary rise in consumer prices of more than 4% per annum over current inflation, induced by just the demands for more expensive social programs as those programs are funded out of the nation's business revenues through tax increases and reductions in business deductions(a.k.a. corporate welfare) from those same members of Congress.