Daer Mind-numbed Robot,
I'm excluding myself, and a fair number of the NRSTers, including you.
I see at least some NRSTers trying to actually address the real arguments at hand, without falling perpetually into bluster and bs.
However, when a few NRSTers say things like, you can't pass the NRST legislation conditioned on the ratification of a constitutional amendment, or you can't have a constitutional amendment that would provide a transition period, well, the assertions are made, no actual evidence is presented, just a lot of bluster and bullsh!t, and frankly, I think it hurts the debate.
We've pretty much seen, as an example, that the fellow whose study all the NRSTers previously cited never meant that folks were both going to get back their income and payroll taxes AND we were going to lower prices 22%.
Some NRSTers now see this is the case. That's great!
Now we can dicker, reasonably, over just how MUCH savings there might be in either case, either that employees get most or all of the tax savings, or the savings get passed through in lower prices. That's a reasonable discussion!
But there are still some NRSTers running around saying that folks are pretty much universally going to get their old, pre-NRST salaries, without any of the payroll taxes or income taxes taken out, AND prices are going to fall 22%.
No evidence is presented for this, and the fact that they so badly misinterpreted the fellow on whose study they relied for so many years is totally glossed over.
That's bluster and bullsh!t.
Frankly, the bs makes me much more leery of the whole idea than I otherwise would be.
"If you were a sponsor of this bill would you want to wait to implement its advantages, perhaps the biggest being eliminating the present system, until the years it would take for a Constitutional amendment?"
If I were a politician? No, of course not. If I were a politician, I'd secretly hope that the 16th amendment never got repealed, no matter how much I said publicly otherwise.
Politicians will never want to give up the ability to have an income tax, for all the reasons cited by NRSTers why the income tax is so flawed.
"I think their motives are practical rather than nefarious."
For the actual citizens who support the NRST, I agree 100%.
But I can't say that I believe that about the politicians.
"It seems to me that misinformation is more likely to be coming from those doggedly defending this present oppressive monstrosity."
No, sorry, Mind-numbed Robot.
It is NOT misinformation to point out that the NRST, as now before Congress, would be passed into law without the repeal of the 16th amendment.
It is NOT misinformation to point out that the 16th amendment COULD be repealed with a transition period (as I pointed out with the 18th amendment).
It is NOT misinformation to point out that the NRST legislation could be passed with a start date of or after the ratification of the repeal of the 16th amendment.
However, efforts to say otherwise are pure, unadulterated, blustering falsehoods.
I will not speculate on the motives of those who post such falsehoods. Perhaps they believe the falsehoods.
But they are quite plainly falsehoods.
sitetest
You were asked in post #87 to post some information relating to you questionable claims re 16th repeal.
Please either do so or stop the nonsense since you have no idea what you're talking about..
As I see it there are only a few areas of disagreement.
Whether or not an employee can get his gross pay and prices can still be lowered to offset the 23% or 30%, no need to get into the inclusive exclusive thing, sales tax.
The repeal of the 16th Amendment.
If you think there are other significant areas that are deal killers, please bring them up before we continue.