Which is exactly why the calculation is hogwash.
LOL the used goods "loophole".
Oh, I thought from your nick that you were older. Apparently not. When you've been around the block a few times, you'll realize that every loophole is a a provision of some legislation. It becomes a "loophole" after the fact, when someone or other decides he doesn't like the unexpected consequences of the original law.
But you said: Espcially since "used" is not a legal term. Now you ignore acknowledging your error (used is legally defined) and fabricate a new explanation for what you meant. You don't have to admit that you didn't read the bill (H.R.25) because none of the spaghetti you're throwing at the wall is sticking.
|
149Zon: That's but one definition of a strawman. Your implication that there is only one definition is not only wrong, it doesn't save face for you. Rather, it exposes your ignorance. Main Entry: straw man
|
I posted no propaganda in my 141 post. What part of the following do you think is propaganda and/or do you disagree with?
Should I assume that you didn't like the history lesson (in post 141) and above and that you chose to call it propaganda as a futile attempt to escape the reality of it?
|
Shalom Israel: The "used goods loophole" will have to be closed first thing. Espcially since "used" is not a legal term.142
ancient_geezer: `(16) USED PROPERTY- The term `used property' means--
`(A) property on which the tax imposed by section 101 has been collected and for which no credit has been allowed under section 203, and
`(B) property that was held other than for a business purpose (as defined in section 102(b)) on December 31, 2004.146
ancient_geezer: LOL the used goods "loophole".146
Shalom Israel: It becomes a "loophole" after the fact,
But you said: Espcially since "used" is not a legal term. Now you ignore acknowledging your error (used is legally defined) and fabricate a new explanation for what you meant. You don't have to admit that you didn't read the bill (H.R.25) because none of the spaghetti you're throwing at the wall is sticking.
Which is exactly why the calculation is hogwash.
Which caculation is that?
The legislation (HR25) sets the base tax rate at 23% commensurate with current measures of taxation with respect to consumption, from there it is up to the American electorate to go after Congress Critters to make changes which would be more appropriate as federal spending decreases.
Tax rates should not be a function of old tax law in period. It should be based on rational concerns over providing that minimum necessary functionality of government in performance of constitutional duty.
When you've been around the block a few times, you'll realize that every loophole is a a provision of some legislation.
You definition of loophole is fine, however your application of it misses the point. "Used property" as provided for in the legislation is that which has had the tax already paid on it. Why would you want to tax something twice, which appears to be what you desire to do in calling prohibiting tax on used (previously taxed items) property a loophole?
A loophole only occures where an item has not been taxed at all that should be covered under the legislation. It certainly does not include that which has been taxed, and should not be taxed again.
It becomes a "loophole" after the fact, when someone or other decides he doesn't like the unexpected consequences of the original law.
What unintended consequence occurs when items are only taxed once at retail sale only by explicit provision of the bill. The intended consequence is that item not be taxed more than once.
Apparently you believe they ought to be tax one or more times, so just how many times do you figure any product ought to be taxed by the federal government and how do you intend to assure that products are taxed the number of times you define to be appropriate? The idea is to simplify by going to a pure use and consumption tax applied only once to products at time of sale to the first consumer of the final product.