Collins Calls for Bold Action to Reduce Tax Burden On American Workers

Under HR25, the STATES are empowered and paid to collect and administer the NRST with regard to the citizen & businesses in each state in parallel with their own systems, remitting federal portions of their collections to the United States Treasury.

Can a state choose not to collect the tax? Will the law the state is using to collect the tax federal or state? Will the feds need to oversee the implementation to insure the tax is collected in accordance with law?

What, are you trying to fool the nonthinker out here? Why else would even say something like that. You're not stupid.

Please spare me your multicolored cut and paste nonsense. Just answer the questions. Every cut and paste you post is surface. In the past when I took my time to investigate the substance of these pasties, I found they were mostly off point and there to look good and authoritative only.

I'm not a child impressed with the pretty colors. I don't bother any more. Talk plain black and white. The only reason you post this garbage is to cost the time and effort of others to verify it. I don't treat you like that; don't treat me like that.

What you posted has nothing at all to do with the colonists resisting English law and rebelling aginst the king. The continental congress had nothing constitutionally to do with the rebellion. All this occured after the war for independence.Again, you post nonsubstance to look authoritative.

Your advice to the colonists is to suck it up and follow the king's statutes because, you know, once a statute is implimented you must follow it no matter how egregious it is or becomes.

Can a state choose not to collect the tax?

Yes.

Will the law the state is using to collect the tax federal or state?

National:

Constitution for the United States of America:

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

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

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Will the feds need to oversee the implementation to insure the tax is collected in accordance with law?

States co-ordinate with the Secretary of the Department of Treasury

H.R.25

Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25:

`CHAPTER 4--FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATIVE TAX ADMINISTRATION

`SEC. 401 AUTHORITY FOR STATES TO COLLECT TAX

`(a) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed by section 101 on gross payments for the use or consumption of taxable property or services within a State shall be administered, collected, and remitted to the United States Treasury by such State if the State is an administering State.
`(b) ADMINISTERING STATE- For purposes of this section, the term `administering State' means any State--

`(1) which maintains a sales tax, and
`(2) which enters into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary containing reasonable provisions governing the administration by such State of the taxes imposed by the subtitle and the remittance to the United States in a timely manner of taxes collected under this chapter.

***

`(e) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATION OF TAX BY UNITED STATES- The Secretary may administer the tax imposed by this subtitle in an administering State only if--

`(1)(A) such State has failed on a regular basis to timely remit to the United States taxes collected under this chapter on behalf of the United States, or
`(B) such State has on a regular basis otherwise materially breached the agreement referred to in subsection (b)(2);

***

`(g) THIRD STATE ADMINISTRATION PERMISSIBLE- It shall be permissible for a State to contract with an administering State to administer the State's sales tax for an agreed fee. In this case, the agreement contemplated by subsection (c) shall have both the State and the Federal Government as parties.
`(h) INVESTIGATIONS AND AUDITS- Administering States shall not conduct investigations or audits at facilities in other administering States in connection with the tax imposed by section 101 or conforming State sales tax but shall instead cooperate with other administering States using the mechanisms established by section 402, by compact or by other agreement.

`SEC. 402. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FOR STATES.

`(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall administer a program to facilitate information sharing among States.
`(b) STATE COMPACTS- The Secretary shall facilitate, and may be a party to a compact among States for purposes of facilitating the taxation of interstate purchases and for other purposes that may facilitate implementation of this subtitle.
`(c) AGREEMENT WITH CONFORMING STATES- The Secretary is authorized to enter into and shall enter into an agreement among conforming States enabling conforming States to collect conforming State sales tax on sales made by sellers without a particular conforming State to a destination within that particular conforming State.
`(d) SECRETARY'S AUTHORITY- The Secretary shall have the authority to promulgate regulations, to provide guidelines, to assist States in administering the national sales tax, to provide for uniformity in the administration of the tax and to provide guidance to the public.

`SEC. 403. FEDERAL-STATE TAX CONFERENCES.

`Not less than once annually, the Secretary shall host a conference with the sales tax administrators from the various administering States to evaluate the state of the national sales tax system, to address issues of mutual concern and to develop and consider legislative, regulatory, and administrative proposals to improve the tax system.

`SEC. 404. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION IN CERTAIN STATES.

`The Secretary shall administer the tax imposed by this subtitle in any State or other United States jurisdiction that--

`(1) is not an administering State, or
`(2) elected to have another State administer its tax in accordance with section 401(g).

A state can refuse to be part of the national sales tax collection?. Then what? The feds set up a federal agancy to collect it I would suppose. That is to say, a federal agency will be operating on state soil in a revenue mode collection mode. What would be the difference between it and a mini IRS?

Unless you're saying that a state and it's citizens can just skip the NRST. Is that what you're saying?

No, your're saying the "States co-ordinate with the Secretary of the Department of Treasury". Yes? Under federal law, right? Who will have sovereignty in the matter of federal revenue?

What you posted has nothing at all to do with the colonists resisting English law and rebelling aginst the king.

The Continental Congress was the centeral governing body of of the 13 states prior to and throughout the war for independance, preceeding the writing of the Declaration of Independance and was the body responsible for calling the 13 states to war for independance.

http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/conwell/revolution/congress.htm

The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774, to protest the Intolerable Acts. Representatives attended from all the colonies except Georgia. The leaders included Samuel Adams and John Adams of Massachusetts and George Washington and Patrick Henry of Virginia. The Congress voted to cut off colonial trade with Great Britain unless Parliament abolished the Intolerable Acts. It approved resolutions advising the colonies to begin training their citizens for war. They also attempted to define America's rights, place limits on Parliament's power, and agree on tactics for resisting the aggressive acts of the English Government. lt also set up the Contintental Association to enforce an embargo against England. By the time the first meeting of the Continental Congress ended, hostilities had begun between Britain and the colonies.

Again, you post nonsubstance to look authoritative.

Again you make unfounded assertions in place of historic facts for a pretense of rebuttal.

Your advice to the colonists is to suck it up and follow the king's statutes because, you know, once a statute is implimented you must follow it no matter how egregious it is or becomes.

I made no advice to the colonists.

I did however point out to you that the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation was the only governing body of the states that even comes close to your descriptions of states relation to a federal government and the only government of this nation which would even come close supporting your theories.

The Revolutionary War began with the Declaration of Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms, July 6, 1775 through April 11, 1783 when Armistice was proclaimed by the Continental Congress.

1776 the Continental Congress authorised the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, while the Articles of Confederation were drafted in 1777 by the same Continental Congress that passed the Declaration of Independence 1776, the articles established a "firm league of friendship" between and among the 13 states.

The Constitution was ratified by 3/4 of the states in 1788, and replaced the federation under the Articles of Confederation with a Republic of national authority on March 4, 1789 reaching the individual citizen in each of the states, as pointed out by Madison and those in opposition to the Constitution as well.

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former[Federal government] the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter[national government], on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.

A state can refuse to be part of the national sales tax collection?. Then what? The feds set up a federal agancy to collect it I would suppose.

A state has two options if it declines to administer its tax collections, let another state do it for them, or let the national government do it. It's the state's choice in any case.

SEC. 404. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION IN CERTAIN STATES.

`The Secretary shall administer the tax imposed by this subtitle in any State or other United States jurisdiction that--

`(1) is not an administering State, or
`(2) elected to have another State administer its tax in accordance with section 401(g).

No, your're saying the "States co-ordinate with the Secretary of the Department of Treasury". Yes? Under federal law, right? Who will have sovereignty in the matter of federal revenue?

Same as always, the state administers and remits taxes collected, Congress has authority over the funds per:

Constitution for the United States of America:

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

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

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Seeing that the Articles of Confederation and states sovereignty as regards taxation were tossed in 1788 with ratification of the Constitution by 3/4 of the the States of the United States.

Bottom line, if you want to rebel over national taxes, you are in revolt against the Constitution of the United States and the Republic founded under it.

One, is 7 inches wide, another 5 1/2, I have others a full 8 inches with subsantially more complexity than is represented in my example. They come in whatever sizes may be necessary.

Interestingly, most small business people here just use a pc & printer with appropriate software to do what ever custom receipts and billing they desire in all kinds of sizes. They are getting to be quite creative. Looking at the big chain stores, I note multi-column outputs barcoding, and the whole ball of wax out of their machines.

That's very interesting. I went to several stores over the weekend (national chains like Sam's Club and Toys-r-Us) and every receipt was ~3" wide. It seem that or smaller is a pretty standard size. I think your layout, besides being confusing, would be very difficult to replicate on the typical register.

So, we could go through all the rigmarole you suggest to try to justify using the "tax inclusive" rate (which we've seen isn't the tax inclusive rate) or you could end this charade and admit that the tax exclusive rate is easier to work with and conforms to the standard way people currently see sales taxes.

I think your layout, besides being confusing, would be very difficult to replicate on the typical register.

Since my layout was more faceicious than real it is really irrelavent. The layout will be what everworks, with rate specified as the factor of tax divided by tax included price in accord with legislation, and will be that which is specified by implementing regulation as regards the multiple tax situation.

Interestingly I looked at my phone bill finding 3 different percentage rates for federal excise & two sales tax rates.. Looking over the bill there is no clue as to how any of them actually apply to the amounts on the bill. It certainly isn't obvious.

Then looking at other register receipts, none before me indicate rates at all, even though I know that city, county and state rates are applied depending upon where come from.

The bottom line, the amount of tax, the price of goods and their taxinclusive total is what is necessary. The rate or rates listed will be what ever the local implementation requires beyound the minimum specified in the statute.

So, we could go through all the rigmarole you suggest to try to justify using the "tax inclusive" rate

There is but one justification of tax inclusive rate at any point comparison between income/payroll tax system with the NRST that replaces it. Percent of total accomodates those comparisons. Percent added to price does not lend itself to easy comparison between those systems.

you could end this charade and admit that the tax exclusive rate is easier to work with and conforms to the standard way people currently see sales taxes.

Or you could end the charade and admit that tax inclusive rates are the most natural form in which to compare income tax rates with sales tax rates.

I note, on challenge you have yet, to demonstrate an accurate calculation of income/payroll tax system rate in using just tax inclusive calculation.

I have demonstrated the rates expressed as percent of total income (tax inclusive) are readily calculated and compared. It is another thing all together to calculate an accurate (tax exclusive) rate for income/payroll taxes without intimate knowledge of specific savings and expenditure patterns.

As usual you blow more smoke, rather than recognising the necessity of comparing the current income/payroll tax system(tax inclusive) with the NRST that would replace those taxes. Seems to me (tax inclusive) is the comparison that folks need, to understand the economic benefit of the NRST over the tax system it replaces.

But then perhaps it is understandable why you wish to avoid comparisons, as the (tax inclusive) marginal rate comparisons between the income/payroll tax system and the NRST doesn't present a very good case for sticking with income/payroll taxes.

The tax rate on that next dollar earned, (compared to next dollar spent in the NRST) the rates of income/payroll tax system really makes one wonder why anyone would want to achieve more to just feed government at an ever more voracious rate.

The graph does clearly answer the TPr's of the world feel the way they do about the income/payroll tax when simply hiding out and not filing is so profitable and risk so low as long as one maintains a low profile.

Crime doesn't pay? Looks like an excellent profit margin to me.

The Continental Congress was the centeral governing body of of the 13 states prior to and throughout the war for independance, preceeding the writing of the Declaration of Independance and was the body responsible for calling the 13 states to war for independance.

I had said, "Oh, I guess we should have turned colonists that resisted British over to the king. Yes, indeed, what we should have done is lobby Parliament to change English law applied to the colonies. Should have never resisted with a revolution. That was against the law!

The point was that Americans had to break the statutes of England in order to form the country.

You had said, "Nope we should have kept the Continental Congress and the loose federation of states instead of ratifying the Constitution for your theories to hold any water."

All constitutions were ratified after the war. If there was no independence from England, there could be no constitution and governing body but subject to English law.

I also said, "The continental congress had nothing constitutionally to do with the rebellion." The Continental congress did nothing constitutionally until after the war. The sent out the Declaration of Independence to start it.

I made no advice to the colonists.

If you had been there you would have advised them to "to suck it up and follow the king's statutes because, you know, once a statute is implemented you must follow it no matter how egregious it is or becomes."

For this is what you are saying now. If you would have different advice to the colonists, then you are inconsistent.

This is the topic of this discussion, whether the citizens have the power to resist destructive laws, and always citizens anywhere have had this right. Any consequences following do not vitiate the power or the right.

Making a law against spitting on the sidewalk does not dry your mouth up.

I did however point out to you that the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation was the only governing body of the states that even comes close to your descriptions of states relation to a federal government and the only government of this nation which would even come close supporting your theories.

The present constitution was ratified as law for the formation of a national body to administer tasks that were impossible or impractical for a state or a consortium of states to administer. It gave more power to the national government than the Articles of Confederation, but in no way made it anything but a instrument of the states.

The states and national constitutions are opposite to each other. The National government can exercise only the power specifically granted to it while the State exercises all power except that infringes on the rights retained by the people, found in each state constitution itself. The National Constitution, therefore, is to limit the powers of the National government.

It was the war between the states that changed the relationship between the states and national governments. The war between the states occured after all funding documents were written.

So, at the time of Hamilton's statement, abridgment of the states sovereignty other than implied by the specific and original words of the national constitutional was not thinkable.

Thanks for the info on the congress and the debates, but it just has no bearing on our discussion of the sovereign power of the individual in matter pertaining to the artificial construct of a government. My tag line is a summation or the principal.

A state has two options if it declines to administer its tax collections, let another state do it for them, or let the national government do it. It's the state's choice in any case.

But a state can not choose to not be involved at all. Therefore, one way or another, you have feds and federal law operating at the state level and not just on the federal level. The state collection agencies must be overseen, regulated and sanctioned by the feds and federal law.

Seeing that the Articles of Confederation and states sovereignty as regards taxation were tossed in 1788 with ratification of the Constitution by 3/4 of the the States of the United States.

Refuted in the prior post.

Bottom line, if you want to rebel over national taxes, you are in revolt against the Constitution of the United States and the Republic founded under it.

Nonsense. If that were true the so-called "tax protesters" would be tried for sedition in each and every case. As it is, not even the the agencies of the Department of Revenue can specify the criteria to brings a person under Title 26, which describes an excise tax.

All constitutions were ratified after the war.

The first government body created as representing the United States was the Continental Congess that existed prior to the war, with the Articles of Confederation accepted in 1777 six years prior to the end of the war of independance.

The United States was first formed under The Articles of Confederation as a loose federation of strong sovereign states with a weak federal government, the Continental Congress.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and its federal form of government with the Republic.

Your concepts of unlimited state soverignty derive from the Articles of Confederation and the opponents of the Constitution.

If you had been there you would have advised them to "to suck it up and follow the king's statutes because, you know, once a statute is implemented you must follow it no matter how egregious it is or becomes."

As a matter of fact I would have supported the revolution for the leaders of that day had a clear plan and governing bodies (the states in a Federation) ready to take up the reigns of government.

Your pitiful attempts at rationalizing tax revolt however is nothing more than the criminal looking to justify breaking the law for self interest while waving a flag of pseudo patriotism.

This is the topic of this discussion, whether the citizens have the power to resist destructive laws, and always citizens anywhere have had this right. Any consequences following do not vitiate the power or the right.

The citizen may resist the rule of law, the Constitution provides the authority and power necessary to punish that citizen when found in criminal act or rebellion.

The present constitution was ratified as law for the formation of a national body to administer tasks that were impossible or impractical for a state or a consortium of states to administer.

Articles of Confederation did that, only problem was the "sovereign" states failed in their commitment to pay the Quota under the Articles of Confederation they agreed to for funding Continental Congress in discharge of the duties assigned to it.

It gave more power to the national government than the Articles of Confederation,

Absolutely, especially as regards taxation of the individual citizen:

but in no way made it anything but a instrument of the states.

LOL, wrong. The people created and empowered the sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation which failed. Through the ratifying conventions for the Constitution the people revoked the unlimited sovereignty of the states and created a Republic with a National government having sovereign and supreme authority in those powers expressly given to it in acting upon the state citizen.

Constitution for the United States of America:

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

Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

Specifically as regards taxation, the Constitution grants concurrent jurisdicton to the National government as regards taxation of citizens within the states:

Federalist #34:

``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.

After having lacked effective means of enforcing tax quotas on the states under the Articles of Confederation:

Federalist #21:

The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it

Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

"If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

The plenary authority for Congress to tax the individual citizen was granted.

Constitution for the United States of America:

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

My tag line is a summation or the principal.

Individuals can exist without government

Until the bully with a bigger gun comes along. Warlords are the natural tyrants out of anarchy.

But a state can not choose to not be involved at all.

Sure it can, if the state chooses to have the National government act directly on its citizens instead of being involved.

Therefore, one way or another, you have feds and federal law operating at the state level and not just on the federal level. The state collection agencies must be overseen, regulated and sanctioned by the feds and federal law.

By agreement with the National government,

The alternative is that national IRS acting directly on the individual citizen under the income/payroll tax system, instead of the state tax authority under the NRST. Course if a state doesn't mind a national authority extracting taxes directly from its citizens the United States Treasury is certainly authorized to do that and not bother with the state at all.

Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

Constitution for the United States of America:

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

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

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Seeing that the Articles of Confederation and states sovereignty as regards taxation were tossed in 1788 with ratification of the Constitution by 3/4 of the the States of the United States.

Refuted in the prior post.

A mere unfounded assertion fails to refute, where the statements of the founders and the historical record of ratification of the Constitution by the people of the United States clearly demonstrates otherwise:

Federalist #21:

The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out

Federalist #31:

"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. "

Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

Constitution for the United States of America:

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

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

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Nonsense. If that were true the so-called "tax protesters" would be tried for sedition in each and every case.

You are the one to suggest they are in revolt.

From my and the Court's view, they are just dupes and common criminals not revolting against anything, just lining their pockets by evading Constitutional taxes and playing at "revolt" as a rationalization to not pay taxes imposed on them.

TP'r : A person who's tax evasion sales pitch has the substance of used Toilette Paper.

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.

The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.

We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.

There is but one justification of tax inclusive rate at any point comparison between income/payroll tax system with the NRST that replaces it. Percent of total accomodates those comparisons. Percent added to price does not lend itself to easy comparison between those systems.

First, I have already shown that a comparison to the income taxes rates is actually easier with the tax exclusive NRST rate. Second, even if the "inclusive" rate was needed for comparison, why would anyone 20 years after the NRST is passed want to be comparing the NRST rate to their forgotten income tax rate? Third, a tax inclusive rate on consumption is not comparable to a tax inclusive rate on income.

Or you could end the charade and admit that tax inclusive rates are the most natural form in which to compare income tax rates with sales tax rates.

But you don't need the tax "inclusive" NRST rate to get to the effective tax inclusive income tax rate needed for comparison. It's easier with the the tax exclusive NRST rate.

I note, on challenge you have yet, to demonstrate an accurate calculation of income/payroll tax system rate in using just tax inclusive calculation.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't think you can get an accurate calculation of the income/payroll tax system rate using just the tax "inclusive" calculation so why would I or how could I demonstrate it?

I have demonstrated the rates expressed as percent of total income (tax inclusive) are readily calculated and compared. It is another thing all together to calculate an accurate (tax exclusive) rate for income/payroll taxes without intimate knowledge of specific savings and expenditure patterns.

How can you compare an income tax to a consumption tax if you don't know someone's income and consumption level. And how can you get an accurate comparison if one of these factors change?

As usual you blow more smoke, rather than recognising the necessity of comparing the current income/payroll tax system(tax inclusive) with the NRST that would replace those taxes.

I see the need to make a comparison and have shown it is easier using the tax exclusive NRST rate. And you seem to think people will be making these comparisons in perpetuity!

Seems to me (tax inclusive) is the comparison that folks need, to understand the economic benefit of the NRST over the tax system it replaces.

Well, we've seen that the NRST rate you are purporting to be the tax "inclusive" NRST rate isn't really the tax "inclusive" NRST rate. It is not the percentage of the total cost of item that I would pay in federal taxes.

And your refusal to recognize that the tax "inclusive" NRST rate is not necessary to make an accurate comparison to the income tax shows that you're more concerned with selling this plan than having an honest debate on it's merits (or lack thereof). You're just regurgitating the marketing plan of the proponent of this idea. Be careful, you're become a shill.

Your chart uses marginal rates which doesn't show what a person actually pays in taxes. Also, it's from 1997. The marginal rates have changed. And, it doesn't show the necessary scale for a full comparison. It doesn't show the negative numbers that represent the people who will actually profit from the NRST.

If you wished to make accurate comparisons you wouldn't use the wrong numbers that are outdated and put them on a inaccurate chart!

The first government body created as representing the United States was the Continental Congess that existed prior to the war, with the Articles of Confederation accepted in 1777 six years prior to the end of the war of independance.

No constitution was valid until the colonies were independent from the king. Until that point, they were under English law. Therefore any such actions before the war was won were illegal according to the law they were under.

And that was my original point, I believe, that our country wouldn't have been formed if people had to follow laws simply because a proposal was able to get itself passed into law.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and its federal form of government with the Republic.

At the time of the constitutional convention, it was well know that the state were the dog and the new constitution was the tail, just like the articles before it. This didn't change until the war between the states. therefore the usurpation of state sovereignty, such as would end up under an NRST, would have been unthinkable to the delegates.

As a matter of fact I would have supported the revolution for the leaders of that day had a clear plan and governing bodies (the states in a Federation) ready to take up the reigns of government.

So? They were forming a new nation. The people resisting the income tax statutes are forming a new concept: defunding socialism in the US. I know the status quo, as far as the amount of money funding it, is close to your heart, but status quos don't last forever.

No, I think for certain you would have voted to stay under the king, because then you would not have known then what you do now, that it would be successful.

Your pitiful attempts at rationalizing tax revolt however is nothing more than the criminal looking to justify breaking the law for self interest while waving a flag of pseudo patriotism.

Your pitiful attempts at rationalizing the economic rape of the American people with a NRST is nothing more than a statist looking to justify the survival of his benefits by trying to swing their funding from a rapidly crumbling foundation to one more firm, for you own self interest while waving the white flag of surrender to creeping socialism in this country.

Again, you post these off point pasties. Don't you realize that a war was fought over these states rights and sovereignty you say the federal constitution did not recognize? Up until the time of the war, it was understood that the states were sovereign republics. Read the constitution.

With your lack of understanding of the relationship of the states to the federal government codified int he constitution, I don't doubt that you support a NRST.

"I have two fairly educated friends who are middle income folks with a nice house two late model SUVs in the garage and lack for nothing in the way of creature comforts. Yet they believe they pay no taxes because they get a refund."

Real friends don't let friends walk thru life ignorant.....

FRegards,

Sure it can, if the state chooses to have the National government act directly on its citizens instead of being involved.

A state cannot choose under the NRST legislation to not allow a federal sales tax to be withheld from it people. The people are the state, remember?

"Being involved" for a state under the federal NRST means being directly subverted by the federal agencies charged with collecting and administering the NRST. No state law would govern this activity, only federal law.

I can't believe that you are telling me that the feds would not be involved at the state level collecting NRST and executing federal law.

By agreement with the National government. . .

There can be no "By agreement with the National government" if the choice to not agree is not allowed.

The alternative is that national IRS acting directly on the individual citizen under the income/payroll tax system, instead of the state tax authority under the NRST. Course if a state doesn't mind a national authority extracting taxes directly from its citizens the United States Treasury is certainly authorized to do that and not bother with the state at all.

Now, the feds operate afar with their collection of the income tax. The states ride off that authority by implementing their own income tax. Under a NRST the federal presence will be immediate and controlling, since the state itself is mandated to collect the tax and punish its citizens under federal law.

Do you really not see the difference, or are you justifying to plug holes in the dam?

A mere unfounded assertion fails to refute, where the statements of the founders and the historical record of ratification of the Constitution by the people of the United States clearly demonstrates otherwise:

Read the post. The "assertion" is hardly unfounded. Using your interpretation, the states wouldn't have bothered to fight the war between the states. None of your cut and pasties have anything to do with the intended state sovereignty over the national level government. So why post them? To give the color of authority without its substance, I assume.

From my and the Court's view, they are just dupes and common criminals not revolting against anything, just lining their pockets by evading Constitutional taxes and playing at "revolt" as a rationalization to not pay taxes imposed on them.

Ah, but you're the one who said, "Bottom line, if you want to rebel over national taxes, you are in revolt against the Constitution of the United States and the Republic founded under it."

If that is true, each of the so-called "tax protesters" should be tried for sedition. They are not, therefore your assertion is wrong.

Time to FREEP Congress! We need a good group of Freepers to start making organized posts about this...list the numbers for the Capitol (toll free ones if you can find em!:) along with the number of the bill to support. We have 150,000 Freepers...just 1% could make a MASSIVE difference in the final vote.

None of your cut and pasties have anything to do with the intended state sovereignty over the national level government. So why post them? To give the color of authority without its substance, I assume.

AG is the King of Cut-and-Pasties. Sometimes I wonder if he is even human or some programmer's attempt to pass the Turing Test.