Posted on 08/03/2004 8:09:52 AM PDT by CSM
No. It is based on the Federal poverty level.
Why do you care if they give them millions? Are you for or against freedom?
Ya, and Donor X wouldn't talk with Candidate A and say, "Look for a $10 Million credit to your account shortly."
The federal poverty level varies by area.
I understand your concerns, and you make a valid point about the problems with varying standards in different states. In Michigan, all food is exempt, unless it is served in a restaurant.
To raise another point, the cheese in mac and cheese and the potatos in potato chips would be exempt anyway, because they are for business use. The business use exemption, while preventing the compounding of tax, requires that "business use" be defined and enforced. This creates a whole other set of problems.
"Why do you care if they give them millions?"
Because, if they give to Kerry or someone like him, I would not line their pockets by going to their movies, etc.
"Are you for or against freedom?"
No, I feel we have a freedom to boycott people/artists, etc. as punishment for something. How about having the newspapers just tell what Natalie of the Dixie Chicks said without naming her or the group? People boycotted them or do you not think that they should have been able to do that?
that would depend on legislation put forth. I'm not sure what they do in London.
I can't see the local governments collecting vat on items that are sold in garage sales, etc.
Talk is cheap and when it comes to donations, frequently exaggerated.
"In Michigan, all food is exempt, unless it is served in a restaurant."
I know, but why should that be? The food is food, it is an essential, because it was prepared? What about frozen dinners, they are prepared, just need to be heated.
"To raise another point, the cheese in mac and cheese and the potatos in potato chips would be exempt anyway, because they are for business use. The business use exemption, while preventing the compounding of tax, requires that "business use" be defined and enforced. This creates a whole other set of problems."
The business is not consuming the cheese or potatos, they are processing them for resale. The consumer is the one that pays the taxes on the "finished product".
First off you have NEVER shot anything out of the water to my recollection and secondly why is it wrong to describe someones purchase of a $2.00 gallon of milk $1.54 for milk and $.46 Tax as a 23% tax when that is EXACTLY what it is?First off, he was talking about the tax added on to the price, which would be the exclusive rate. Second, what if $0.16 of that $2.00 was state sales taxes? Are my federal sales taxes still 23% of my $2.00 purchase?
No, the Federal/National poverty level is an average of all states. This is similar to the national unemployment level, the number is different from individual areas.
"I can't see the local governments collecting vat on items that are sold in garage sales, etc"
I was not talking about that, I was talking about used cars/boats/homes. Items you usually by used and still pay taxes on.
That's the beauty of having certain items exempt from taxation--in a bureaucracy that list will only grow and benefit everyone. It's a self-controlling entity--if the list grows, the government gets less money, but if the list is too small the politicians don't get elected.
On the other hand, politicians will use Boortz's rebate scheme to payoff their constituents--no difference from what's being done today.
If I had to guess, I would say because eating in a restaurant is considered a luxury.
I can hear the 'Rats now. Their mantra would be "Three million people will lose their jobs if we institute a national sales tax!", and never once mention that the ones who will lose their jobs will be tax accountants and lawyers and bureaucrats.
"That's the beauty of having certain items exempt from taxation--in a bureaucracy that list will only grow and benefit everyone. It's a self-controlling entity--if the list grows, the government gets less money, but if the list is too small the politicians don't get elected."
Problem is that it then starts to recreate what we currently have, a tax system that is complicated.
"On the other hand, politicians will use Boortz's rebate scheme to payoff their constituents--no difference from what's being done today."
How would that happen?
But what about those that are displaced from their homes due to flood, hurricane, tornado, etc. that have to eat in a restaurant? Seems unfair to me.
How is the embedded tax going to be completely dissolved as Boortz suggests?
And also, how would this tax system affect the overall tax revenue to the treasury?
Simple--your "rebate check" gets bigger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.