Posted on 08/12/2004 3:03:02 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
CARSON, Calif. - John Kerry (news - web sites) said Thursday that President Bush (news - web sites)'s musing about a national sales tax is an insult to financially struggling voters and would amount to "one of the largest tax increases on the middle class in American history."
The Democratic presidential nominee, during a speech at California State University, Dominguez Hills, tried to reverse partisan stereotypes by portraying the Republican president as the tax raiser and himself as a tax cutter.
Kerry said if Bush wants to create a national sales tax without increasing the deficit, people will end up paying at least 26 percent more for purchases on top of state and local sales taxes.
"We know exactly who that's going to hurt," Kerry said . "That's going to hurt small business. It's going to hurt jobs. It's going to hit the pocketbooks of those who need and deserve tax relief most in America."
Bush has suggested that overhauling the tax code would be a second-term priority if he is re-elected. While campaigning in Florida Tuesday, he said replacing the income tax with a federal sales tax is "an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously."
Kerry seized on Bush's comments even as White House officials downplayed the idea and denied that any such plan is under consideration.
Kerry said Bush has failed to offer a plan for improving the economy in his second term. He said the president's tax cuts have resulted in a tax increase on the middle class because their state and local taxes have been increased to compensate for loss of revenue from the federal government. He said a national sales tax would only further burden the middle class.
"I call it one of the largest tax increases on the middle class in American history," Kerry said. "And this is coming from an administration that has offered almost no new ideas for our economy, and the few ideas that they have offered have only hurt middle class families. This new idea is no different."
Kerry repeatedly invoked the memory of better economic times under another Democratic president, Bill Clinton (news - web sites). He said Clinton's advisers were helping craft his economic plan and that he will be "a champion for the middle class" by cutting their taxes while lowering the deficit.
Kerry said he would offer tax breaks to help pay for health care premiums, child care and college tuition, paid for by repealing Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000 a year.
"They will go back to paying the same taxes they paid when Bill Clinton was president," Kerry said. "That was a time when every American rich got richer."
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry cannot pay for his tax plan.
"John Kerry's numbers don't add up," Schmidt said. "He has spent his tax hike more times than anyone can keep track of."
He was also fighting Bush campaign's charge that Kerry has a long history of voting for higher taxes during his 19-year career in the Senate.
Dream on. You're claiming a 25% drop in prices due to embedded taxes. I count 2%. You think we're really on the same page here?
I am correct. Payroll matters may be reported but not taxed.
True. That's the 2% I identified above. But this point is that compliance costs will not change because business accounting practices will not be changed by the NRST.
BULLS**t!!! Everything that a business buys to use for their subassembly is taxed. When that business sells their subassembly, it is taxed. When a business buys that subassembly to use for their subassembly, it is taxed. The final assembly price includes all of the previous taxes PLUS the final sales tax.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. First fundamental economics: only the final buyer pays any tax. Second, by law, B-t-B transactions for resale are not taxed.
Name a theoretical loophole.
Exclude all school supplies. Florida has a loophole like that for a week each year. That's the time to buy a new computer for school, I guess.
Florida also excludes presciption drugs and certain groceries from taxes. Get your lobbying group out now for your little exemption!
Besides, the NRST would abolish the 16th Amendment,
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! That's so wrong all I can do is laugh.
Well, I see you understand the NRST about as well as the cut-n-paste geezer.
EVERYONE
Why not just lower the rate then?
I'll tell you why. Because everyone who spends OVER the poverty level is paying more than they should...
EVERYONE
With Kerry, as most democrats, the definition of who is rich and who is middle class can change without notice. When they raise taxes on the rich, rich means a household income of 60000 per year. But when they claim to be protecting middle-class taxpayers, they pretend that everyone making less than 150000 a year is middle class.
"You didn't answer my question. If HR 25, S 1493, and the folks at AFFT quoted it in exclusive terms, would you be on board???
No."
-- Why?
I'll tell you why. Because everyone who spends OVER the poverty level is paying more than they should...
EVERYONE
Under the NRST every individual would receive their full Gross Pay instead of that aftertax pay they now receive, plus the Family Consumption Allowence provided for each legal resident in a household. As a consequence, the individual has first option and decision over what to do with his income as opposed to the government under the income/payroll tax system.
Every household would be free of the corrosive influence of the individual income tax & the IRS.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17851
- "The income tax in effect makes us vassals to the government – the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere “reform” of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money. Only the abolition of the income tax itself will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business - not the government's."
- "Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would rejuvenate independence and responsibility in our citizens. True economic liberty and moral revival go hand in hand."
- "A national sales tax would also put the American citizen back in control of national fiscal policy. The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes, because they can’t spend what they don’t get. But with a sales tax, we could deny funds to a spendthrift government – and give ourselves a tax cut – whenever we make the private choice to alter our spending and saving habits."
It appears to me that almost everyone in the Country would benefit from the NRST
EXCEPT:
Which case do you fall under lewislynn?
Why?Lots of reasons. We can start with the fact that the rate is way too low. It will either go up dramatically or the deficit will explode.
Congress further finds that the 16th Amendment should be repealed.Finding the 16th Amendment should be repealed is a long way from "abolish[ing] the 16th Amendment."
But hey, let's not get hung up on this unimportant math stuff.
To say it's a fair tax , and that everyone pays the same rate is another of the fairtax or national sales tax obvious lies.....look at the chart, you be the judge.
| State | State Rate | Range of Local Rates | 23% |
| Alabama | 4.000% | 1% - 7% | 23% |
| Alaska | 0.000% | 0% - 7% | 23% |
|
Arizona |
5.000% | .25% - 3.8% | 23% |
| Arkansas | 4.625% | .5% - 4.00% | 23% |
| California | 6.000% | 1.25% - 2.5% | 23% |
| Colorado | 3.000% | .25% - 7.00% | 23% |
| Connecticut | 6.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Delaware | 0.000% | 0% | 23% |
| District of Columbia | 5.750% | 0% | 23% |
| Florida | 6.000% | .5% - 1.5% | 23% |
| Georgia | 4.000% | 1% - 3% | 23% |
| Hawaii | 4.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Idaho | 5.000% | 1% - 3% | 23% |
| Illinois | 6.250% | .25% - 2.75% | 23% |
| Indiana | 5.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Iowa | 5.000% | 0% - 2% | 23% |
| Kansas | 4.900% | .25% - 3.00% | 23% |
| Kentucky | 6.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Louisiana | 4.000% | .3% - 6.75% | 23% |
| Maine | 5.500% | 0% | 23% |
| Maryland | 5.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Massachusetts | 5.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Michigan | 6.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Minnesota | 6.500% | .5% - 1% | 23% |
| Mississippi | 7.000% | 0% - .25% | 23% |
| Missouri | 4.225% | .5% - 4% | 23% |
| Montana | 0.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Nebraska | 5.00% | 1% - 1.5% | 23% |
| Nevada | 4.250% | 2.25% - 3% | 23% |
| New Hampshire | 0.000% | 0% | 23% |
| New Jersey | 6.000% | 0% | 23% |
| New Mexico | 5.000% | .125% - 2.438% | 23% |
| New York | 4.000% | 2% - 4.5% | 23% |
| North Carolina | 4.000% | 2% - 2.5% | 23% |
| North Dakota | 5.000% | 1% - 2% | 23% |
| Ohio | 5.000% | .5% - 2% | 23% |
| Oklahoma | 4.500% | .2% - 6.25% | 23% |
| Oregon | 0.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Pennsylvania | 6.000% | 0% - 1% | 23% |
| Rhode Island | 7.000% | 0% | 23% |
| South Carolina | 5.000% | 1% - 2% | 23% |
| South Dakota | 4.000% | 1% - 2% | 23% |
| Tennessee | 6.000% (10) | 1% - 2.75% | 23% |
| Texas | 6.250% | .5% - 2% | 23% |
| Utah | 4.750% | 1% - 3% | 23% |
| Vermont | 5.000% | 0% - 1% | 23% |
| Virginia | 3.500% | 1% | 23% |
| Washington | 6.500% | .5% - 2.1% | 23% |
| West Virginia | 6.000% | 0% | 23% |
| Wisconsin | 5.000% | .1% - 1.0% | 23% |
| Wyoming | 4.000% | 1% - 2% | 23% |
I'm not going to pretend to know all of the complexities of all the states sales taxes but as anyone can see, due to local taxes the "23%" rate can vary not only from state to state but from location to location within the same state.
As an example, I know people who live in Washington state and go shopping in Oregon, because as you see by the rate(s) Washington's rate is maximum 8.6%--Oregon is 0%
Our $100.00 dollar item in Oregon would have a "gross payment" of $ 129.87 ( it's still exorbitant) BUT, due to state taxes and the federal tax on tax, the same $ 100.00 item in Washington would have a "gross payment" of: $ 141.04 at the maximum state/local rate ($ 32.43 of which is federal sales tax)--another part of Washington or the next town for that matter could have a "gross payment" of $ 138.31 on the same $100.00 item ($ 31.81 of which is federal sales tax)---and, both, actually all of those, according to the sales tax folks, is considered to be a "23%" tax on the same item using the same base price, ... .
The citizens of Washington, at their maximum rate, would be paying 2.5% higher federal fairtaxes than their neighbors to the south in Oregon....
Even though the dollar amount of federal tax in Washington is more than Oregon, the sales tax folks will still tell you it's a 23% rate...an obvious fraud.
Since the citizens of Washinton ,for example, would be paying a larger dollar amount than Oregon, they'll really be getting screwed with their monthly, one size fits all, 23% of the predetermined poverty rate rebate from the central government....
You don't need to get irate.
I'm talking about the rate that includes the cost of the "rebate".
Why not just reduce the rate for EVERYONE and eliminate the millions of phony rebates mailed out every month...You tell me the difference... if you can.
"Why?
Lots of reasons. We can start with the fact that the rate is way too low. It will either go up dramatically or the deficit will explode."
-- OK, what else?
OK, what else?It gives a good portion of the population an incentive for the tax rate to up.
"OK, what else?
It gives a good portion of the population an incentive for the tax rate to up."
-- Oh, so you're talking about the 10 - 12% of the population that lives below the poverty line overpowering the other 90%? Well, they're voting power isn't even that high.
First off, poor Americans have a much higher birth rate than the rest of the population, making their ratio of eligible voters lower.
Secondly, The overwhelming majority of felons are below they poverty line; and as you know felons cannot vote in almost every state.
Thirdly, the percentage of registered poor voters who actually show up to the polling booth is amysmal even when compared to low nationwide voter turnout numbers.
Fourthly, most of these voters, at least the urban poor, are already represented by liberal democrats who want to raise taxes; and they're not even your average liberal democrat: They're Progressive Caucus (a socialist outfit chaired by Kucinich) members!
So you think that 3 - 5% of the population that is already taken for granted by socialist democrats will be able to sway the other 95 - 97% of the population to pay more in taxes???
That reason is out the window. So what else do you got?
LOL!
| Tax Base (billions) |
Revenues to Be Collected (billions) |
Tax Rate (tax exclusive) |
Tax Rate (tax inclusive) |
||
| No rebate, | |||||
| excluding payroll taxes | $5,978.2 | $ 803.0 | 13.4% | 11.8% | |
| With rebate, | |||||
| excluding payroll taxes | 4,841.1 | 803.0 | 16.6 | 14.2 | |
| No rebate, | |||||
| including payroll taxes | 5,978.2 | 1,293.2 | 21.6 | 17.8 | |
| With rebate, | |||||
| including payroll taxes | 4,841.1 | 1,293.2 | 26.7 | 21.1 | |
| Source: National Income Product Accounts, Survey of Current Business, August 1996; Federal Receipts, Analytical Perspectives, FY 1997 Budget of the United States Government. |
|||||
Get it?
That reason is out the window. So what else do you got?Sure. A good portion of the population profits when the tax rate goes up.
"Sure. A good portion of the population profits when the tax rate goes up."
-- 10%? 10% with no political power??? 10% of the population benefits nowadays when taxes go up.
What else do you got???
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.