Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FLAT TAX MAY BE A "GO"
Fiedor Report On the News #312 ^ | 8-14-04 | Doug Fiedor

Posted on 08/14/2004 10:58:52 AM PDT by forest

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 last
To: ancient_geezer
Use, consumption, sale etc. of personal property is seen as taxable in regard to exercise of a particular single power over property incidental to ownership, which distinguishes the carriage in the case of Hylton.

So would this apply to real property as well? Could, for example, the sale of one's home (prior to the 16th, that is) be taxed under the rules of an indirect tax?

101 posted on 08/17/2004 1:07:09 PM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Could, for example, the sale of one's home (prior to the 16th, that is) be taxed under the rules of an indirect tax?

I have found nothing to indicate otherwise, all that is required as far as I can determine is wherther or not it is politically feasible for the federal government to get away with it.

If you can have an excise tax on gross sales value as in an estate tax, the sale of land or a house is just another exchange or event transfering property open to taxation as an excise.

As held discussing the nature of estate taxes as an indirect tax in:

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

 

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

EXCISES.
This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.


102 posted on 08/17/2004 4:41:02 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
There already is a mechanism for helping lower to middle income families. Simply make the first 10,000 per adult deductable, first 5,000 per child deductable. Family of 4 would then only be taxed on money made over $30,000.

True, but with the current in place, individuals and corps with lobbyists will still be able to affect the rest of the tax laws get loopholes for their clients. By switching to a consumption tax, they lose this power entirely (at least on a national level.)

Other benefits of a NST are that those who don't pay any national taxes currently (illegal aliens and other criminals) would finally be supporting the rest of us. And, as illegal criminals they wouldn't even be getting the refund checks that honest Americans would be getting! Just this point alone would get it through CA and TX I think!

103 posted on 09/04/2004 8:25:16 AM PDT by WileyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson