[ancient_geezer]

LOL. Do you really think the CRS is going to fall for the "giving ourselves money equals revenue" trick?

The basic reason for the tax on government consumption is that the government does not relieve its contractors and their employees from the reqirement to pay income and payroll taxes today nor provide credits to business for the taxes embedded into consumption price. Thus the government is required to pay the NRST which replaces those taxes paid via government consumption purchases and hiring practices.

Now if you can figure out how to credit back the embedded taxes of all government consumption purchases to government contractors and service providers for income/payroll taxes before the NRST is implemented, we can discuss providing equivalent exemption to the government on its consumption under the NRST as a viable option.

Come to think of it, since we are no longer tied to revenue neutrality criteria. We could just go ahead and exempt government from paying the NRST if you like, and reduce the target revenues by that amount. That way we can assure government wouldn't get a windfall in spendable funds with which to grow on and unecessarily raise tax rates.

In anycase The CRS analyzes bills as is, they don't re-write or add on or remove provisions of the bill under analysis.

[Your Nightmare]

The basic reason for the tax on government consumption is that the government does not relieve its contractors and their employees from the reqirement to pay income and payroll taxes today nor provide credits to business for the taxes embedded into consumption price. Thus the government is required to pay the NRST which replaces those taxes paid via government consumption purchases and hiring practices.

The basic reason for the tax on government consumption is that you can make the rate seem lower than it is (kinda like using the inclusive rate). You also need to read up on your constitutional law in regards to income/payroll taxes and government contractors.

[Your Nightmare]

"The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable"

Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, 480 (1939)

[Your Nightmare]

You said "The basic reason for the tax on government consumption is that the government does not relieve its contractors and their employees from the requirement to pay income and payroll taxes today nor provide credits to business for the taxes embedded into consumption price. Thus the government is required to pay the NRST which replaces those taxes paid via government consumption purchases and hiring practices." The quote I posted shows, legally, a tax on income (contractors/employees) is not a tax on its source (government).

Your logic, as usual, is flaw.

[lewislynn]

...Thus the government is required to pay(itself) the NRST which replaces those taxes paid via government consumption purchases and hiring practices....

LOL!...Talk about a (oxy)moronic circle jerk....LOL!

That doesn't explain anything and it doesn't come close to why there's a 30% tax ON "any government" employee's wages, salaries and benefits.

Hey Geez. That reminds me of your e-mail telling me Clinton's pay'n you $1700 a month to post on the sales tax threads.