Posted on 11/03/2004 10:42:24 AM PST by tgusa
"I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's kind of an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously," the president said. The next day administration officials said Bush was not considering such a reform.
John Kerry's campaign quickly condemned a national sales tax, and Bush for potentially supporting it.
“If [Bush] has his way, every trip to the supermarket will feel like a visit to H&R Block and every day will be April 15. And now that this plan has been exposed, George W. Bush is trying to mislead the public into thinking it was just an off-the-cuff comment," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said in an Aug. 12 statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How did what I say even remotely suggest that?
Yes it was unfair that prior to the NRST you had to pay tax on your income. But you're not going to get that tax money back. Nobody is going to get tax reparations.
Here's the killer, under the income tax the IRS -- with impunity -- can steal your entire 500k savings. IRS Abuse Reports -- The Case Against the IRS
So ten companies in the production chain with a 10% tax rate would increase the price by 100%?...or would it be 10%?
Correct. The 20-25% estimate reflects an average, not an absolute. The flip side would be that the longer the production chain, the higher the embedded taxes. There are other factors involved, but all other things being equal, that should hold.
Using that logic something with thousands of components, like a car, would have HUGE price reductions.
Is the embedded tax of 10% on 100 bolts from one manufacturer and the 10% embedded tax on 100 nuts from a different manufacturer and 10% emedded tax from the manufacturer of 100 steering wheels 30% embedded tax or is it 10%?
You need an 8th grade math class.
The 16th didn't give us a new tax or create any new taxpayers - USSC in Brushaber v. Union Pacific
Maybe not, and I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read the 16th Amendment, if you want to drive a stake through the heart of the income tax, you had better repeal that amendment.
Amendment XVI - Income taxes authorized. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Both that answer and the correct answer exposes your idiocy.
I have a problem with whose definition of poor to believe, just as many here have a problem with whose definition of rich to believe.
If you start making different rules based on income, then you should also make different rules on the rich as well as the poor.
Pretty soon you will have the same tangled web of regulations and deductions--you will have only changed the means of collection, and will have destroyed the consumer economy while you're at it.
If you buy used stuff, a house or car, no NRST on it.
It is only for new stuff, at retail.
OK, I accept your reasoning. So, your answer for reforming the current tax system is?
Used stuff is not taxed.
IRS is not there anymore.
Have you read HR25?
There are not different rules based on income.
We have at least 12-15 months, possibly more, because the Dems are going to class warfare the hell out of this.
Tax reform, SS reform AND a line item veto? Be still, my heart...LOL.
If a big government predetermined one size fits all poverty level "prebate" for "the poor" is such a good idea, why don't we increase the "prebate" to pay the middle class up front for their/our tax burden too?
You are correct but the Supreme Court also defined income - see if this sounds like your income.
"Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor." Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739
"There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' and compensation for labor CANNOT be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word 'profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment--a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor." Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep. 2d 859
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.