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

Skip to comments.

Abolish the IRS with National Sales Tax?
Fox News ^ | 11/3/04 | tgusa

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: fairtax; irs; nationalsalestax; nrst; salestax; tax; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 421-425 next last
To: Zon
Here's one example: a loaf of bread that costs a dollar has 22 cents tax embedded in it.

I must have missed it. Where did you establish that 22% number and where was it compared to actually collections?

And if average prices only fall 3% due to embedded taxes, doesn't that mean that actual pay-at-the-register prices will rise by 25%? How would that impact sales? And the entire US economy?

281 posted on 11/04/2004 1:37:06 PM PST by balrog666 (It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

You're so antagonist to not acknowledge that it's and example and not a factual percentage of embedded tax on a loaf of bread I won't waste my time on you. Why should I?


282 posted on 11/04/2004 1:50:11 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

You're so antagonist to not acknowledge that it's and example and not a factual percentage of embedded tax on a loaf of bread I won't waste my time on you. Why should I?


283 posted on 11/04/2004 1:50:23 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Zon
It's your argument, buddy. Don't you have any faith in your numbers?

Isn't your entire support based on the 22% estimate of embedded taxes? What if it is WRONG? Would you rather find that out AFTER you passed the bill?

284 posted on 11/04/2004 2:27:38 PM PST by balrog666 (It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
By answering the question, which was, "Why should I?" -- that is, why should I waste my time on you? -- you acknowledge that it's a waste of time to deal with you. 

Don't you have any faith in your numbers?

Faith is for wimps. :)  I trust Dale Jorgenson's research. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM

Since I'm in a charitable mood I'll tell you that not every product has exactly 22% of embedded tax -- twenty-two percent is a rough average. Some items it's 40% or more, other items it's 10% or less.

285 posted on 11/04/2004 3:14:46 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Zon

I think the part he was referring to would be the costs of collection.


286 posted on 11/04/2004 3:58:03 PM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

How can you call this tax "voluntary" vs. the income tax? Is buying food more voluntary than having a job?


287 posted on 11/04/2004 4:07:13 PM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
If a big government predetermined one size fits all poverty level "prebate" for "the poor" is such a good idea,...

It's not "big government", it's smaller govenrment.
It's not one size fits all, there are lots of different prebate sizes
It's not "for the poor", it's for every family who has a valid SSN and wants to receive it
And who said it was "such a good idea"? You made that up.
ANd you still need to learn to work with %s.

288 posted on 11/04/2004 4:13:23 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

That's why they don't do it that way.


289 posted on 11/04/2004 4:16:49 PM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
I must have missed it.

Yes.

Where did you establish that 22% number...

It is well established in the research. Links have been provided numerous times.

And if average prices only fall 3% due to embedded taxes,...

Yes, you missed it. Where did 3% come from - just made it up?

290 posted on 11/04/2004 4:18:20 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; Zon
It's your argument, buddy.

No. You're wrong. It's the argument of dozens of experts in taxation in economics and taxation.... PhDs, LLMs.

It's your argument that is unsupported. Nice try.

291 posted on 11/04/2004 4:20:37 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: RKV
Maybe people with savings could either:

a) Be refunded in cash an amount equal to their savings as of the date of enactment times the new retail tax rate, or

b) get scrip in the same amount as described in a), negotiable only for paying the NST.

292 posted on 11/04/2004 4:20:39 PM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; Zon
It is neither a mandate nor is it unfunded.

States can hire someone else to collect tax for them. But since they'll be paid hansomely for remitting, my guess is the states will choose to do it.

If not, maybe Halliburton will do it? he he

293 posted on 11/04/2004 4:24:24 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
I'm not in the boat with the "voluntary" thing - but I do understand the position of those who are...

The thinking is that:
a) necessity spending is not taxed
b) discretionary spending is taxed but is voluntary
hence you can choose to pay tax or not....

FWIW

294 posted on 11/04/2004 4:29:21 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Principled; Still Thinking

If I'm not mistaken the states get 1/4 of one percent ( .0025)that they remit to the feds.


295 posted on 11/04/2004 4:56:34 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Principled

My take on the voluntary perspective is juxtaposition to gun to the head, threat of jail and financial ruin the IRS imposes on people.


296 posted on 11/04/2004 4:56:36 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

What part of the government stealing a portion of my life at the point of a gun do you not get?


297 posted on 11/04/2004 5:10:12 PM PST by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: tgusa
And national tax free day is now into July. Goodnight! Don't the RATs also pay taxes? Yup, but they still don't get it. The majority of RATs are low income, non-tax payers anyway, according to the Party. The superrich RATs, like the Kerrys, pay very few taxes as they can afford the best tax accountants and lawyers on earth. Most of the leading RAT Senators and Congresscritters do the same.

I want either a flat tax or a NST, but I want something done right away about the tax burden we shoulder. It's well beyond anything the Founders had to contend with with the Brits and their tea and stamp taxes.

298 posted on 11/04/2004 5:11:16 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Principled
It is well established in the research. Links have been provided numerous times.

No, it is just well quoted - it is not established, confirmed, validated, ... it's just a good number for you to lie with.

Yes, you missed it. Where did 3% come from - just made it up?

No, I quoted it last year and told you where it came from. Calculate it yourself if you want to know the facts and have the guts to deal with them.

No. You're wrong. It's the argument of dozens of experts in taxation in economics and taxation.... PhDs, LLMs.

Wrong. One man at one time made up that one number. If idiots believe it or sycophants and crooks need it, it gets quoted and recycled again and again. Count how many people voted for Kerry a real life example of the same phenomenon.

299 posted on 11/04/2004 5:22:26 PM PST by balrog666 (It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes; tgusa

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

Of course it doesn't for you have improperly quoted Stapler, both with respect to context, in part, as well as adding to it.

Stapler v US is only a District Court Case not a Supreme Court Case. Furthermore you have incompletely quoted it distorting its discussion and findings concerning only whether value of improvement to rented property by a renter can be taxed as income to the landlord.

Worst of all you have added the statement "Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor." as a quote, a statement not to be found anywhere in that decision.

The full text of the decision can be found here:

Staples v. U. S., 21 F.Supp. 737 (1937)

The ruling definition of income as it stands today, according to the Supreme Court stands as referenced within Staples:

Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:

And in fact The Supreme Court stated specifically about salaries and wages etc.

Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

Following up later in in the same year as Staples, 1937, as regards the taxing of employments:

Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:

All reflecting the original findings as regards tax on trades, employments and vocations from Pollock:

 

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

Finally,

"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

Is a state court case, and not applicabl, nor does it have any authority in regard to Federal income taxes r the 16th amendment or the definition of income as regards the application of federal law.

300 posted on 11/04/2004 5:42:58 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 421-425 next 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