Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
I think lewislynn is trying to infer that state taxes would be taxed at the FairTax rate in addition to the item price
State/local taxes are neither taxible property nor service, thus cannot be subject to the NRST per the statute:
Sec 101(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
There is N O T H I N G to stop that from happening now.
With passage of HR 25 -- The FairTax -- the IRS is dismantled. It's gone. The code is gone. Audits are gone.
The current system C A N N O T be fixed. Everytime they 'fix' it, it get's more convoluted.
We have not been vigilant and the result is the mess we have now. Well, we're on guard now and we will get this done. Companion legislation repeals the 16th Amendment to prevent what you suggest will happen.
If we, or our children, must fight off an attempt to do this, at least we will have the experience to do so. But for you to call for this mess to continue is ludicrous. Why should be not do something good because 20 years from now (or even a year from now) something might happen?
Instead of cowering in fear of mights and maybes, stand up and demand that the current mess end. Come up with another plan if you don't think this one is good enough. But to defend this on the flimsy ground that something might happen only makes you look silly. Or worse.
Do you have a clue to what the words "of the gross payment means"?...
What is deceitful about the definition of "of the gross payments"?
`(5) GROSS PAYMENTS- The term `gross payments' means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title.
Can you make full (gross) payment on a product or service without paying all the taxes?
The tax is imposed on (actually of) the payment... not the price of the product or service.
I understand you don't like it but that's what the law (not me) says.
Actually, as wrong as he was on his main point, he is right on that telephone tax. It was started to generate money for teh Spanish American War (1898 IIRC) and is still in place.
Of course that tax is justified because that war is still ongoing. ;-) Isn't Eastasia always at war?
algore learned from that experience and did the same thing with the internet wiring scheme for schools.
The point I'm trying to make here is that hyping the lower 23% 'rate', when it is actually 30% is a pretty odd way to sell anything..
I still get confused on the inclusive v. exclusive stuff. I just quote the 30% if I mention any rate. Generally, I talk in terms of the benefits of going this route and destroying the IRS. Often, that's enough to bring people on board.
839 Badray
Thanks for your honest answer. I agree, our main effort should be to destroy the IRS.
I was and am being polite.
You think about where we have encountered each other before.
Same amount? That cannot be. On a $100 purchase the tax paid would vary by $6.86 --- Can you explain further?
Under tax inclusive the total payment is used to calcualte tax paid out of the payment tendered.
For $100 tendered in payment tax = 0.23*$100 = $23 price = $77And for a $100 purchase the tax paid would be $29.86, a tax rate of 29.86%, not 23%, correct?
The federal NRST tax rate is expressed as a fraction of total payment, just as the federal income tax rate, or federal payroll tax rate, is expressed as a percentage of the income out of which the tax is paid.
For a $100 received by a business the tax remitted government by the seller is $23, the seller receives the remainder, 77$.
A tax rate of 23% = 100*23/(23+77)
If I have a product price $100, the tax would be 29.86. The total payment for the product would be $129.86. The tax rate= 23% = 100*29.86/(129.86)
If you have a price only, and wish to calculate what your total payment will be, you use the ratio of payment to price to determine that (1.2987 * $100) = 129.86 for an item with a $100 price.
The NRST is not a state tax, it is a federal tax to replace other federal taxes that are calculated on the tax inclusive basis, the rate is determined from the perspective of the person remitting the tax to government the seller.
Well there goes my reputation. Shot. Just for being nice one time. LOL
Thanks. : )
You are trying to make the case that "gross payments" includes state sales taxes. The quote you profer defines "gross payments" as "payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes...". State taxes are not "taxable" property nor "taxable" services, and therefore NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF "GROSS PAYMENTS". You are being deceitfull, and misleading, as I have observed in other threads on this topic.
Gabz has apparently formed a similar opinion of your typical tactics as I, and others, have.
The federal NRST tax rate is expressed as a fraction of total payment, just as the federal income tax rate, or federal payroll tax rate, is expressed as a percentage of the income out of which the tax is paid. For a $100 received by a business the tax remitted government by the seller is $23, the seller receives the remainder, 77$. A tax rate of 23% = 100*23/(23+77) If I have a product price $100, the tax would be 29.86. The total payment for the product would be $129.86. The tax rate= 23% = 100*29.86/(129.86) If you have a price only, and wish to calculate what your total payment will be, you use the ratio of payment to price to determine that (1.2987 * $100) = 129.86 for an item with a $100 price. The NRST is not a state tax, it is a federal tax to replace other federal taxes that are calculated on the tax inclusive basis, the rate is determined from the perspective of the person remitting the tax to government the seller.
Thank you. In other words, -- my comment is correct.
Yes, but for other reasons on another topic.
I thought I was engaging properly, but apparently not. I'm done with any discussion of ANY topic with lewislynn.
If I understand how you are percieveing it (like a state sales tax), your statement is correct. However, it is also correct to represent the tax rate as 23% of the total payment of $129.87. To use this confusing distinction to represent the FairTax as being equivelent to a 23% state sales tax is misleading. Likewise, to use this confusing distinction to obfuscate and acuse the FairTax as misrepresenting the rate is also misleading.
Thank you. In other words, -- my comment is correct.
Evidently I don't understand the purpose of your comment, what it is that you are trying to compare legislation's tax rate with?
You two are both new to these discussions.
I suggest that rather than involve yourself with lewislynn and YourNightmare, that you just ignore them.
I'm not sure why they are devoted to preserving the current monstrosity, but I assume that it is for money -- one way or another.
$23 Million dollars have been spent on economic studies to make this proposal viable and realistic. But these two want you to believe that they have all of the answers and that there is something nefarious about the FairTax and it's proponents. I've not met anyone yet who is involved with promoting this plan who isn't intelligent, honest and trustworthy. Many of them are Freepers that you will see on other threads and will be on the same side of those issues as you and I are. I've never seen these two anywhere but on FairTax threads and with the intent to impugn the plan and it's proponents and their integrity by innuendo, snide remarks, and misrepresentation.
My tendency was to argue with them too until cooler and wiser showed me the error of my way. These 2 will not concede that there is anything redeeming about the plan. You'd think that an honest debater would find something worthwhile, but pointing out a major flaw or two. That they present this as evil incarnate tells me that their opposition is bought and paid for and that they are not honest enough to say so.
If you have a price only, and wish to calculate what your total payment will be, you use the ratio of payment to price to determine that (1.2987 * $100) = 129.86 for an item with a $100 price.
Thank you. In other words, -- my comment is correct.
Evidently I don't understand the purpose of your comment, what it is that you are trying to compare legislation's tax rate with?
I am trying to establish what the proposed rate would be, -- not to compare it with anything else.
You have finally confirmed it to be 29.86%... --- Congrats.
Hmmm... I feel compelled to come to Your Nightmare's defense to a certain degree. I agree completely that Lewislynn has nothing to offer but logical sleight of hand and obfuscation. However, YN does seem to be very well read, and offers some very valid criticisms of the FairTax, and should not be grouped in the same class as Lewislynn and the "Lord of Pork" from this thread.
I will share my observation that YN seems to be involved on these threads only to criticize the FarTax at any oportunity. However, he has with very little exception, in my experience, engaged in outright deception, and has benefitted my understanding of several issues.
I suppose my point is, he is not to be summarily dismissed, like Lewislynn. It is my experience he will admit a point if forced to. And at the very least, plays the vital role of an effective devil's advocate. Test what he says and hold him accountable, but I think it would be inappropriate to just dismiss him without consideration.
I am trying to establish what the proposed rate would be, -- not to compare it with anything else.
You have finally confirmed it to be 29.86%... --- Congrats.
That's good, because you now know that the effective federal income/payroll tax the NRST replaces is exactly the same rate when measured the same way. --- and??
Yes, you're comment is correct. The so-called "fair tax" is roughly 30% of the purchase price.
You may well ask why the screaming "fair tax" flying monkeys try so hard to disguise this very obvious truth.
856 Iwo Jima
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.