Posted on 08/27/2005 3:10:16 PM PDT by Shamino
If the intent of HR25's withholding article is for the purposes of assessing social security benefits (to whatever extent this illusion of "benefit" outweighs its political function of maintaing an existing tax on productivity),
Please cite the withholding article you speak of. I don't know what you are looking at. Please cite the section and paragraphs where I can find what you are looking at.
How can the FairTax rhetoric be honest about the 100% wage claim
100% wages is the gross wage you are contracted for. You know what is at the top of your check stub. Easily identified and not particularly negotiable for most folks last I noticed.
Under HR25, if the only type of individual who will be required to withhold and also to receive SS benefits are those categorized as "taxable employees"
Invalid if there is no such term as "taxable employee" in the legislation. And there are no types of individuals required to withhold squat.
and those to remit the tax are "taxable employers,"
Where does it say anywhere in the language of the bill that "taxable employers" remit a tax for "taxable employees"?
"Taxable employers" pay an excise on services rendered to them for final consumption rather than as an input for business use. That excise is 23% with respect to wages paid for service by that "taxable employer", not the employee. Employee keeps his full contracted gross wage.
which are defined as government entities, why would a Federal Employee even have a need to have his pay withheld for assessment purposes when his own employer is (supposedly) government?
A federal emplyee has nothing withheld from his wage at all. Therefore your question is a non-sequiter.
Why would they assess themselves?
The "taxable employer" is the one liable for payment of an excise on consumed services rendered to it from its contracted employees. In the case of government it is to remove an undue advantage by government from outbidding the private sector for employees and their services, were the government not taxed the same a the private sector for consumed services and goods.
Can they not simply look at their existing record or submit pay stubs to verify such benefits?
Far as SS benefits go, reporting of wages to SSA for benefits is the same for every employer whether government or private. Employee wages for SS benifits are required to be reported by all employers.
Why is the concept of withholding even necessary?
Since there is no "withholding" this question is useless. Obviously the concept of withholding is unecessary in an excise levied on the purchaser of services.
If this is not the case, and withholding is truely applied accross the board to all businesses that have had this 73 year policy of withholding per Social Security Act (thus, maintaining the status quo) how does this equate with the FairTax rhetoric--when in reality nothing will change?
There is no case of withholding by government or business for that matter for social security or general revenues in either case. The purchaser of services for final consumption pays the excise on that service regardless of who the purchaser might be.
Keep in mind, under the existing legislation a "taxable employee" is someone with a social security number
Since existing legislation as regard federal payroll and income taxes is repealed, the issue is null.
under HR25 it only defines them as a Federal Employee
Sorry, under HR25, a Federal Employee is no more taxable than anyother employee.
A purchaser of services for consumption rather than business use is required to pay tax on those services rendered regardless of who that purchaser may be.
I understand the 14/8% split, where 8% will go to fund Social Security (or so the Fairtax studies imply), but what is the reality of the legislation on this regarding the above issues of withholding?
The simple reality is there is no withholding regarding the issues you raise. Only the payment of excises by purchasers of consumed services as opposed to services purchased for business purpose.
Purchasers of any taxable property or service for final consumption, (i.e. not for business use) pay the retail sale tax on that property or service no exception.
My last post included links to two recent cases; the associated websites include past and present cases that support the premise of Fraud and lack of jurisdiction per statue.
Yahhhn, the court case was a appellate level case reviewing findings of law.
Sorry, your jury trials do not set precident nor reverse law and never will. Otherwise O.J. winning his case would have made killing ones spouse legal in the state of California. Win all the jury trial you think you can, useless as worts on a worm.
Lose one then, lose again at appellate level, then carry to USSC and win, then you have accomplished something. Until then nadda.
This witholding under the existing system was written to be voluntary in nature.The advantage of paying for Social Security through a NST is it will be clearly seen as welfare program(for rich and poor alike). While your wages will still determine your benefits, everyone will pay into it. People who currently pay no SS tax, like myself, will see the cost. There also won't be an "income cap" which stops withholding over a certain level of income. Every citizen will decide how much to pay into SS by their purchases thus making it voluntary again.
Making the system as voluntary as possible, and as un- intrusive as possible would be preferred! Keeping the taxation rates as low as possible would be best for the economy as a whole. If Congress can meet its existing expenditures with 14.91% of the 23%, then there needs to be equal effort to lower Congresses expenditures to effectively lower the taking rate. If Social Security and Medicare could be eliminated, that could theoretically lower the 23% tax to 14-15%. If the federal government could scale back its unnessesary "Big Government" departments and scaled back to a more efficient and essential size that might allow them to scale the tax back even more to maybe 10% or so. :)
For a true 100% wage, and competitive market pricing--government taxation has to be strictly controlled!
Writing law to encourage existing spending levels (as revenue neutral) is simply feeding part of the problem!
My concern is that (for political reasons) HR25 is placating Social Security, maintaining it when Social Security law is just as complex and contradictory as the Income Tax--the language of that law may even contradict or overrule parts of HR25. Someone needs to spearhead a parallel commission to reform Social Security, simplify or eliminate it, and remove Congresses power to tinker with our country's free market. If Congresses expenditures and budget limits depended on the vitality of our marketplace, there would be no national debt!
Something in HR25 should also (as a rule) limit the ability for Congress to make changes to the legislation with something like a 3/4 majority vote or something more restrictive!
Writing law to encourage existing spending levels (as revenue neutral) is simply feeding part of the problem!Revenue neutrality is a concession, but I'll gladly concede it to create a truly transparent tax. Once ALL taxpayers know what they pay, I think voters will vote their pocketbook and the sales tax % would fall.
I'll support any supermajority amendment for tax increases.
When taxpayers start having to write out quarterly or monthly checks, some form of 'tax reform' will be passed within the year.
The fact that this relatively simple precursor isn't even discussed shows me how unserious supposed 'tax reformers' are.
And if you can't eliminate withholding, other 'tax reforms' are just band-aids.
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.