1 posted on 03/04/2002 10:50:51 PM PST by JohnHuang2

2 posted on 03/04/2002 10:59:35 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP

To: Libertarianize the GOP

When the warrior refuses to join the battle, it usually means the warrior is afraid he will get beat. If the government is so right and Schulz so wrong, the government should take the opportunity to show the public what a fool Schulz is. Schulz threw down the challenge, the government 'weaseled' by not accepting the challenge. Use your own judgement.

3 posted on 03/04/2002 11:26:04 PM PST by meenie

To: John Huang2; meenie

Thanks for the post, John. I actually received a return phone call from one of my congressman's staffers on my questions related to the hearings. While the guy was polite & sounded to be interested, when I asked if anyone from his office would attend, he claimed they weren't invited and went on to make excuses that the Marriott was rather far away, the traffic going there was very bad, etc. Lots of nonsensical baloney remeniscent of "the dog ate my homework "

Sadly it seems that our employees are unwilling to face the hard questions concerning the validity of the amendment's ratification. So, what next ? Either we have a system in which the government is accountable to the people or we don't. Either we accept this intransigence, or ....

4 posted on 03/05/2002 5:23:36 AM PST by Dukie

To: Libertarianize the GOP; meenie

When the warrior refuses to join the battle, it usually means the warrior is afraid he will get beat.

Course if there is no battle and only hype, why should he show up.

I guess some folks never get the word. Answers have been clear as a bell for the last 200 years, just because Schulz & Co. don't like the answer does not in anyway invalidate them.

Answers from the Founders:

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

"the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:

"A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

"Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government"

"If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] sic Congress will have to REQUIRE them of individual citizens;"

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Consideration received in exchange for labor or product is commerce, subject to an indirect tax.

Answers from the Supreme Court:

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

"[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

"[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

"The people of the United States constitute one nation, under one government, and this government, within the scope of the powers with which it is invested, is supreme."

"Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument[the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."

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

"We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107

"The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."

"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable.

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

"the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"

"in the Pollock Case , in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 601, 635 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. "

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"

Answers from the Congress:

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

[Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."

[Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.

[Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.

[Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.

Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.

Answers from the Treasury Department & IRS:

26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual.
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861

NonFiler Enforcement Program

Answers from the Department of Justice & Jurys:

DEP'T OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL TAX MANUAL, TAX PROTESTERS.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??

CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.

Answers from the Legal Community:

The Tax Protestor FAQ

Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery

Government has met its burden and answered the relavent questions as regards the income tax, officially and repeatedly.

It seems me Schulz & Company are more interested in a media event for his own agrandizement (promotion of his pocket book and political agenda) than listening or looking for real answers. It remains to be seen just how much his life is on the line, seeing as how he repeatedly dodged questions to that effect during his interview on FOX the other night.

I have yet to run across a tax protest site that advocates and supports legislation to actually accomplish the job of getting rid of the income tax in any of its forms. In fact, I more often find them supporting the continuation of the status quo with no change in law as regards the income tax.

Alan Keyes refers to the income tax as the slave tax and supports a National Retail sales tax to replace it. The Original Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.

I agree with Alan Keyes that it is long past time to end the Income Tax once and for all, I push for offering the bills to do so and support their passage in Congress:

H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/14/99)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States

and the modification then enactment and ratification of:

H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.

(Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)

And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:

H.R.175
Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

5 posted on 03/05/2002 11:19:57 AM PST by ancient_geezer

While the guy was polite & sounded to be interested, when I asked if anyone from his office would attend, he claimed they weren't invited

Actually Congress Critters weren't invited. The promoters of this fiasco were only interest in questioning the peons, i.e. (IRS & DOJ).

Since it's Congress that make the income tax laws, seems to me the focus should be on Congress. The Courts have been saying so for nearly two hundred years now:

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

"The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the Government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."

Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321

'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

"Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

So why were Schulz & Company focused on the minions and not the culprits who we should be going after? Congress Critters. After all they are the ones who make and change the laws, seems kinda silly to go after the bureaucrats doing the Congress Critters dirty work.

6 posted on 03/05/2002 11:32:08 AM PST by ancient_geezer

To: ancient_geezer

7 posted on 03/05/2002 2:51:21 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP

To: ancient_geezer

Well, _geezer, wasn't Congressman Roscoe Bartlett the guy who Schulz & org. originally petitioned. I'm not sure why he was singled out - perhaps connected with his committee assignments - but it seems that Congress - or at least a particular Congressman was the object of the question.

8 posted on 03/05/2002 3:36:18 PM PST by Dukie

Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab" where business interests are favored over individuals purchasing for their own use:

A family purchasing their own new home for $200,000 pays NRST at a tax-included 23% rate. This means that of the $200,000 paid, $154,000 goes to the seller, and the Gov't receives $46,000 in tax.
A landlord/investor can exploit the business exemption of NRST and purchase the same new single family dwelling tax free as a rental investment for only $154,000. Tenants pay NRST on rent and Landlords act as tax collectors for the government
The $154,000 vs. $200,000 purchase price advantage that landlord/investors enjoy over individual personal homebuyers can be expressed two ways:
- Landlord/investors enjoy a 23% discount compared to the individual personal home buyer.
- Individual personal home buyers must pay 29.87% more than landlord/investors.

This a significant inequity between individuals trying to buy their own new homes and landord/investors looking to buy the same single family dwelling as a rental investment. This disparity has long term implications affecting the distribution of private property. The American tradition favoring individual property rights is reversed. The NRST would discourage individual "consumption" of real property.

"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children,...
But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
-- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785 -- PROPERTY AND NATURAL RIGHT

9 posted on 03/05/2002 3:38:03 PM PST by Willie Green

To: ancient_geezer

Taxes - This term in its most extended sense includes all contributions imposed by the government upon individuals for the service of the state, by whatever name they are called or known, whether by the name of tribute, tithe, talliage, impost, duty, gabel, custom, subsidy, aid, supply, excise, or other name.
The 8th section of Art. I, Const. U. S. provides, that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay," etc. "But all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
In the sense above mentioned, taxes are usually divided into two great classes, those which are direct, and those which are indirect. Under the former denomination are included taxes on land or real property, and under the latter taxes on articles of consumption.

Sales Tax -- Any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, sales, receipts from sales, purchases, storage, or use of tangible personal property. 4 USC

Tangible personal property - Property that has physical substance and can be touched; Anything other than real estate or money, including furniture, cars, jewelry and china. Intangible property (example; a check account) lacks this physical quality.
Real Property - Land and all the things that are attached to it. Anything that is not real property is personal property and personal property is anything that isn't nailed down, dug into or built onto the land. A house is real property, but a dining room set is not.
That which consists of land, and of all rights and profits arising from and annexed to land, of a permanent, immovable nature. In order to make one's interest in land, real estate, it must be an interest not less than for the party's life, because a term of years, even for a thousand years, perpetually renewable, is a mere personal estate...
The principal distinctions between real and personal property, are the following:

Real property is of a permanent and immovable nature, and the owner has an estate therein at least for life.
It descends from the ancestor to the heir instead of becoming the property of an executor or administrator on the death of the owner, as in case of personalty.
In case of alienation, it must in general be made by deed and in presenti by the common law; whereas leases for years may commence in futuro, and personal chattels may be transferred by parol or delivery.
Real estate when devised, is subject to the widow's dower personal estate can be given away by will discharged of any claim of the widow.

By focusing soley on Americans' antipathy toward the IRS and the Income Tax, the NRST attempts to fulfill Marx's assualt on individual property rights by imposition of a sales tax on Real Property as though such property were merely a consumable good ( - Cargo shipped by sea, land or air) or service ( - The being employed to serve another.)

As NRST advocates also attempt to redifine "rent" as a "service", we should also take a closer look at the difference in legal definition of these two words as well:

Service - The being employed to serve another.
Rent - The consideration paid for the right to use and possess property.
A certain profit in money, provisions, chattels, or labor, issuing out of lands and tenements in retribution for the use. (In feudal times, in some cases, essentially an INCOME TAX placed on the tenant!!!)

If one were to click on the links provided for the fuller, more complex definitions, we would learn that there is a relationship between the terms "rent" and "service". However, it IS NOT that the landlord provides a service to the tenant!!! Quite the opposite!!! The tenant performs service to the landlord!!!!

So once again, NRST must completely mutilate centuries of English Common Law regarding Real Property and Property Rights (by totally reversing the fundamental definition of "service") in order to impose a different form of Marxist taxation on the American People.

From Marx's Communist Manifesto:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Of course, it is not the "proletariat" who are imposing these Marxist atrocities against individual property rights. It is the political elites in fascist collusion with business investor/landlord interests who stand to benefit from such change.

10 posted on 03/05/2002 3:38:49 PM PST by Willie Green

To: Willie Green

11 posted on 03/05/2002 3:43:12 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe

To: Willie Green

A family purchasing their own new home for $200,000 pays NRST at a tax-included 23% rate. This means that of the $200,000 paid, $154,000 goes to the seller, and the Gov't receives $46,000 in tax.

That doesn't do much for the buyer either. The buyer just paid $200,000 for a home worth only $154,000. Now what about the tax paid? is it included in the down, or is it amortized in the loan, paying interest on the tax?...Don't forget, under the phony national sales tax, interest paid as well as interest earned is subject to the sales tax...interest is the price we pay for ~~borrowing~~ buying money and nothing is exempt in their scam.....

The sales tax shills claim their sales tax is good for homebuilders....How is paying $200,000 for a $154,000 home good for a home builder when home buyers could actually get a $200,000 existing home worth $200,000 sans their idiotic sales taxes?

12 posted on 03/05/2002 4:25:06 PM PST by lewislynn

Well, _geezer, wasn't Congressman Roscoe Bartlett the guy who Schulz & org. originally petitioned.

Actually Bartlett was only approached to arrange an meeting in Washington. He was not questioned, nor did Schulz ever mention that he would be.

The only targets for questioning, as mention by Shulz & Co., were the IRS & DOJ.

What was arranged, was not a congressional hearing at all, but a meeting arranged for constituents to meet with members of government for a briefing on taxes.

This whole thing has been hyped from the beginning by Schulz if you look over the various communications and articles that have shown up here on FR.

13 posted on 03/05/2002 5:53:17 PM PST by ancient_geezer

To: Willie Green

ROTFLM(_|_)O!

Still playing rich man against poor man aren't you Willy.

You do know of course, that investors are home buyers and renters too, don't you?

Why don't you mention:

The base prices for building or renting a home are expected to drop by at least 22%.

The takehome pay(from which one purchases a home) of the home buyer will rise by more than 30%.

The mortgage interest rates that the homebuyer's pay will fall to 75% of their current levels making payments much more affordable and allowing much lower total payment for houses.

These factors more than overcomes any imagined advantage of investor over the homebuyer so that all homebuyers can become an investors too.

But then good socialists never consider becoming investors themselves now do they W.G

To resurrect a ghost that should always haunt you everytime you paste your piece of illogic and trash:

Still quoting that same lie huh, Willie? This time, put on your c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n cap.

Homebuilders and the FairTax

Homebuilders Will Reduce Costs and Increase Profits

Like other firms, homebuilders will enjoy a zero corporate tax rate under the FairTax. Also, shareholders will not be taxed on dividends received from homebuilders or on capital gains from their investments. Partnerships, limited liability companies and sole proprietorships will also not be taxed on profits because of the repeal of the individual income tax.
Overall compliance costs of the current income tax system will be reduced. These costs, which are estimated conservatively to be $225 billion¹, are partly borne by homebuilders (discussed below).
All purchases by homebuilders of building materials will be free of sales tax. Business to business sales is not taxed under the FairTax. Moreover, since all producers of these materials will be operating free from income tax and with dramatically lower compliance costs, material (wood, sheet rock, nails, etc.), prices that now contain these costs will fall significantly. This will allow homebuilders to sell their products at lower prices while maintaining their current profit margins.
Current research by Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of the Department of Economics at Harvard University, and one of the country's leading economists, show that producer costs in the construction industry will decrease in the first year by as much as 25 percent. Economic output in the construction industry during the first year of implementation of the FairTax is expected to increase by more than 50 percent. The huge boom in this industry will be due largely to a significant rise in the demand for all investment goods. Dr. Jorgenson's research shows these increases will continue well into the next quarter century with the 25 year outlook still showing a 13 percent increase in output.²
As an immediate compliance savings, there will no longer be any need for homebuilders and other employers to maintain the distinction between employees and contract labor for tax purposes. This will also result in a substantial labor cost savings, because homebuilders and other employers will no longer need to collect payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (including the employer portion and FUTA) will be repealed. The repeal of this tax will also fuel the economy. Consumers will have more money in their pockets and, therefore, more money to spend, save or invest.

The Demand For New Homes Will Increase

Demand for new homes will increase due to at least two factors. First, most economic projections predict a much healthier economy under a consumption tax. People are willing and able to purchase more and better homes in a healthy economy. Typical estimates are that the economy will be 10 to 14 percent larger than it would have been under the current income tax system within 10 years, and consumption will grow very substantially.³ Some studies show the potential gains to be much higher.⁴ These studies typically do not account for the productivity gains that will be achieved due to lower compliance costs.
Second, discretionary income will increase. Consumers will see their paychecks increase by over $1.5 trillion because income and payroll taxes are eliminated (estimated for 1999). This increase in disposable income will help to generate both consumption and savings.

Interest Rates Will Drop

Under the FairTax, conservative estimates predict that mortgage interest rates will fall by 25 to 30 percent or about two points on a 30-year conventional mortgage.⁵ For example, for a $150,000 thirty-year home mortgage at an interest rate of 8 percent the monthly mortgage payment would be $1112.64. On that same mortgage at a 6 percent interest rate the monthly payment would be $907.64. The two-point decrease in interest rates in this instance would result in a $73,800 cost savings to the consumer.
To illustrate the source of the reduction in interest rates it is useful to examine the bond market. Current taxable interest rates include a tax premium. The cost of this premium can be determined by comparing the interest rates on taxable bonds to the interest rates on tax-exempt municipal bonds of comparable risk and term. The difference on the return to investment between a taxable bond and a tax-free bond of comparable risk is about 30 percent. Interest rates will decline due to the elimination of this tax premium because interest earnings will no longer be taxed.
With lower interest rates, more consumers will qualify for new home purchases, and will refinance to obtain equity from older homes.

Homeownership Under the FairTax Will Be More Affordable

Under the current income tax system a home must be purchased from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars. Under the FairTax, a home is purchased from income dollars that have not been taxed, as taxation occurs at the time of purchase. A consumer may choose to roll the sales tax into a mortgage payment just as state sales taxes on most purchases are today. The home mortgage interest deduction available under the current income tax system only has value when an income tax liability exists. Under the FairTax, there is no need to mitigate income tax liabilities as none exist.

Homebuilders' Compliance Costs will be lower:

Instead of having to comply with the complexities of the income tax and the payroll tax, there will be one sales tax on all goods and services. A firm will simply need to calculate on a monthly basis its total retail sales of new homes.
The homebuilder will receive an administration fee of ¼ of one percent for complying with the sales tax.
No more uniform inventory capitalization requirements.
No more complex rules governing employee benefits and retirement plans.
No more tax depreciation schedules.
No more capital gains tax and depreciation recapture.
No more tax rules governing mergers and acquisitions.
The firm's accounting, tax and personnel (human resources) departments will shrink dramatically.

1 Compliance Costs of Alternative Tax Systems II, Arthur P. Hall, Ph.D., Senior Economist, The Tax Foundation, Special Brief, House Ways & Means Committee Testimony, March 1996.

2 The Economic Impact of Taxing Consumption, Dale W. Jorgenson, Ph.D., Harvard University, Testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, March 27, 1996.

3 Ibid. The Economic Impact of Replacing Federal Income Taxes with a Sales Tax, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, April 15, 1993, Cato Institute Policy Analysis.

4 Looking Back to Move Forward: What Tax Policy Costs Americans and the Economy, Gary Robbins, Aldona Robbins, Policy Report No. 127, September 1994, Taxation Analysis, The Institute for Policy Innovation.

5 Effect of a Consumption Tax on the Rate of Interest, Dr. Martin Feldstein, Ph.D., Working Paper 5397, December 1995. The Flat Tax, 2nd Edition 1995, Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka, The Hoover Institution Press.

Hardly a disadvantage for homeowners.

49 Posted on 09/10/2000 05:59:59 PDT by CHIEF negotiator

14 posted on 03/05/2002 5:57:32 PM PST by ancient_geezer

To: Willie Green

Landlord/investors enjoy a 23% discount compared to the individual personal home buyer.

Individual personal home buyers must pay 29.87% more than landlord/investors.

This a significant inequity between individuals trying to buy their own new homes and landord/investors looking to buy the same single family dwelling as a rental investment.

Now, lets take a look at your specifics and see how they hold up:

A family purchasing their own new ~~home~~ house(residential land is not taxed) for $200,000 pays NRST at a tax-included 23% rate. This means that of the $200,000 paid, $154,000 goes to the seller, and the Gov't receives $46,000 in tax.

A typical family purchasing their own new house today has 25% or more of their gross income extracted by the Federal government before they even think about buying a new or even an older house. That is not even counting the tax costs and costs of compliance placed on businesses of an additional 20 to 30% and embedded in the price of the new house.

A landlord/investor can exploit the business exemption of NRST and purchase the same new single family dwelling tax free as a rental investment for only $154,000. Tenants pay NRST on rent and Landlords act as tax collectors for the government

Of course that landlord/investor also pays the same tax on the house he lives in or rents before he can ever become an "investor/landlord" in the first place. Or do you figure such folks live in NY allies and sleep on park benches.

Additionally, a buyer of an older home, is not charged the NRST, which is the case of most first time buyers of homes.

The $154,000 vs. $200,000 purchase price advantage that landlord/investors enjoy over individual personal homebuyers can be expressed two ways:

Landlord/investors enjoy a 23% discount compared to the individual personal home buyer.

Actually not, as the Landlord/invester pays the 23% tax on the home he lives in whether rented or purchased, the same manner as any other individual.

Individual personal home buyers must pay 29.87% more than landlord/investors.

Again untrue, the landlord/investor pays the same tax on the home he rents or buys new for his personal use. All individuals are treated the same under the NRST. Infact, because the individual receives the full benefit and control of his gross income, as opposed to merely after tax income under the current system. That plus the NRST prebate paid to ALL households provides an enhanced opportunity for everyone to become investors.

Under the current Income/Payroll tax system, the total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for taxes alone. Including cost of compliance at around $600billion/year, increases that percentage to about a 47% total burden with respect to current family consumption expenditure caused by the federal tax system as it exists today.

I'll be happy to pay 23% of the total payment for new goods and services, or as you would put it (30% added on) to the tax free price any day. Considering that I have available my full gross pay from which to accrue tax free growth of my savings and investments.

Compared to what we are hit with now:

We must . . . End Tax Slavery Now; Nov '97
by Jarret B. Wollstein

HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY PAY?
     According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes - 34.2% total.
     But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:

Compliance costs - record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.
Enforcement costs - IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.
Emotional, moral and cultural costs - families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.

     For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:
Federal taxes              22.4% of income
State & local taxes      11.8%
Compliance costs        22.2%
Regulatory costs         12.7%
70.1% of your income is now consumed by government

15 posted on 03/05/2002 6:00:03 PM PST by ancient_geezer

To: Willie Green

Under the former denomination are included taxes on land or real property, and under the latter taxes on articles of consumption.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107

"The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."

In a direct tax, The owner of property, real or personal, is hit with the tax merely because he "owns" it.

On the otherhand:

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'

Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)

An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.

The purchaser of property is levied the NRST upon retail sales. The receiver of such property cannot be the "owner" thus is not being levied a direct tax on the property which belongs to the designation of "direct taxes." You cannot be an owner to be subject to a direct tax until title is transferred and perfected. Thus the purchaser of land is levied with an "Indirect tax" under the NRST and title is not perfect until after compensation plus legal obligations (e.g. taxes) are paid. The NRST is thus excise or duty of article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

An indirect tax is upon the transfer of property to another, levied upon the purchaser by reason of the commercial activity involved. Thus the NRST being levied upon the puchaser as part of the sale that occurrs in the commercial exchange of consideration for value received.

Your analysis of law regarding Direct Taxes simply does not apply to the particular instance of the NRST. The indirect tax is upon the conduct of commerce in relation to the value of the exchange paid by the purchaser or renter of property and not the owner of property.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

16 posted on 03/05/2002 6:04:30 PM PST by ancient_geezer

To: ancient_geezer

Corporate income taxes are NOT a cost that can be passed along to the consumer. This is because the tax obligation can only be determined after sales have been transacted and costs have been deducted from revenues. Corporate Income tax is imposed only on the profit that is made, IF a profit is made.

In a competitive free market, there is no guarantee of either sales or profit. Thus there is no guarantee that there will be a Corporate Income Tax obligation to "pass along" to the consumer.

NRST advocates who insist that corporate income taxes are "embedded" in the sales price of a product are just plain wrong. This assumes that companies can dictate market price in order to cover any costs that they incur when price is actually determined by supply and demand in a competitive market. Any attempt to raise the product price to accomodate the income tax would have to overcome lower priced product from competitors who did not incompetently attempt to incorporate such "costs" in their pricing strategy. The result would be that the company that attempted to "pass along" the tax would actually lose sales volume, possibly even to the point of losing profitablility. Conversely, the lower priced competitors who did not attempt to "pass along" the tax would gain sales volume and enhance their profitability.

The skewed logic utilized by NRST advocates to claim that corporate income tax is paid by the consumer is completely bogus. To accept their convoluted logic is to deny how businesses actually operate in a competitive market. Further evidence of corporations' inability to "pass along" their income tax obligation is published every day in the business section of our nation's newspapers: "ABC Corporation fails to meet 3rd quarter expectations" or "XYZ Inc. incurs 2nd quarter loss". Once again, with future sales and tax obligations (if any) being unknown, it is IMPOSSIBLE for companies to "pass along" their income tax obligation to the consumer.

The Ivory Tower "experts" who concoct this theory are in denial of how business actually operate in a competitive free market. Their fundamental assumption that companies can dictate the market price of their product to accomodate income tax liability is fallacious and reflective of marxist influence.

17 posted on 03/05/2002 6:05:31 PM PST by Willie Green

To: ancient_geezer

"This whole thing has been hyped from the beginning by Schulz ..." -- ancient_geezer

You call this disappointment "hype." I call our government irresponsible about a clear method for taking them to task about grievances. They won't answer anything unless you take them to court. Even then, they "can't recall" or they, "don't know."

There is no such thing as petioning our government about grievances, today. And you have the *GUTS* to call this "hype." You celebrate another plank hammered into the bridge of a police state in America.

18 posted on 03/05/2002 6:16:06 PM PST by Buckeroo

To: Willie Green; Tailgunner Joe

Tailgunner, you should watch out for who you ride behind.

Willy has no interest in the rights of property "owners" notice his concern that a landlord/investor does not pay taxes but a renter does. He hates investors, property owners and landlords with a passion and figures they should be taxed by the Federal government for the land they own.

Read what he has actually written, the NRST does not tax owners, it can't as that would be a violation of the Constitution. I does however levy a tax on commercial activities and is paid by the "customer" not the owner and seller.

19 posted on 03/05/2002 6:22:26 PM PST by ancient_geezer

To: ancient_geezer

Mexico has a national sales tax of 15%.

That's partly how the corrupt, ruling-elite PRI keep the peons in economic slavery.

20 posted on 03/05/2002 6:29:46 PM PST by Willie Green

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794