We had a fun time in those days. You're a Johnny-come-lately.
Have you even read HR2525, much less studied it? 
Posted on 11/06/2002 1:39:57 PM PST by Tree of Liberty
Also the article talks of levying a payroll tax on government workers in the discussion of this issue. That does not appear to be in the bill.
1.Boom the economy because productivity is not taxed; no tax on profits or hidden taxes/fees.
2.IRS threats and coercion eliminated and replaced with, if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the item.
3.20% decrease in retail prices facilitates spending and partally offsets the retail tax.
4.People will know how much leviathan government is really costing them, resulting in...
5.Shrinking government to it's constitutional function to protect synonymous private-property rights and individual rights from domestic and foreign criminals while upholding the sanctity of private contracts.
6.Freedom in United States leads to other countries doing similar or risk its citizens fleeing to United States to increase productivity here while enjoying the fruits/prosperity of their labor. ...plus, Cliff adds:
7. Makes U.S. made products more competitive when sold within the USA against foreign imports a-n-d makes U.S. made products more competitive in the World market.
8. Creates jobs in the USA.
The reader can get more information at Americans for Fair Tax on the fairtax.org Web site. Cliff adds ...or, at this website: FAIRTAX FACTS! ...a discussion of the FairTax written in "layman's language."
ZON, great to have you among the fast-growing number of FairTax supporters! I enjoy reading your posts!
Cliff Cofer
P.S. Here's where you can read a copy of my letter to Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, urging him to get-on with tax reform: Cofer to O'Neill!
Also the article talks of levying a payroll tax on government workers in the discussion of this issue. That does not appear to be in the bill.
All I can find is that the income/payroll tax system & flat taxes levy taxes on government worker's wages & salaries.
Therefore government workers cannot be exempted from a sales tax or the SS/Medicare portion of the tax, merely because their income comes from the government.
Therefore everyone, government employee and private sector alike, are required to pay the sales tax which obviously must ultimately come from income once it is spent.
Have a look at Dick Armey Sez!
FairTax... YES! YES! YES! "Flat(Income)Tax"... NO! NO! NO!
Onward & Upward!
Cliff Cofer - State Director, AFFT Volunteer Iowa Team
Come join with us! Email me at Cliff Cofer
What they describe as gross purchases (a separate item from consumption) seems to best be approximated by the investment outlays entries. Otherwise, I can't tell exactly where they got their numbers.
Only thing I know, is that investment properties under the NRST are not taxed, and investment properties are defined as those pertaining to the generation of income. "Capital" outlay's by the government, at least those not for the purpose of generating income, may very well have NRST collected on them by contractors and service providers when work for the government is being done. Most government buildings are not for the purpose of generating income to the government, and one agency that clearly is, the IRS, is abolished by the NRST.
Services to the government are taxed and collected by service providers, if the service happens to be the construction of a government building such looks like it may very well be taxable under the NRST. There does not seem to be any exception in the definitions to prevent that. Nor logically should it be if the goal is revenue neutrality and trying to assure that all sectors are taxed in a uniform manner under a single stage tax system which a "Retail" tax is.
Remember the goal of revenue neutrality is a legal requirement inorder to get he bill enacted. It does not allow for much wiggle room unless one is able to demonstrate a clear budget reduction allowing an overall reduction in tax rate. The rate on retail (i.e. consumption) purchases is uniform as regards all persons and should not be change for one person (natural, governmental, or corporate) over another where those same are taxed today via their consumption/capital as opposed to investment purchases.
We had a fun time in those days. You're a Johnny-come-lately.
Have you even read HR2525, much less studied it?
PAYGO RULES: CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
House: auto sequestration if Receipts or Appropriations legislation in deficit increase,
House Point of order waivable by unanimous consent
Senate Point of order waivable by 3/5ths vote.
May be waived under Sequestration Rules on declaration of War or
conditions of <1% real economic growth for 2qtrs."Most Budget Act waiver motions require a three-fifths vote of Senators, although most three-fifths requirements will expire in 2002."
Sequestration Process:CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909" PAYGO rules require that an increase in direct spending or a decrease in revenues must be offset by an equal amount of spending reductions, revenue increases, or a combination of the two so that the budgetary effect of new legislation is not projected to increase the deficit, or reduce the surplus, for any fiscal year through FY2006."
Personally I would not put a whole lot effort into trying to wring out the last dollar of accuracy in the revenue neutrality argument. Time is likely to see the whole issue go away to be replaced by more overriding concerns like personal liberty and family financial privacy.
I hazard to guess his vested interest in the present tax system -- tax accountant? tax lawyer? bureaucrat? sells tax avoidance information? He claims to have talked to a lot of people about the NRST and "all by [sic] one were horrified". How many of them have yet to understand that the reason they were likely horrified was not because of the NRST but rather, because of William Terrell's ignorance or intent to deceive them. Oh well, it's not my or your credibility on the line.
No, actually old son, I'm the owner of a manufacturing outfit in my home state that sews high quality fabrics into shapes stuffed with polystyrene beads. I sell to retail stores. I have been in that business for a year and am doing right well. I intend to stay in it, certainly will be in it when if an NRST rools around. I wouldn't be affected by the NRST.
However, I would have to raise my prices to be able to aford what I'm used to buying with a 30% NRST. I guess you would say that could motivate me.
But mostly I'm motivated by how incredibly stupid it is for a free society to figure that the frying pan is hotter than the fire.
Do you not understand that social control is a hell of a lot easier when the grip is on the consumption side. Have you ever heard of a Hydrolic Empire? There's some references to it on the web. It'll hold your attention.
If there is a provision in HR2525 that exempts the poor from paying the NRST
Good of you to point that out Terrell, as indeed everyone pays the same tax rate, just as everyone receives the same FCA.
The issue is not what one pays at the register, it is what they pay less the FCA they receive, their effective tax rate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388d0748789d.htm
The payment at the Retail Sales register just makes sure every perceives that government "ain't no free lunch".
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of RepresentativesTHURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
12:00 noon"In 1996, Congress passed a historic welfare reform law that has dramatically reduced the number of Americans who depend on welfare. In spite of this positive development, Representative DeMint is concerned about the steady growth of a welfare/entitlement state that extends well beyond the poor and is forcing millions of middle income Americans into dependency.
There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."
Yes the poor pay the NRST, which makes sure the participate in the system and yet provides a tax system that is not dependant of government needing to know details of family income or financial condition.
However, I would have to raise my prices to be able to aford what I'm used to buying with a 30% NRST.
That is certainly true of those who avoid the payment of individual taxes under todays income/payroll tax system. Obviously there are folks some folks out there who manage to spend quite abit with no report of taxed earnings at all. And you have at times claimed to be among them.
Of course you don't take into account how the federal tax system is embedded into the cost of goods and services in such a way as to assure you pay federal taxes to a degree greater than the NRST provides, which by no means hits one with an effective tax rate greater than 23% of gross expenditure for anyone.
On the other hand, the income/payroll tax system assures that everyone pays at least that through their expenditure:
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The full impact of the federal tax system(taxes in gross wage/salaries & other compensation + business income/payroll taxes) added onto the base(taxfree) price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone.
All wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipts to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure).
Federal tax revenues collected as % added on the base tax free cost of goods = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
Enjoy your supposed taxless existence Terrell. And the Feds have a bridge to sell yah.
I think I would rather pay the NRST's 29.87% added onto the base tax free cost of goods myself, even if the NRST did not compensate all legal residents with the Family Consumption Allowence each month.
I've read every word of it. Have you. Then answer me this: if the NRST collections at a certain percentage didn't maintain the set (the current level at the initial implimentation of HR 2525) level of social security, what, by law would have to happen?
As do I, but I also encourage anyone here to learn about the subject before making wild assertions.
As you evidently need to.
So why are you so worried about it then?
Because people, as evidenced by the response of many on FR, will not research the bill and the law it will spawn, much less the implication of that law. It will be advertised as a "FairTax", a misleading and attempted preconditioning tactic at the onset.
It's drawbacks will not be discussed except in backwater opinion pages that nobody reads. They will be enticed by carrots (poor won't have to pay the tax[and no, getting it back is not like not having to pay it], you won't have to fill out forms again) designed to communicate to the most base emotion in the human race, greed, fear, jelousy.
Some of the reasons. If wanted to type more I could go on. You know people, or you should.
You don't have to own a computer to be on FR. I don't own this computer.
I'm sure that you're a pauper. I'm also sure that one who is an employee in a job that allows them to use a company computer fits the profile.
So, poor people do have to pay the tax. They just have to fill those forms you hate so much to do it. I guess you don't mind them having to do paperwork. A little misleading, don't you think?
How do you know they aren't onerous? Have you seen the design? The bill states the minimum information that has to be filled in, but you know the government, or you should. You need to read the bill. I posted an analysis of it a couple years ago. Look it up in the archives.
And you're wrong, you are not required ever to ask for a prebate. You are free to skip it. No problem. The SSA keeps up with SS#s of recipients today, they'll do it under the nrst too. No IRS needed because THERE'S NO DAMN REASON TO TRACK INCOME! Get it through your head!
Oh, sure you can skip it and be liable for the full impact of the sales tax on everything new. No reason for an IRS? What kind of organization do you think will handle the filling of all those claims, executed under penalty of perjury, and regulatte the honesty with which they are filled out?
Do you realize taht the SS system is a socialist system that tracks every one from birth to death and takes their substance? And you are angry at the income tax.
I don't "love the income tax". I don't want the income tax. I don't want to replace it with anything. I want to stop funding Socialist America. Do you scan that? Good. Please try to remember it.
This doens't make sense.
It's real simple. If a NRST replaces income taxes, you will no longer have to pay fed and FICA. So you would get your pay without fed and FICA taken out. You have a pay period. Add up the fed and FICA for that pay period and get a total. Assume 30% increase in the prices of all the things you buy in that pay period. Can you still buy what you would be used to buying in that pay period. Maybe, or maybe you could, but what happens if your car has to go into the shop. Goods and services (+parts), remember?
Assume 30% increase in the prices of all the things you buy in that pay period.
(_|_)uming again I see, how about some studies and figures to back your off the wall self serving guesses.
I refer you to the section of the following article about the Income/Payroll tax system and its impact on our economy "A. Hidden Upstream Taxes. " paragraph 39.
"[39] Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of Harvard University's Economics Department, believes that the price of goods and services are inflated by about 20 percent or more by upstream taxes consumers ultimately bear. In a recent paper Dr. Jorgenson estimated the built-in taxes contained in the price of goods and services. /22/ In the chart above, he quantified the hidden component of tax, estimating that producer prices would fall on repeal of upstream taxes an average of about 22 percent."
Looking at the accompanying chart, the range of values from industry to industry appears to be about 12-25%.
Economists Gary and Aldonna Robbins of the Texas-based Institute for Public Policy examined the case of dry cleaning a shirt, with a particular eye toward uncovering the hidden costs of taxes in price.
The Robbin's attributed over 33.6% of "consumer prices" to be due to federal taxation passed on to the customer.
The Federal Tax System
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2125&sequence=0&from=1#pt1
From the Table 1 we may extract the proportionate contributions of each sector of taxes as they contribute to consumer price for the year 2000.
Those tax components which will not change prices as a consequence of enactment of HR2525
============================
Adjust for a conservative $600billion(1995 figure, AGCA '00, Payne '95, PillaBartlettNorquist '95 ) interest & cost of compliance effects.
Estimated change in consumption prices as consequence of enactment of a National Retail Sales Tax, repealing all business income and payroll taxes:
33.6*(1186.5/1945) = 20.5% in consumption prices
Which compares well with the Jorgenson empirical study of 22% fall in producer prices.
The two sources are in reasonable agreement, and I see 20-23% a reasonable value to expect retalil shelf prices to fall not only for customers here in the United States, but in our exports as well making them far more competitive on international markets.
When businesses no longer pay corporate income tax, nor the employer's half of FICA, the costs of tax compliance are removed, the cost of goods and services tend to fall rather than rise by the amount you claim.
Have you actually read and studied HR2525?
It's obvious you haven't.
But then knowledge was never necessary to those who demogogue an issue. Just as any Democrap telling the world that Republican's starve babies, push old ladies in wheel chairs down the stairs, and poison the world's drinking water, and kill asthmatics with their polluting SUV's.
But, anyway, that is a theory. It is not a certainty. I think it not wise to upset the entire structure of the country based on that sort of thing. Once such a change is made, there will be no going back.
Dr. Jorgenson (Harvard Business School) determined that 20%-30% of the price of a product was the amount 'hidden' therein to cover the producer's Income Tax (and compliance costs).
He did? I have forgotten how many payrolls I've written for business in my 30 years in programing. What cost?
Everything is done by computer. The payroll clerk doesn't spend more than moment of her time doing a payroll (unless there are errors). In some companies I've serviced, the PR clerk anly came in twice a week.
Then, after taking taxes out, which is a automated function, the clerk posts the fed and FICA amounts to the bank account for that purpose and makes the deposit. At the end of the quarter a series of reports are run, without employee supervision, and mailed to the IRS.
What costs did this dude think he found that could possibly increase each manufacture product item 20%-30%? Did you check his methods and numbers, or did you take his word for it?
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.