Posted on 02/21/2002 9:19:05 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
WASHINGTON- Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who calls the federal income tax law an abomination, said Thursday the Bush administration is preparing a series of reports on the complexities and will work with Congress on possible solutions for this year.
Virtually since the time he assumed the Treasury post last year, O'Neill has been criticizing the income tax law as a complicated mess that can be indecipherable for many taxpayers, from individuals to big corporations.
But O'Neill's remarks Thursday's to the Chamber of Commerce raised the prospect that the administration would soon start a real push for simplification.
"In the coming weeks, we at Treasury will be producing a series of reports on the complexities of the tax code for individuals, small businesses and for corporations," O'Neill said. "We'll highlight possible solutions to specific complexities and work with Congress to see what we can implement this year."
The tax law requires nearly 1.4 million words, 650 tax forms and 13,000 pages of explanation and increasingly leads more than half of taxpayers to seek professional help.
Despite all the talk about simplification, the laws have only gotten increasingly complicated over the years as tax credits and other breaks are used in place of direct government spending programs.
President Bush's new budget includes a raft of such proposals, including a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance that would require taxpayers to figure out how much they could get based on their income level, family size and whether the policies meet certain standards.
Following a major simplification in 1986, Congress has done little more than hold hearings on simplification, while adding numerous targeted tax breaks.
"Our tax code is an abomination," O'Neill said Thursday, repeating one of his favorite mantras. "Everyone who has anything to do with the tax code agrees it is just an unbelievable mess."
As a case in point, O'Neill said there are five major definitions of a child in the tax law. IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti has said that if he had to file for the earned-income tax credit for low-income families he doesn't think he could do it without professional assistance, O'Neill said.
Treasury will release papers illustrating such "absurdities," O'Neill said, and he called on the Chamber of Commerce to lobby Congress to simplify the law.
New homes are neither goods nor services.
They are REAL PROPERTY.
Excise taxes and duties are not applicable to REAL PROPERTY.
The NRST is unconstitutional.
Your position is strong in your own mind, but the rest of the world sees it otherwise.
But enjoy your delusions...for the 4th year in a row.
New homes are neither goods nor services.
Lumber, nails, glass, are all goods and go into the construction of a new house.
The building of a house by a contractor is a service to the purchaser of that house.
They are REAL PROPERTY.
Excise taxes and duties are not applicable to REAL PROPERTY.
You are right, the owner of real property cannot be taxed via an indirect tax. However, the purchaser of property is paying the NRST, not the owner. That is what an excise or duty under:
Constitution for the United States of America:
is all about. The purchaser of the objects of commerce are not the owners thereof until title is perfected. Sorry Willy Green, your rant has no basis in reality.
The NRST does not tax the land on which a new construction building sits, it levies a tax only on the purchaser of a new building. The NRST does not tax the owners of land. Nor does it tax the sale of land or a home that is a residence prior to enactment of the bill. Your rant is hot air and nothing more.
But then you have forgotten that even now you pay that same tax and more under the income/payroll taxes of today, before you spend a dollar, and while you spend it as well.
The NRST is unconstitutional.
You mere declaration has no meaning. For it is not unconstitutional to tax the objects of commerce by taxing the buyers. A direct tax is only upon the owner of property not the purchaser of another's property in commerce. Even then a direct tax is not unconstitutional, as the Federal government has levied and may levy such taxes through apportionment among the states. In which case the "owner" would and has been indeed constitutionally taxed.
No Willy Green, you claim of unconstituionality is simply vapor ware and the product of your over active imagination and pie in the sky hopes to tax the other guy and not you.
But then we know you and your populist stand:
Early in the 19th century Professor Alexander Tytler described the dilemma of democracy in the following comments about ancient Athens:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship."
"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other."
--VoltaireA government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
As long as you insist on the governed remaining ignorant of the piper's bill, Government will continue to grow and not be held accountable.
`SEC. 703. GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.
`(a) GOVERNMENT PURCHASES-
`(1) PURCHASES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT- Purchases by the Federal Government of taxable property and services shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 101.
`(2) PURCHASE BY STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS- Purchases by State governments and their political subdivisions of taxable property and services shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 101.
From:Wisconsin Department of Revenue
Sales of goods and services to the federal government or to any of its incorporated or unincorporated agencies or instrumentalities are exempt from the sales tax. Taxing purchases by the federal government would violate the U.S. Constitution, so the fiscal effect of this exemption has not been estimated.Add that to your spam.
Once people realize just how much money gets sent to the govt. and how little we get in return, then we could begin working on cutting programs like welfare and social security....but the public needs to realize just how much they get ripped off first.
Contact the WH and O'Neill....tell them to push for H.R. 2525.
"of taxable property and services"
In which case the courts will definitely relieve governments from paying the tax on items which are not consititutionally taxible, as in the case of government services and products produced by government. Which by the way is the intent and meaning of the Constitution on such matters.
Government, local, state and federal. Already pay taxes, in the form of those taxes being embedded in the price of all products under the current system. And certainly the Federal government may tax its own agencies if it should chooses to do so. Doesn't necessarily make alot of sense, but certainly is constitutional as the salaries of government employees at all levels and by all governments have been clearly taxable per the Supreme Court.
Anything purchased by a local or state government that is not not constitutionally taxable, will not be taxed and that is clearly in the bill as well, which again I notice you did not provide a link to that others may determine for themselves.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2525:
`Section 1 (c) SECONDARY AIDS TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- As a secondary aid in statutory construction, any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider--
- `(1) the common law canons of statutory construction;
- `(2) the meaning and construction of concepts and terms used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect before the effective date of this subtitle; and
- `(3) construe any ambiguities in this Act in favor of reserving powers to the States respectively, or to the people.
Guess I failed to mention that I have not only written to ALL Congress Critters and followed that up with phone calls to MY Sens. and Reps! I did that a while back and again just recently. Lately though, I've been concentrating my calling efforts on Mr. Obstructionist, Tommie the Commie Dashole. I'm not in his state but it feels good to let him know that, at least this American, is onto his dirty political game!
You da man! Writing to critters is such a small thing...if more individuals would actually do this, we'd be more in control. But, hey, if the critters don't hear from us, what are they gonna do!? They think, "if people don't even have the gumption to write a 1 paragraph letter, they don't care too much about the issue".
If it's enough for God it should be plenty for the Federal Government.
Wonder how all the Americans who have bigger paychecks will feel about that!
Writing and calling may or may not do any good but at least it makes me feel I'm doing SOMETHING! I make a point of telling these Cong. critters I VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION!
Is this due to raises, more hours, better jobs...? Or are you saying taxes have declined???
"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: "
It is not "posing as tax reform" but it is a for real flesh and blood tax reform in bill form being considered by the House of Representatives. It has many economic advantages for this country in addition to eliminating the income tax and the IRS. Nor is it a "land grab favoring business interests over individuals as you state. You would have known that had you taken advantage of some of the links proponents have provided, but you haven't even been intellectually honest enough to read the HR2525 bill itself.
This sort of demagoguery severely detracts from your position as do the facts. With the NRST as the tax law prices of homes (and most other things as well) will be lowered considerably and lower interest rates, when combined with a buyer being able to make use of untaxed income, will make home ownership easier to achieve than under the income tax system. A landlord/investor (who you have described before as "landed gentry") is not able to "exploit the business exemption" since there is no such exemption. Things are not taxed under the NRST until they are sold at final consumption and they are taxed only once. This means that the landlord does not pay the tax when he buys the property as an investment but that it is paid by the renter as a part of his rent.
Under the income tax presently, the landlord-business enjoys a much greater benefit in relation to the renter in that 100% of the price of the property is written off in depreciation as well as many other business expenses that the individual home buyer cannot avail himself of. In spite of this 100% price advantage (using your peculiar logic), there are still ample homebuyers and always will be particularly when they will be greatly aided in home buying under the NRST. To see why, read This Paper.
Because of the advantages enjoyed presently by a landlord wishing to purchase a house to rent, it is nothing but misinformation to try to describe the situation under the NRST as a "price advantage" to the landlord. As just pointed out under the present income tax, the landlord has a much greater advantage since not only may he take the entire price off of his taxes over time, but he may also deduct any interest paid as one of his business expenses (in addition to many others - such as landscaping or minor improvements, for example) while most homebuyers can not only deduct the purchase price of the home from their taxes, they cannot even make use of the mortgage interest deduction if their AGI is not sufficiently "up there".
In addition to all that the home buyer presently must make any purchase with money that has already been taxed both with payroll taxes at 15.3% and with income tax of at least 15%. This paying with after-tax money also applies to closing costs, and any other furnishings or home improvements that might be necessary.
The landlord presently has far more "advantages" than does the homeowner. With the NRST, things are a lot more helpful for the home buyer. In short, the poster is merely making the common (and shortsighted) analysis of trying to make an economic determination by looking at one side of the situation; that of the taxation of a house used for different purposes - by the landlord as an investment and by the homebuyer as a domicile. In either event the home buyer is much better off under the NRST than under the income tax (which the poster is forced to pretend does not exist in order to present his biased - and erroneous - analysis). He also takes no note of the fact that under the NRST what was a $200,000 house will drop in price to something like a $130,000 to $150,000 house due to the removal of hidden taxes and costs that the NRST brings about. This makes his sales tax figures greatly inflated when they would be $29,900 to $34,500 for the case just cited.
Since this poster has a huge bias against any NRST, his presentations are dramatically different from the truth. Please stop and think about not just his presentation, but what presently occurs under the income tax - he is only presenting one side of the full story and then with language intended to inflame.
This must be the umpteenth time you have posted that self-same reply. Repeating a lie does not make it the truth; not even if your initials are WJC (or WG).
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
As for the rest of the demagoguery in your post (which you pose as "definitions") - it is certainly a repeat of the past "stuff" you posted repeatedly which many posters have shown you is incorrect.
You are quite off base Willie Green and it seems that your definitions are conveniently tailored to show only the certain points you wish to make. Instead of your tailored definitions (which are actually examples drawn from legal cases to explain the meaning of the laws applying in those cases - descriptive examples of current usgage in other words; not definitions) let's use the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions which are not tailored to any specific purpose. It appears that you have selectively and carefully elicited your descriptive examples drawn from usage in some existing tax statutes. Such definitions are, of course, specific to the thing being legislated and very much tailored to show how a particular meaning applies in a case at hand (and not in general).
The untailored dictionary definitions:
"tax - a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes ".
"direct tax - a tax exacted directly from the taxpayer (by the taxing body)".
"sales tax - a tax levied on the sale of goods and services that is usually calculated as a percentage of the purchase price and collected by the seller ".
"goods - something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want; something manufactured or produced for sale ".
"services - a facility supplying some public demand (telephone service) (bus service) and also a contribution to the welfare of others ".
Looking at these more general definitions that have not been taken from some existing tax statute and therefore become tailored to be highly specific, we see that your selective definitions are indeed highly selective. Looking at the definition of "direct tax", we see for example in the general definition nothing of the distinction you mention as applying to land or real property and not just articles of consumption as in your definition. Under "sales tax" we once again do not see your distinction of tangible personal property at all, but a tax levied on goods and services (also defined) and collected by the seller. The sales tax on either the sale or the rental of real property clearly falls correctly under this more general definition.
The argument here, Willie Green, is not about rights of property whether real or personal, but about the taxation of such property. Quoting definitions of existing statutes hardly qualifies as a reasonable definition of the general condition, but only of the condition of existing taxation - which is exactly what is needing gross change. Property rights are not affected by such a sales tax so all of your overblown rhetoric about property rights and distinctions between real and personal property are meaningless and are obviously just something you have thrown in to try to inflame the passions of some - that's demagoguery at its finest.
Clearly the rental of a place to live qualifies as either (or both) a good or a service depending upon how you view it.
As I said you have carefully chosen your definitions and tailored them according to your own intent.
Let's look at the definitions from what you have said is the source you linked to.
Your definition of "Taxes" gives an example of direct taxation as being on land and real estate. This is given as an example since presently any taxes on land and real estate are taxed by the taxing authority directly (e.g., are a direct tax). That does not mean that, by definition, real estate taxes are (or must be) direct taxes, but only uses it as an example since that is the present practice. In that same definition, it also says "Congress have plenary power over every species of taxable property, except exports." which means that it is up to congress to make the tax laws - but you knew that didn't you - and they could certainly cause real estate to be taxed as a sales tax (an indirect tax). Your (partial) definition, therefore, does not apply in this instance since it only describes present practices.
Your definition of "sales tax" (and, BTW, it is sales and use tax) similarly is giving illustrative instances of things now normally covered by that sort of tax. It also is not a definition of all possible taxed items. It does not use real estate since, as I just mentioned, real estate is not now handled by indirect tax (sales tax) but by direct taxation (the governmental authority acting directly on or with the taxpayer as stated in the more general definition I gave in my earlier replies). In a few years this definition (as well as the direct tax definition) will be modified to catch up with reality and to reflect the fact that a sales tax on real estate is an indirect tax.
Keep in mind that even in your own definition of "Taxes", it is acknowledged that congress can make the tax laws - and that means they can certainly do as I have said. Even your own definition of "sales tax" allows for taxing of the rental use of real estate.
Your definitions are not drawn from existing specific case law as I thought, but are merely given in specialized definitions as presently used in law. The NRST is indeed a precedent-setting law; no question. No other country has such a tax law and certainly it will change some of these very definitions you are trying to use inappropriately.
As the law changes the examples used to show the intent and/or use of the law will change with it. You do not seem to grasp that all you are quoting are examples conforming to existing law which considers real estate to be an example of direct taxation since it is not presently covered by a sales tax (but is taxed in a roundabout manner by taxing the income of the buyer - and very heavily at that). The existing law was not written based upon these definitions, but the definitions merely give examples of what existing law applies to.
These "definitions" of yours (which are really just examples) will change to reflect changed law, my friend - make book on it. One of us may be a marxist, but it is not me. As I recall, you are the one who thought it was fine to have "the rich" become expatriates to get away from confiscatory taxation. That (along with a number of your other comments) sounds like class warfare to me, Willie Greenski. You would benefit by doing some research into the economic benefits brought about by the NRST so that you would better understand that class warfare is neither required nor brought about by the NRST.
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
This point has been explained to you many times by several posters but, being a Democratic disruptor wannabe who benefits from the status quo by income tax evasion, you choose not to see that.
Perhaps you should go back to harassing the loved ones of the late CHIEF negotiator via Freepmail as you had been doing.
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
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.