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.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.)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.
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.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!!!!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!!!)
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, 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.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.
The NRST is unconstitutional.
The NRST is an excise or duty, An indirect tax, on the conduct of commerce administered by the States.
It is levied only on the purchaser of goods or services, (not the original owner) and is applied purely as an excise as established in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
There is no impediment on the levy of an excise on purchasers of new construction that the NRST lays. Your partial definitions and analysis as regards ownership of land simply does not apply as it is the customer, and receiver of property being sold that pays the tax, not the owner. The Purchaser of property does not gain lawful title to land until the completion and perfection of title can occur and that does not happen until full payment is made, including any excises or duties on the commission and contract that is engaged in.
See: The Fair Tax Alternative to the IRS: Is it Constitutional
Which has been amply debated (Pro & Con) in the above article on FR.
Constitution for the United States of America:
James Madison, Federalist #39:
James Madison, Federalist #45:
James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:
James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention
4 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:466--68
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.
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".