O'Neill Taking Tough Stand in Criticizing U.S. Tax Code

O'Neill is a twit.

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

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.

MORE HERE.

Bump List

Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab"

Posing?

H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
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.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

Sure looks like tax reform to me.

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 family purchasing their own new house today has 24.2% 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 in 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, more than 47% of payment.

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

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.

O'Neill has proven himself to be an emotionally confused, whiney and teary-eyed old has-been who can't hold his bladder when confronted by an equally disturbed old fa*t like Robert Byrd.

It's no wonder the gullible fool has swallowed the false paradigms and simplistic, fraudulent panaceas promised by the NRST.

It's time for these ancient geezers to be confined to a retirement home.

The world has become too sophisticated, complex and fast-paced for their failing mental faculties.

Can't deal with the message, so attack the messenger.

That's a normal response from you. Just points out the paucity of your position.

Just points out the paucity of your position.

My position is very brief and to the point:

Real estate is neither a "good" nor a "service". It is REAL PROPERTY and cannot be subject to an excise tax the same as alcohol or tobacco.

A decrepit, old coot like O'Neill is becoming too feeble-minded to comprehend this.

The same irrationality is displayed with his acceptance of the concept to ~~privatize~~ Enronize the Social Security system.

Bush needs competent advisors in his cabinet.
Not bewildered seniors suffering senility and dementia.

Real estate is neither a "good" nor a "service". It is REAL PROPERTY and cannot be subject to an excise tax the same as alcohol or tobacco.

The tax is levied as consequence of the Sale of "Taxable Property" and Services. Your attempt to limit the scope by using a term other than "property" is a red herring.

It is not the property that makes the transaction subject to the tax. It is the "SALE" (i.e. the doing of commerce) that triggers the tax.

Again the owner does not pay the tax. The NRST is incident upon the purchaser of "taxable property and services" as a consequence of the SALE. The purchaser or renter pays the tax.

Your limited definition of what is taxed totally misses the point and effect of an indirect tax levied as a "DUTY" or "EXCISE".

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.

The incidence of the NRST is clearly upon the purchaser and renter, not the owner, in transfer of title or the use of property by one other than the owner. Thus is clearly and totally within the class of INDIRECT taxes.

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

Direct taxes are levied on the property without any qualification other than mere ownership, and is levied on the immediate owner thereof only.

It has been that way from the very beginning:

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

"[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."

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."

Ownership by a purchaser cannot exist until after sale or transfer and perfection of title which is conditioned upon the payment of taxes. A renter has gains no title to the property he pays to use at all.

Your analysis is totally and completely flawed for it ignores WHO the tax is incident on and what enables the tax.

A decrepit, old coot like O'Neill is becoming too feeble-minded to comprehend this.
The same irrationality is displayed with his acceptance of the concept to ~~privatize~~ Enronize the Social Security system.
Bush needs competent advisors in his cabinet.
Not bewildered seniors suffering senility and dementia.

Once Again your decent into adhominen attack and emotional demogoguery, demonstrates the lack of ability to rationally support your agenda.

The tax is levied as consequence of the Sale of "Taxable Property" and Services. Your attempt to limit the scope by using a term other than "property" is a red herring.

Horsecrap, moron.

Excise taxes are limited to goods and services.
It does not apply to Real Property.
You're attempt to extend the definition to include Real Property is a fundamental assualt on property rights.
Go crawl back into your neo-fascist hole.

"Enronize the Social Security system"

Wow, that's a Dem talking point isn't it ?

That's real interesting stuff, but since nowhere in the article did Paul O'Neill advocate the NRST; indeed, since the article doesn't mention the NRST once, that stuff is interesting and also irrevalent.

For all the information contained in the article, O'Neill could hate the NRST as much as you.

"Enronize the Social Security system"
Wow, that's a Dem talking point isn't it ?

Heck, I don't know.
I just coined it for my own use, although it wouldn't surprise me if I'm not the first to use it.

It aptly describes my criticism of plans to "privatize" social security LONG before Enron ever made the headlines.

The BIG LIE that is concealed by both political parties SINCE THE VERY INCEPTION of Social Security is that it is some kind of "retirement savings plan".

It is NOT!!!

It is a socialist redistribution system: Working Americans are taxed and the proceeds are redistributed to those who are less fortunate as a "safety net". (retirees, widows, orphans, etc. -- of course Congress has boogered it up more complicated than this over the last 65 years.)

Nevertheless, there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for a redistribution system to accumulate a mult-trillion dollar ~~Trust Fund~~ Slush Fund for Congress to manipulate at its whim. This very behavior in the private sector is punishable by PRISON sentences -- just ask Denny McClain!!!

The GOP plan to "privatize" the system is just a ploy by brokerage firms and financial institutions to dig their grubby mitts into a guaranteed tax revenue stream and skim-off a commission.

In today's modern, computerized world, there is absolutely NO NEED to build up such a HUGE SLUSH FUND for thieves backing either political party to raid. The computation is simple and straightforward:

This month's total SS tax receipts = Next month's total SS tax disbursements.

Monthly benefits payable to eligible recipients would have to be variable rather than fixed for the system to work. But it WOULD work indefinitely WITHOUT any "concern" about becoming "insolvent".

SS is a REDISTRIBUTUION SYSTEM, NOT a SAVINGS PLAN!!!

Sleaze-bag politicians of BOTH PARTIES perpetuate THE BIG LIE to scam literally TRILLIONS of DOLLARS from the American People!!!

For all the information contained in the article, O'Neill could hate the NRST as much as you.

You must be a newbie to these tax threads.

O'Neill is a folk-hero to the NRST shills.
He's just as sleazy as the congressional advocates: Billy Tauzin and James Traficant.

You'd be best off keeping your hand on your wallet in your back-pocket if you're ever around these creeps. These professional double-talking con-men will pick your pocket in a heartbeat.

Excise taxes are limited to goods and services.

Your limited definition of what is taxed totally misses the point and effect of an indirect tax levied as a "DUTY" or "EXCISE".

It is not the property that is taxed, it is the "use or consumption" of taxable property on which the NRST is imposed.

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;

Can we all say it "What's a DUTY" as a constitutional term, Willy Green?

It does not apply to Real Property.

Real Property is not being tax under the NRST, "the use or consumption of taxable property" by others than the owner(i.e. purchaser or renter), is what is being taxed.

In the specific instance of the NRST, a duty is imposed upon the customer with regard to the sale (i.e. use) of new "Taxable Property".

You're attempt to extend the definition to include Real Property is a fundamental assualt on property rights.

The sale or rent of new nails, lumber, paint, roofing materials, and the services rendered in assembling such into a house are Taxed by the NRST. All of which fall under your "goods & services" red herring.

Use is the sale or rental, a taxable commercial event subject to an indirect tax:

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

HR2525:

`SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.

`(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.

`SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.

`(a) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this subtitle--

`(14) TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE-

`(A) GENERAL RULE- The term `taxable property or service' means--

`(i) any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property) but excluding--

`(I) intangible property, and
`(II) used property, and

`(ii) any service (including any financial intermediation services as determined by section 801).

`(16) USED PROPERTY- The term `used property' means--

`(A) property on which the tax imposed by section 101 has been collected and for which no credit has been allowed under section 203, and

`(B) property that was held other than for a business purpose (as defined in section 102(b)) on December 31, 2002.

A purchaser has no property right until after transfer of title. That cannot occur until sale + payment of lawful levies on the transaction are completed. It is the customer/renter that is taxed, NOT THE OWNER. No assault on property rights exist anywhere but in your mind.

The NRST is imposed upon "use", (e.g. sale) or consumption of taxable property. Not upon the property per-se and not upon the seller, (i.e. owner), but rather the customer.

Property for which the NRST has been previously collected and property held for non-business purpose prior to enactment is not subject to the NRST. Property may be taxed once but only once under the NRST.

As a concequence, residential land is not taxed. Resale of homes is not taxed. Only the use (i.e. sale) of new construction can be taxed under the NRST whether such imposition be via collection on sale or collections from renters in regard to rent.

At no time is the OWNER of property taxed under the NRST. Thus property rights are totally intact, even more so than under the current system of federal taxation.

Horsecrap, moron. ...
Go crawl back into your neo-fascist hole.

Once again you decend into ad hominen invective and attack. Have you no rational basis for your misguided opinions. Tell us your real agenda here Willy Green, it obviously is not your pretended concern that investors and landlords holding Property are being taxed too much.

For investors, landlords, and owners of real property are not being taxed under the NRST.

I once tried to engage Willie in a discussion. He is firmly planted in the position that all corporations are evil and are selling us down the river. O'Neill, who I personally think is quite a good cabinet member, and the former CEO of Alcoa, is dismissed as a whiny geezer who can't hold his bladder.

The Enronizing comment is straight out of the Daschle playbook. Therefore, I must now conclude that Willie, given his posting history and personal attacks on the Treasury Secretary, coupled with the Enron comment, is a RAT!

O'Neill is a folk-hero to the NRST shills.

And that fact in no way contradicts my statement that for all the information contained in this article, O'Neill may love, hate or be indifferent to the NRST.

Also, that fact in no way makes your NRST fetish relevent to this article.