Replies

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.