Replies

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.

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.

I WAS going to just ignore you on this thread, but since I see you elected to continue more of your nonsense and balderdash beyond this garbage cut and paste of yours (refuted hundreds of times by several posters), I'll have to chime in after all.

As for your ill-considered "land grab" demagoguery, there are any number of things wrong with your arguments as posters would know if they have followed your "progression" through several threads now. First of all, though, let me express the objection I have to your use of inflammatory statements such as your lead in on your reply where you say:

"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".