You suggest their is a way to protect ones property from the relentless grasp of government. The NRST cant be it. Its revenue neutral. Voting the rascals out cant be it. It hasnt worked for the last 140 years.
Those of us who resent the 30 percent (and growing) rate of confiscation, but know they are well and truly licked by the good and learned judges---breathlessly await the 'means to legitimately protect property' you refer to.
The NRST cant be it. Its revenue neutral.
You would rather keep getting hit with 47% federal tax burden on all expenditures?
refer to reply #21 again, to refresh your memory.
The NRST is 23% of expenditure on new goods and services only. And requires not returns or reporting by the purchaser of products (the citizen).
All tax measures are required to be revenue neutral in the first years to even get out of the gate. If they aren't, the get killed by fiscal conservatives who don't want to create deficits(the other way to tax), or by liberals who don't like tax cuts for any reason.
However, tax reduction is possible under a revenue neutral tax bill.
Sequestration Process:CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
"The 1990 BEA created a separate sequestration procedure to enforce PAYGO rules that apply to direct spending and revenues. The PAYGO rules apply to legislation through FY2002, but the PAYGO sequestration procedure applies to the net deficit effects of that legislation through FY2006. PAYGO rules require that an increase in direct spending or a decrease in revenues must be offset by an equal amount of spending reductions, revenue increases, or a combination of the two so that the budgetary effect of new legislation is not projected to increase the deficit, or reduce the surplus, for any fiscal year through FY2006.
Which, when you put it all together simply means if you can get Congress to cut spending the tax rate can go down and still be revenue neutral. The statutes merely prohibit increasing deficits or decrease surpluses through tax cuts.
There is no restriction to reducing tax rates after cutting appropriations, so long as the revenues drop dollar for dollar with decreased in appropriations. That is what all that liberal rhetoric about "paying" for tax cuts is all about.
Current law dictates that any tax bill must be revenue neutral. There is indeed a provision in law requiring revenue neutrality in revenue,(i.e tax bills).
The House can waive the rule under Unanumous consent, and Senate under 3/5 vote. and certain other resticted conditions such as Declaration of War, or <1% real growth for 2qtrs.
However if one member protests, sorry the bill simply will not be allowed until it does meet the revenue neutrality requirements under the Budget Enforcement Act, meaning the provisions of the proposed tax bill may not increase the budget defict nor decrease a project surplus. Thus it becomes necessary to either show no change in services or the reduction of appropriations or repeal of programs before a tax bill may go forward.
Applicable Congressional Research Service Reports on the Budget process.
Baseline and ScoreKeeping Process/Enforced by Sequestration:CRS Rules 98-560
Budget Enforcement Act; Surplus: CRS Rules 98-97
Budget Enforcement Act of 1997: CRS Rules 97-930
PAYGO RULES: CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
House: auto sequestration if Receipts or Appropriations legislation in deficit increase,
House Point of order waivable by unanimous consent
Senate Point of order waivable by 3/5ths vote.
May be waived under Sequestration Rules on declaration of War or
conditions of <1% real economic growth for 2qtrs.
"CBA points of order, like most others, are not self-enforcing. In order to enforce a congressional budget rule, a Member must raise a point of order against the legislation violating it. When a point of order is raised against legislation that may violate a substantive provision of a budget resolution, a determination of whether the legislation would cause spending or revenue levels to be breached is based on estimates supplied by the Budget Committee of the appropriate house, under section 312(a) of the CBA. Generally, when a point of order is sustained, the violating bill or amendment fails and is not considered or the violating provision of a bill or amendment is stricken. "
"Congress may, however, waive these points of order. In the House, Budget Act points of order usually are waived by a "special rule" reported by the Rules Committee and adopted by the full House.
Sequestration Process:CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
" PAYGO rules require that an increase in direct spending or a decrease in revenues must be offset by an equal amount of spending reductions, revenue increases, or a combination of the two so that the budgetary effect of new legislation is not projected to increase the deficit, or reduce the surplus, for any fiscal year through FY2006."
Those of us who resent the 30 percent (and growing) rate of confiscation, but know they are well and truly licked by the good and learned judges---breathlessly await the 'means to legitimately protect property' you refer to.
Actually the real burden is greater then 30% by a long shot:
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
The NRST can't defend you from your state, that's up to you and the people in your state.
However, the NRST can and does protect you from the FEDS, in that products may only be taxed once under the NRST, all lands, property and goods held for other than business purpose prior to its implementation date are not subject to the NRST.
Once the NRST is paid with the first retail retail purchase of a product, it can no longer be taxed under the NRST again. Resales are free of the NRST, antiques, used goods of any descpription, resale of residential property, none of it is taxable by the NRST.
That's as good as it gets until you can change your states mind about it's own tax structure.
You really ought to be investigating what the NRST offers instead of blowing it off as just another tax. It totally repeals all income taxes, individual corporate, profits and wage as well as estate & gift taxes. That is 95% of the Federal tax revenues, and the systems that collect them.
It is long past time to end the Income Tax once and for all and get rid of the intrusive anal exam of family finances by government. Support the enactment of the only bills before congress that would actually achieve that.
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
the modification then enactment and ratification of:
H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.
(Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)
And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:
H.R.175
Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.
Voting the rascals out cant be it. It hasnt worked for the last 140 years.
Can't as long as we keep insisting that govenment hide the real burden from over half the electorate.
To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal taxes are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% continue to clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% to pay . That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating even more participants from the Individual Income Tax rolls as proposed in the current tax reduction proposals currently on board through changes in personal exemption limits and other mechanisms such as the EITC.
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of RepresentativesTHURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
12:00 noon"In 1996, Congress passed a historic welfare reform law that has dramatically reduced the number of Americans who depend on welfare. In spite of this positive development, Representative DeMint is concerned about the steady growth of a welfare/entitlement state that extends well beyond the poor and is forcing millions of middle income Americans into dependency.
There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."
Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?