I thought you were pounding your chest about presenting facts..."residential land is not taxed" is a blatant lie and the rest of your garble is conjecture at best, not fact.
Let's play your little game.
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%....WAIT! Which is it 65% or 22.2%?
Regulatory costs.....12.7%
70.1% of your income is now consumed by government,
Your total is actually 69.1%..another sign of pi$$ poor math or just a little fudge? Aside from that, how does your "revenue neutral" tax plan pay for that AND the elimination of taxes passed from corporations directly to the consumer?....
Here's how:
the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. ....would all increase by 30% under your tax as they are all subject to your sales tax
Fed. sales tax...23% (of the gross payment)
State and local ...11.8% + 30%=15.34% (part of the "gross payment", it's subject to your sales "gross payment" tax).
Compliance costs...22.2% + 30%=28.86% (your "compliance" is nothing more than bookkeeping "service"/ cost)
Regulatory costs...12.7% + 30%=16.51%(regulatory "fees"/ costs are subject to your tax AND they're included in "the gross payment")
Your "sales tax" would cost 83.71% of our income. "And even that figure doesn't include the 30% inflated cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations."
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was asking about simplicity and how do we understand all of this. Let me read a memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation . This ought to be simple enough for the gentleman to understand.
The memorandum is in response to their request for an estimate of the budget neutral tax rate for H.R. 2525. That is the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER), a bill to replace the current U.S. corporate and individual income, estate and gift and Federal income contributions act, payroll taxes, with a flat tax on retail sales of all goods and services.
Then on the second page it has a little chart here, neutral over 5 years, 59.5 percent. That is what they want to do, neutral over 5 years, national sales tax 59.5 percent. I believe the American people can understand that.
lewislynn: "residential land is not taxed" is a blatant lie
1) Residential land can only be taxed as a direct tax by apportionment under the Constitution.
2) The NRST, is a "National Retail Sales Tax", imposed only on the use or consumption of taxable property and services.
3) It is not a tax on property levied on the owner, it can only tax the sale of taxable property and is levied on a purchaser before he can aquire title.
4) If the land in question is not in use for business purposes on the day prior to implementation of the act, (i.e. the NRST), it is residential and the sale of it cannot be taxed by the NRST act.
Thus residential land, is not taxed under the NRST which is an indirect tax and thus is incapable of legally tax owners for the property they possess.
The most that can be taxed under the NRST HR2525, as regards residential property, is the sale of a new construction house. And once taxed by the NRST, it cannot be taxed again in future resales of the same house or property it sits on.
Refer: definitions and implementation of the sales tax sections in:
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
How can what you admit is a "revenue neutral" tax. impose more than the total current federal tax system does on gross income (23.2% according to the national tax foundation)? Sorry lewis but your attempts at spin are pathetic.
Especially using the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus as you source, when even he disagrees with your numbers while he is demogoguing against a bill to set a sunset date to end the income tax.
Man you are really reaching for straws.
The NRST is 23% of the total payment for taxable goods and services. That is shelf price plus the amount of NRST in the payment. It is not calculated with the inclusion of other taxes for those taxes are not use or consumption of taxable property or services as specified in the bill.
FROST's recitation of rates are based on a tax that excludes products and does not tax services and infact is not in anyway based upon the language of HR2525. He is using a study that uses parameters not even close to what is implement by the HR2525 NRST.
If you have information to the contrary, provide a link to the study that establises the values you are using so all can evaluate the validity of the numbers while checking against the content of HR2525.
Your total is actually 69.1%..another sign of pi$$ poor math or just a little fudge? Aside from that, how does your "revenue neutral" tax plan pay for that AND the elimination of taxes passed from corporations directly to the consumer?....
They are not my numbers lewislynn, that is an article discussing tax rates, costs of tax compliance, and cost of regulation imposed upon us now through both state and federal taxation.
Read the material lewislynn, the statment is income consumed by government.
Not tax revenues, but all costs imposed upon us by government at all levels state and local under the totality of all tax systems now in use.
The NRST, has nothing to do with "regulatory costs". The NRST does away with over 90% of compliance costs, and even then pays for the remaining to compensate the business for those costs. That puts compliance cost in the price of things to 0 as such is provided for in the tax itself.
State taxes are not part of the equation either, as The NRST is only with regard to Federal taxes. and the Federal rate is 23% of expenditure (less state & local taxes) as expressly stated in the bill. And replace 94% of all federal taxes now imposed on us.
That leaves all your contorted figuring out in the boonies lewislynn. Sorry about that, but you are blowing the same old hot air you always do.
Here at least is the link you should have provided or at least cited as your source.
Refer: 12. DATE CERTAIN TAX CODE REPLACEMENT ACT, House Congressional Record April 13, 2000 pages H2259-H2282; speaking of a memo regarding the Joint Tax Committee's assessment of the total Federal tax rate as a percentage of family consumption expenditures based on Clinton administration expectations for government growth in program funding.
I'm sure folks will be reassured that your cited hero "Mr. Frost" is none other than the Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
You know, like in Republicans want to throw old people in the streets and starve babies DEMOCRAPS, arguing against throwing out the INCOME TAX.
Analyzing to statements of Rep. Frost(D-Texas) and other House Democratic Caucus members, the House Democratic Caucus hoped to be able raise total federal taxes across 5 years to 59.5% of family consumption expenditures. That indicates a whopping 37.3% of gross family income, more than 1.5 times the effective total federal tax rate(24.2%) born by the nation's familys in 1999 as estimated by CBO.
59% over five years(11%/annum) is the increase in tax rates that the DEMOCRAPS (read Joint Tax Committee) want fool.
It is not the tax rate of the NRST, nor will it ever be.
What Rep. Frost doesn't say is he and his Folks want to increase the income/payroll tax enough to ensure they have that much. The chart he is referring to reflects Democrap hopes for us.
But of course you knew that before you posted it didn't you?
Tell us lewislynn, if every voter is required to pay the same tax rate without exception, just who is going to support any Congress Critter with the temerity to propose a 60% tax rate on every person in the country?
Get real lewislynn, you're showing your liberal colors."
In response to your and the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Represetative FROST (D), shall we see what the Republican, side of this issue is? Since we have clearly seen where you and the DemonCraps lie..
I believe we should hear "the rest of the story."
Rep Linder, a Republican supporting the repeal of the income tax, Refer: 12. DATE CERTAIN TAX CODE REPLACEMENT ACT, House Congressional Record April 13, 2000 Page H2266
"Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the IRS has made criminals of us all, and it is time for it to go away. And that is what this is about, scrapping the code. This is real. Now, it may be a joke for Democrats, who have spent 40 years building up this monstrosity, but this is very real.
And there are some very real proposals to replace it, proposals that have been studied for years. My proposal, which has been ridiculed today, has been studied for over 3 1/2 years, with $15 million spent in universities from Harvard to Boston College to MIT to Stanford to Rice, and none of them came up with a 60 percent tax rate.
Guess who did? A committee whose members have their entire political capital invested, or their intellectual capital invested in the Tax Code. They would lie to get this thing defeated, because we have depreciated their intellectual capital if we get rid of all the income taxes and all the difficulties and the taxes are transparent and easy to understand. They will not be needed any more.
If we get rid of this Tax Code with a single transparent, straightforward, simple sales tax, Americans will know what it costs every time they buy something, what it costs for government. What they are not telling the American public is that currently, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, we know that 22 to 25 percent, according to various studies, of what taxpayers currently pay for at retail is the current embedded cost of this tax system.
They would rather have a hidden tax than a transparent tax because they know, if taxpayers saw how much government was costing them, they would rebel and ask us to reduce the role of government in their lives. We are currently paying it. It is hidden. They like that.
This income tax was originally intended and promised to only tax the top 2 percent of the income earners in America. That was the promise that was made in 1913. And indeed, if we think back to the last two tax increases, 1990 and 1993, the promise was made we are only going to raise the taxes on the top 1 percent. Well, guess what? In 1990, the top 1 percent paid $106 billion in taxes. And after the tax increase on them, the following year they paid $100 billion. Because rich people are often smart people, they can find ways to rearrange their income.
But each of these tax increases, that these folks so love, reverberates through the system and we all pay. We all pay. All we want is to get rid of a monstrosity that no one understands; that confuses every taxpayer and keeps hidden what the actual cost of government is, and then let us have a debate on what to replace it with. It may not be my tax bill; perhaps it will be the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARMEY) or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT) or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. TAUZIN). But it will be simpler, more understandable, and it will be fairer.
One of my favorite stories about the 1913 debate on the 16th amendment to impose the income tax was that one of the Senators was ridiculed and laughed off the floor of the United States Senate for saying something absolutely
outrageous. He said this: ``Mark my words, before this is over, the government will be taking 10 percent of everything you earn.'' It was considered so outrageous by his colleagues that they ridiculed him off the floor of the Senate.
I feel certain that is what gave fresh meaning to my favorite country western song, ``If 10 Percent Is Enough for Jesus it Ought to be Enough for Uncle Sam.''
SEE: Democrats Planning for Rise of Total Federal Tax Rate to 37% from current 23%
Refer: House Congressional Record; April 13, 2000
I must certainly thank FR member, lewislynn for his quotations (Reply #39 above) from last session's Congressional Record, in reply to me, that led to my locating the critical information that allowed a determination of the ultimate increase in tax rates the House Democrats led by Dick Gephard and other big government spenders tell us they plan pull us into should they gain sufficient control to implement their expressed desires of higher taxes.
I note with alarm, recent reports on the newswire services stating the personal savings savings rate is near zero heading for negative territory.
If that is true, it becomes clear that the tax burden, as it is reflected through family consumption, (the ultimate engine from which virtually all income is derived and from which taxes are paid), is in fact currently exceeding 32% of family consumption expenditure1 (i.e. personal discretionary income[gross minus taxes]). Regardless of who remits federal taxes, it is the individual American family that must bear that ultimate burden financed through their consumption expenditures and lower returns from investments(principally retirement & insurance plan assets).
1) determined from effective Total federal tax rate (24.2%) of the CBO gross family income for 1999.
According to statements of Rep. Frost(D-Texas) and other House Democratic Caucus members,
(refer: DATE CERTAIN TAX CODE REPLACEMENT ACT, House Congressional Record April 13, 2000 pages H2259-H2282; speaking of a memo regarding the Joint Tax Committee's assessment of the total Federal tax rate as a percentage of family consumption expenditures based on Clinton administration expectations for government growth in program funding)
The House Democratic Caucus hopes to be able raise total federal taxes across 10 years to 59.5% of family consumption expenditures. That indicates a whopping 37.3% of gross family income, more than 1.5 times the effective total federal tax rate born by the nation's familys in 1999 as estimated by CBO.
If we assume the increases in taxes are not to be implemented, due to political considerations, in the "Individual Income Tax" we can surely expect a constant unchecked inflationary rise in consumer prices of more than 4% per annum over current inflation, induced by just the demands for more expensive social programs as those programs are funded out of the nation's business revenues through tax increases and reductions in business deductions(a.k.a. corporate welfare) from those same members of Congress.