Tax Reform Panel Picks Apart FairTax Proposal

Members of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform on May 11 expressed concerns over the FairTax national retail sales tax, a plan that has emerged as an alternative with a major grass-roots push.

Panel chair Connie Mack, vice chair John B. Breaux, and other members worried the plan would be difficult to enforce, would be regressive, and would require a high rate in order to take in enough money to fund the government.

Breaux raised concerns that the proposed 23 percent (tax-inclusive) rate would not be sufficient to raise the revenue necessary to fund the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would take as much as a 57 percent (tax-exclusive) rate to be revenue-neutral. Further, Breaux said he thought exemptions that would be carved out to make the sales tax progressive would also complicate it.

Mack, who raised concerns similar to his fellow panelists', said he was "intrigued" by the plan. "But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?" he asked.

Americans for Fair Taxation Executive Director Tom Wright emphasized that the plan emerged after "thorough academic research" and "thorough polling" The strong grass-roots push has resulted in some of the group's 600,000 members appearing at each of the panel's hearings and has inspired a large comment-writing campaign to the panel in support of the plan.

Sales tax advocates were among the 20 witnesses who gathered before the panel for a full day of testimony on tax reform proposals. Although the group has held several other hearings in Washington and around the country, the May 11 meeting was its first hearing on specific reform plans since Bush appointed the panel in January. The panel has been charged with identifying tax reform proposals that are progressive, encourage charitable giving and home purchases, and are revenue-neutral. The proposals are due by July 31.

Among the tax replacement and reform plans presented to the panel were the value added tax, consumption-based tax, and the flat tax, as well as proposals that would use the current income tax as the foundation.

Witnesses generally claimed that theirs was the fairest, simplest, most flexible, most transparent revenue-neutral proposal that would improve economic growth and savings while meeting the president's criteria of encouraging charitable giving and home buying. Witnesses presenting consumption-based plans praised their overhaul as taking millions of low-income taxpayers off the rolls, being easy to transition to on a worldwide basis, and including safeguards to prevent new loopholes that would result in increased complexity down the road.

Tax reform panel members, who agree the current tax system needs to be fixed, grilled witnesses without revealing whether they will ultimately endorse a consumption- or income-based tax or a different mixture of the two.

Only, I don't pay yours.

You pay more of my tax share with the federal income & payroll tax system today than you would under an National Retail Sales Tax implemented by HR25. That I can say for a certainty.

I pay no income or payroll taxes today. I would be paying net federal tax under the NRST proposed in HR25.

Why should/does anyone care what you want? After all, we all have the right to be every bit as selfish as you so obviously are.
And no, I won't pay your business taxes for you.

I don't have a business. But I do manage to do reasonably well with tax free bonds and no income taxes whatever.

Well, I prefer to shoulder a proportion of the burden of government commensurate with my income -- having already paid income taxes on my savings.

I said propotionate, not a proportion. Look it up sometime. Proportionate mean everyone pays the same rate.

And no, you don't get to con me into paying your business-income taxes out of my hard-earned savings.

I done have a business, but those who do gurarantee you pay out of their gross sales receipts.

The following article covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.

DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation

Fairer to tax people on what they're getting out of life in the form of income, than on what it takes to sustain life with bread and shelter.

Hate to be the one to inform you but you are getting it from both ends today. Take it from your income before you can spend it on bread and shelter as an income and payroll tax on the individual. Then hit you again through prices on the business side of income/payroll taxes. Business only remits taxes to government out of sales receipts. That is their source of revenue for paying any tax at all, think about that.

Under HR25, sale tax is rebated for all expenditure up to the poverylevel. The HHS poverty level is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation based on the cost of a healthy diet comprising 1/3 of total family budget value thus the povertylevel is set at 3 times that expenditure in a base year fixed in 1969 dollars updated annually for CPI.

It would also present the social policy advantage of penalizing storage of wealth, the most regressive kind of economy there is.

You want to show us how an "income tax" tax accrued wealth that is kept out of production and not subject to "income" taxes? Them taxfree muni bonds, and SS/Security means you don't get to touch my income nor my wealth such as it is. You are currently paying taxes for me to live off of. Thank you very much.

Just tax total assets (and execute anyone hiding them

Ohh, so now you are into federal property taxes. Good luck collecting on that scheme.

-- do you have an account in the Caymans, by the way?),

Nah, don't need one. Got all I need from your paying SS/Medicare and income taxes and local taxes to support me.

get that capital moving again, get that velocity of money up a bit.

I certainly do by spending 100% of what I got coming in. That income that the feds don't tax and have no income tax proposal whatever that will tax any of it. Keep smiling.

Somehow I don't think you'd like that idea. You'd rather tax poor people's pittances they pay for Moon Pies and RC Colas, and jack up the cost of a glass of lemonade, than take an audit from the IRS yourself on your hidden income sources and off-balance-sheet transactions.

Hey I love the idea, you're the one paying for all my goodies now, through state, local taxes and federal income/payroll taxes.

Since you've started in on invidious imputations and assumptions and all.

The only one makeing invidious imputations and assumptions has been you. Quite off the mark as well.

Oh, and by the way -- has anyone mentioned to you that you spam?

Lets see, spam is unsolicited email for commercial purpose. Sorry I don't spam. I do however respond to commentary on FR, and replies or questions directed at me.

You pay more of my tax share with the federal income & payroll tax system today than you would under an National Retail Sales Tax implemented by HR25. That I can say for a certainty.

Hmmm, you don't know my tax status, and you are making a very rash statement unless your real taxable income is zero.

If you're 100% invested in tax-free municipals (assuming you are arguendo), you're missing some good income/capital appreciation opportunities and exposing yourself to the other tax neither of us has discussed -- inflation -- but then, that's your business.

Unless you are paying zero federal taxes, I assure you, you are standing on a banana peel.

I pay no income or payroll taxes today. I would be paying net federal tax under the NRST proposed in HR25.

If your financial structure is that simple, then your enthusiasm for NRST is self-wounding, raising questions about your common sense, or about your having told the whole story.

[You quoting me] And no, I won't pay your business taxes for you.

[Your reply] I don't have a business. But I do manage to do reasonably well with tax free bonds and no income taxes whatever.

If you say so, one for you, I assumed you had to be a business proprietor or manager on the make. That's who this bill is written for.

[Quoting me] Well, I prefer to shoulder a proportion of the burden of government commensurate with my income -- having already paid income taxes on my savings.

[You, replying] I said propo[r]tionate, not a proportion. Look it up sometime. Proportionate mean everyone pays the same rate.

One, I don't think your usage niggle makes a point. What I meant was perfectly clear, and perfectly fair, and it doesn't have to mirror your proposition. Now that my income has declined, I want the same deal I got when the government taxed my income as a good way to skin me harder as an object of tax policy. I was taxed on income then, and I want to be taxed on income now, same-same. I don't want the Congress going back and rewriting the tax code just to keep me in the barrel, in order to favor someone else.

That's why I favor a flat tax. Flat, in the name of fairness, but a tax on income nevertheless, in fairness to myself. Except for my cap gains and other investment income, those savings not in my IRA are after tax, and I'm damn well determined to keep them that way. I am absolutely not in favor of rewriting the tax code in order to target the Boomers' savings for the financial benefit of the business wing of the GOP, which is exactly what I think this proposed legislation is all about.

Hmmm, you don't know my tax status, and you are making a very rash statement unless your real taxable income is zero.

It is, thus is not only not a rash statement, but a statement of fact.

If you're 100% invested in tax-free municipals (assuming you are arguendo), you're missing some good income/capital appreciation opportunities and exposing yourself to the other tax neither of us has discussed -- inflation -- but then, that's your business.

Your right is not your business. There are more strong and valid reasons for such a sitution than mere economic ones. My priorities obviously are not your priorities as is readily apparent throughout your responses on this thread.

Unless you are paying zero federal taxes, I assure you, you are standing on a banana peel.

Standing on solid ground here, obvious to me that the one who has made the weak assumptions lay with you.

If your financial structure is that simple, then your enthusiasm for NRST is self-wounding, raising questions about your common sense, or about your having told the whole story.

LOL, why should I tell you a total stanger my life story and finances on an open forum for. Obviously I do not tell you my whole story nor will you ever hear it for it is none of your affair.

My choices were made for solid and valid non-economic reason long before the FairTax was a twinkle in anybody's eye. In point of fact the basis of the choices establishing my current financial state provide the basis to support an NRST over any other federal tax system as well. The basis for my financial arangements leads directly and a logical necessity for support or total elimination of income taxes and replacement by an overt and visible consumption tax.

If you say so, one for you, I assumed you had to be a business proprietor or manager on the make. That's who this bill is written for.

Bad in more than one assumption, I can guarantee you are bad in others as well.

What I meant was perfectly clear, and perfectly fair, and it doesn't have to mirror your proposition.

Fair is in the eyes of the beholder.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

"the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

17^th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan: state people should pay taxes in accordance with "what they actually take out of the common pot, not what they leave in." For it is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.

Now that my income has declined, I want the same deal I got when the government taxed my income as a good way to skin me harder as an object of tax policy. I was taxed on income then, and I want to be taxed on income now, same-same.

"It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
Walter Williams

That's why I favor a flat tax. Flat, in the name of fairness, but a tax on income nevertheless, in fairness to myself.

I discussed the importance of abolishing the income tax because of its tendency to form a habit of servility in the souls of a people that accepts it.

Servility of soul is bad not only in itself, it is also an open door through which will soon walk the abuses of ambitious government power.

Leaders who find themselves with governmental power over a servile people will be quick to conclude that such a people exist to serve them.

Alan Keyes 1999

"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.

Have a good day.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace."
--- Samuel Adams

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
-- Voltaire

Taxes & Government Spending:

"The income tax in effect makes us vassals to the government – the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere “reform” of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money. Only the abolition of the income tax itself will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business - not the government's."

"Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would rejuvenate independence and responsibility in our citizens. True economic liberty and moral revival go hand in hand."

"A national sales tax would also put the American citizen back in control of national fiscal policy. The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes, because they can’t spend what they don’t get. But with a sales tax, we could deny funds to a spendthrift government – and give ourselves a tax cut – whenever we make the private choice to alter our spending and saving habits."

The intent of the structure of the individual income tax is for political and social manpulation not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country in perpetual legal jeopardy and to create artificial divisions among the electorate (rich vs. poor; big business vs. the little guy; etc).

There was good reason why Karl Marx and the Communist Party makes the progressive/graduated income tax the 2nd plank of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. We should never forget nor overlook the philosophical underpinnings of that choice:

"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 ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . 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.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "

That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.

Glad you are happy with your chains, hope your decendants are as satisfied with your choices for them as well.

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

Is there something you would like to tell us?

Thems that reply on a thread get responded to. Not spam, just normal response.

Now the way to end response, is not bother to throw out yet another idiocy. But some folks jess can't seem to help themselves.

In your case it is a very useful trait to take advantage of as it servers to attract attention to an otherwise dead thead and where others may learn abit of tax history, the fundamental character of our current income tax law, its genesis and the essential features that make it such a great tool of government for implementing social and political engineering. Not to mention a great way for politicions to buy votes, reward their supporters and disadvantage their detractors.

Yep the federal income tax system is one of the greatest tools in the world for manipulation of an electorate and providing not only revenue to implement social change and government control over the electorate but assure those who are in power using that tools stays there.

Interesting how long the essential character that allows an income tax to be such a useful has been recognized:

"When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income."
Plato (427 BC - 347 BC), The Republic

In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-Voltaire (1764)

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Anyone who disagrees with you lives in chains.

Actually no, just those that are content with their lot under the income tax.

But then it has been well know from the foundation of this Republic that

"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
--- Continental Congress Assembled; Declaration of Independance, 1776

Such is understandable, even if not a particularly virtuous position to take.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin.

...federal income tax system is one of the greatest tools in the world for manipulation of an electorate ....

Actually, that is true of any tax policy, including the odious salt tax -- which was a retail tax.

Whatever tax is imposed, if it is fair, will be supported by the people. I've already told you that I prefer a flat tax to paying businesses' taxes for them and giving them a pass.

Your calling me names and lining up quotes endlessly to indulge in name-calling by proxy won't make your position any more logical. The fact that you claim to pay no income tax now, while advocating a very steep sales tax, shows that you are either very dedicated to your idee fixe, or you are just off your rocker, or there is something you are not telling us about why your bread would be buttered by everyone else's shouldering an onerous sales tax.

Something tells me you're sitting on a giant IRA or Keough account with a great big income-tax obligation you'd like to get out from under.

Prate all you want, people won't be your fools just because you keep cranking out your spew.

And no, I am NOT willing to subject my earnings that I got fairly long ago, and which have already been double-taxed, to still a third round of taxation so that companies can avoid taxation completely.

I've already told you that I prefer a flat tax to paying businesses' taxes for them and giving them a pass.

Businesses merely collect from individuals through higher prices and lower pay and return on capital investment and remit them to government.

Sorry business never pays a tax it has not collected from some individual whether it be explicitly as as in a retail sales tax, or implicitly as in corporate income and payroll taxes.

The fact that you claim to pay no income tax now, while advocating a very steep sales tax, shows that you are either very dedicated to your idee fixe, or you are just off your rocker,

You might try dedicated to seeing the end of an immoral tax system and contributing as little as possible to its perpetuation among other factors.

Your calling me names and lining up quotes endlessly to indulge in name-calling by proxy won't make your position any more logical.

Don't recall calling you many names along the way. As far as quotes regarding observations concerning tax systems and government go, well where the shoe fits you are bound to wear it.

or there is something you are not telling us about why your bread would be buttered by everyone else's shouldering an onerous sales tax.

My net payment of taxes would be higher under an NRST so that one is a bit out there in the boonies isn't it. On the other hand you have clearly stated why you chose the tax system preferences you do. Yours is personal bottom line, mine is of a more philosophical and moral nature. To each his own.

Something tells me you're sitting on a giant IRA or Keough account with a great big income-tax obligation you'd like to get out from under.

Imangination can be a nasty thing that causes one to guess wrongly and frequently.

Once again you reveal your basis of lifes choices through projection of that which you conceive to be driving factors. What may be true for you in motivation is not true for all my freind.

“It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
--Dr. Thomas Sowell

Prate all you want, people won't be your fools just because you keep cranking out your spew.

No one needs to be my fool, all are free to come to their own conclusion for their own lives. That is what liberty is about. Open discussion, access to knowledge and making knowing, willing and free choices based thereon.

And no, I am NOT willing to subject my earnings that I got fairly long ago, and which have already been double-taxed, to still a third round of taxation so that companies can avoid taxation completely.

Seeing that companies can only pay taxes from that which they ultimately derive from their customer base. You've got a problem, unless you figure on not ever spending anything in maintaining your own comfort and lifestyle.

Willing or no, you pay taxes through business proxy every time you purchase anything at all.

The following article covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.

DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation

Isn't it wonderful to know they got you both coming and going?

Bush touts relief as tax day looms

Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.

Problem is folks still pay the taxes even when they are just snookered in to believing otherwise, its time to give the nation's voters visibility of their tax burdens not hide them even more.

Wonder where they hid the pea, in the perpetual political shell game?

CBO Monthly Budget Review

RECEIPTS THROUGH FEBRUARY (In billions of dollars)
		October-February		Percentage Change
Major Source		FY2001	FY2002	Percentage Change

Individual Income		404	373	-7.6
Corporate Income		59	63	6.2
Social Insurance		270	273	1.4
Other		59	57	-3.1

	Total	792	766	-3.2

SOURCES: Department of the Treasury; CBO.

The individual income tax return that captures everyone's attention each April, is nothing more an accounting sheet the government cons individuals, held at ransom, into filling out. It puts a blinder on the eyes of the voter, and totally distorts their perceptions as to the real impact of taxation in their lives.

Businesses merely collect from individuals through higher prices and lower pay and return on capital investment and remit them to government.

No, they don't. Not if people don't patronize them.

I gather you intend not patronize any businesses then, to avoid being taxed again on your ROTH payments.

People will pay those taxes if they agree to a national sales tax.

Just as the pay those taxes today in purchasing anything at all by financing the income and payroll taxes that businesses remit to government. Primary difference between how we are taxed today is under an National Retail Sales Tax system we will know just how much government is costing us instead of it being hidden from our view as citizens and voters.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,

Interesting proposition, especially as you have been false in many of your assumptions.

However even this old latin goody fails close analysis in that one may be wrong in small and immaterial assumptions and yet quite reasonably be very accurate in others and the edifice stands as a whole.

spammer.

Let me guess, your definition of spam is any uncomfortable fact or exposure to reality when it might upset your world view.

Isn't it wonderful to know they got you both coming and going?

Not if we don't give you what you so pantingly want, which is for us to assume burdens we haven't agreed to.

You assume those burdens today, and will continue to do use as long as businesses remit taxes to government at all.

Apparently you agree to finance government through your purchases from businesses without even a receipt for what is being extracted from your expenditures and remitted to government in the guise of business income and payroll taxes.

Your life I guess. I would rather know what the butcher's bill actally is myself, so I can try to hold the rascals accountable.

Dissembling will get you nowhere. "I didn't call you a spineless sapsucker, I just said you lack a spine and you suck sap." Yeah, sure.

Observation of what is readily apparent is merely observation. That shoe must be pinching you for all the protest you throw out.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
--Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

You're engaged in attribution of low intelligence and bad motivation to someone who disagrees with you.

When all else fails project and accuse others of you own MO.

You might as well stop dissembling, now.

Indeed you should.

Playing the ostrich will not make taxation go away whether it be explicit as an individual income tax, or implicit as in business income and payroll taxes. Trying to pass taxes on to the other guy behind the tree will not make them go away, in fact experience has shown that such manner of taxation inevitably rises until it so burdens an economy that a nation is driven to stagnation.

Ostriches may be a somewhat successful species by making themselves look like a bush or tree hiding their head in the sand. Unfortunately low flying buzzards roost in trees and sh't all overthem.

I suggest you raise your head up out of the muck and take a good long look at reality. It is in the process of eating you alive.

Let me guess, your definition of spam is any uncomfortable fact or exposure to reality when it might upset your world view.

No, stop guessing. Here is the definition of spam:

br> spam: vt.,vi.,n.
[from Monty Python's Flying Circus]
1. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data. See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack.
2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking “What do you think of abortion?” on soc.women). This is often done with cross-posting (e.g. any message which is cross-posted to alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior; the latter more specific term has become more common.
3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is more specifically called ECP, Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one sure way to infuriate nearly everyone on the Net. See also velveeta and jello.
4. To bombard a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message. This is more specifically called EMP, Excessive Multi-Posting.
5. To mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical email messages, particularly those containing advertising. Especially used when the mail addresses have been culled from network traffic or databases without the consent of the recipients. Synonyms include UCE, UBE. As a noun, ‘spam’ refers to the messages so sent.
6. Any large, annoying, quantity of output. For instance, someone on IRC who walks away from their screen and comes back to find 200 lines of text might say “Oh no, spam”.
The later definitions have become much more prevalent as the Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to most people senses 3 4 and 5 are now primary. All three behaviors are considered abuse of the net, and are almost universally grounds for termination of the originator's email account or network connection. In these senses the term ‘spam’ has gone mainstream, though without its original sense or folkloric freight — there is apparently a widespread myth among lusers that “spamming” is what happens when you dump cans of Spam into a revolving fan. Hormel, the makers of Spam, have published a surprisingly enlightened position statement on the Internet usage.

Source: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/spam.html

In your case, Nos. 4 and 6 apply, and I suspect you of No. 3 as well, but I'm too lazy to prove it, and it just isn't worth the effort. Besides, FR has a TOS about stalking people around the Web just to document their ad homs.

I gather you intend not patronize any businesses then, to avoid being taxed again on your ROTH payments.

No Roth. Conventional IRA, both my original and the R/O accounts.

Interesting, then you haven't paid taxes on income going into your Conventional IRS. I

Do I look stupid?

Wouldn't know, this anything like your picture?

Just as the pay those taxes today in purchasing anything at all by financing the income and payroll taxes that businesses remit to government.

Not to companies they don't patronize.

Irrelavent as one does pay those taxes today through all companies and indirectly their suppliers today from which they do purchase goods or services.

There's a big, fat difference between being contingently billed for it and being legally liable for it in the code.

Really? Under the NRST the seller is legally liable for remitting the tax, just as they are legally liable for remitting federal tax payments today in there business operations all financed by customers purchasing their products. Either case the business acts in proxy for the customer base regardless.

DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation

Besides, it isn't a given that we pay every dollar corporations pay in tax. Sometimes they have to pay it out of their margins -- they take less, and their shareholders take less.

Sure you can tell yourself that if it makes you feel good. Reality is the tax is financed from the consumer dollar whether or not a business cuts there margins to compete or not. No consumer sales to finance business operations and taxes they remit, no business, no tax.

The argument that we always pay it anyway is sucker-bait.

What ever you want to believe. I'm sure Congress Critters are more than willing to agree with your world view.

Stop trying my patience with it.

I don't try patience, I just lay out reality.

I will NOT roll over for it.

Yep, once one has been rolled over by government, guess it pretty hard to unroll.

"a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage."

Alan Keyes 1999

"As a matter of fact, what the income tax does — and this is the debate that I think we always try to get into in order to let you and him fight, see — and the people of this country are led down a path where the actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government."

. . .

"The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system."

"In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation."

- KEYES TRANSCRIPT (01/28/02)

You assume those burdens today, and will continue to do use as long as businesses remit taxes to government at all.

I told y0u about that. Not true.

Observation of what is readily apparent is merely observation.

Ad hominem. See, there you did it again. Your mother wears army shoes.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--John Adams

Trying to pass taxes on to the other guy behind the tree will not make them go away, ....

Sure they do -- if he pays.

Not if you are paying him to do it for you whenever you purchase goods or services from him.

Tax-a-phrenic: Paying $4 interest to a banker to avoid paying $1 tax to the IRS, so the banker can pay the IRS a $1 for you.

Funny you should bring up the subject of making other people pay your taxes. You projecting again?

I am the one who supports a National Retail Sale Tax that collects the tax dollars from me as a customer out right and in the open. Remember? Only person paying taxes, ever, is the individual citizen. In a retail sales tax only system, every citizen is made fully aware of both the fact and the amount that government extracts from him. Just as it should be.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.