Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
They want you to compile and file monthly tax returns! You think the IRS takes a lot of your time -- you ain't seen nothing until you look at what the NRST people want you to do.
Right, just like a state retail sale tax, requires every citizen in the country file sales tax returns LOL.
Sorry to disappoint you, only retailer vendors are required to file and remit the NRST to their state tax administrators right along with their state sales tax collections.
Nice try at demagoguery though.
And, you might want to use something other than a temporary hyperlink to the text of the legislation on the Thomas website though.
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES
TITLE II--SALES TAX ENACTED
TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS
|
Campaign finance laws are there to protect the imcumbents. It doesn't matter if it's harder or not, as long as it's harder for the challenger than the incumbent, the politicians will always be for it. If you think they are for repeal, then they've succeeded in fooling you.
"Change the Congressional Budget Process - it's broke."
Change Congress - Congress is what is broke...
Change the Congressional Budget Process - it's broke.
They have, its still broke.
Ersatz Congressional Budgeting
Paygo rule leads to government growth.
Jack Kemp; CSE, June 14, 2004
http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=1899
Seems there is a lack of interest on the part of voters who don't pay income taxes for cutting spending.
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?
--- Walter Williams
Too many folks getting taken off the tax rolls.
Bush touts relief as tax day looms
Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.
That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, expecting someone else to foot the bill.
If there are two similar products and one is priced lower, the lower priced model will outsell the more expensive model. Further, if two similar items are priced similarly and then one of them lowers price, the lower priced item will increase its market share. Duh.
That fact is irrelevent to the issue of my post to expatpat, which was that he is holding me to a higher standard than he is holding you to.
If there are two similar products and one is priced lower, the lower priced model will outsell the more expensive model. Further, if two similar items are priced similarly and then one of them lowers price, the lower priced item will increase its market share.They could race each other to the bottom and both go broke or they could put similar prices (the market price) on their similar products and both make a decent profit.
The bill is easily searchable.
The monthly report is done only by retail businesses. The report consists of total gross sales and a check for 23% of it. ANd the business is compensated for doing the report and remitting the tax...1/4%.
There is no reporting by individuals - only retail business. That cuts the number of filers by 85% or so, aiding in compliance. Further aiding compliance is that 80% of all retail transactions go through just 20% of retailer.
Tax cheating will be no worse under the nrst than now - and there is reason to believe compliance will improve; the tax is simple, fair, difficult to avoid, and carries stiff penalties.
1. We are talking of yachts, not homes. 2. If a tax suddenly appears, it is a different case than if a tax is replaced by another. Not an apples to apples comparison. The premise of this thread is why the NRST is bad, but discussions of the NRST presume that it replaces the income tax. Instead, an example was cited in which a new sales tax was imposed, without any other tax relief.
If I finance a new home for $200,000 + 30% tax = $260,000 then sell it 2 yrs later without collecting my tax paid how is that "instead of" my income tax exactly?
One has nothing to do with the other. If the sales tax is in place, presumably you won't have to pay any income tax. Not because you sold a house, but because Congress, in enacting the NRST, revoked the income tax.
If the equation did not allow for increases or decreases in wages, you'd complain about the formula. As is, you assert that the formula permitting the wage to change must mean that wages fall.
Talk about misleading.
I wasn't, actually. My post was aimed at Principled, who is unprincipled about name-calling, and lewislynn, and others who do it, more than you. I used your post to finally express my frustration and dislike. You were not one of the worst offenders.
Do you seriously expect a teenager mowing lawns in the summer for spending money to file all the proper paperwork and remit the NRST? Who's going to enforce that? Talk about an intrusive taxman!
LOL, once again you fail to read the bill and just to bloviate instead.
There is a deminimus dollar amount of sales that one must meet to be a certified business required to collect and remit taxes under the HR25. Sorry, that teenager mowing laws in the summer for mere spending money has no requirement to collect report or remit the NRST to government. Mp>Guess what, because that teenager is not a certified business required to do all that, he pays the NRST on his lawn mower when he purchases it retail instead. Just like every one else.
Exactly. But Principled is too busy uttering "Duh" to understand, even after it has been pointed out multiple times.
I see - you were shooting for someone else and hit me. If there's a higher standard that one should strive to attain in a reasoned debate, avoiding the aforementioned might be a good start.
If the equation did not allow for increases or decreases in wages, you'd complain about the formula. As is, you assert that the formula permitting the wage to change must mean that wages fall.In the Jorgenson/Wilcoxen model, the price of labor goes down as the marginal tax rate on labor income goes down. So eliminating the income tax (reducing the marginal tax rate on labor income to zero) in favor of a NRST causes the price of labor to go down in the model.
Talk about misleading.
The drive is to maximize profits, not keep them from growing.
The drive is to maximize profits, not keep them from growing.
The drive is to maximize profits, not keep them from growing.Exactly. That's why both businesses do better by avoiding a price war then they would by continually undercutting the competitors. You really should read up on game theory. Pricing is not as simplistic as you pretend.
I can hear it in the board room, "Let's keep profits from growing... after all, an income tax fanatic kool aid drinker named your nightmare says it's better that way".
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.