Posted on 08/11/2005 7:27:51 AM PDT by GPBurdell
Thanks. I was hoping one of you guys would show up.
I have just been assured I was correct about the rent.
They get elected appeasing the voters. You are seeing the result.
That is why we must become strong enough to be the ones they must appease.
One thing I find puzzling is that section eight in Article one list all the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution including entering into treaties with foreign powers, coining money, laying and collect taxes etc...
Taxation is an original power to the states and they are only prohibited from levying interstate duties and international tariffs under the Constitution.
The prohibition of a thing implies remainder powers under common law construction of Constitutions and legislation used in the founder's era. This is especially true as the states had the plenary power to tax prior to the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation, only specific tax modes were expressly prohibited to them in the text of Constitution.
It is to be noted that the writings of the founders in the Federalist and debate during the constitutional convention, maintained the federal power to tax was a concurrent one with the states rather than a exclusive power prohibiting the states or the feds from taxing the same objects as the other.
That is why, for example states can lay excises as well as income taxes the same as the federal government does today.
- ``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.
The Courts really do sometime pay attention to the intent of the founders, sometimes anyway.
I don't understand why the old car wouldn't be taxed.
The tax has already been paid. "USED" by definition in the legislation = federal tax previously paid on item.
Are you sure a consumption tax only applies on retail transactions?
The legislation expressly exempts tax on purchases by businesses for business use.
If so, why would a tenant pay the tax, or a landlord either (for that matter)?
The tenant pays the tax on his rent because the tenant is the final consumer of the use of the property.
The landlord does not pay the tax, he collects it from the tenant and remits to the state sales tax authority, since the property is a business property held for legitimate business purpose collect tax on sale of product, as opposed to personal use and consumption when one pays tax with the purchase of product.
For example, if a business takes "used" personal or residential property on which prior tax has been paid and converts it to use in the business, the busines receives a business conversion credit for the prior tax as the product is incorporated & sold, or rented out profit in the conduct of that businesses commercial activity.
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.