what they fail to disclose is government employees pay taxes out of their pay
These are wages/salaries paid by the government for contracted taxable services instead of having the service provider collecting an NRST from the government then turn around and remitt it right back lewislynn.
Again you overlook the very explicitly stated intent of the bill and rules for interpretation. To tax once but only once lewislynn.
`(a) IN GENERAL- Any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider the purposes of this subtitle (as set forth in subsection (b)) as the primary aid in statutory construction.
`(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this subtitle are as follows:
`(1) To raise revenue needed by the Federal Government in a manner consistent with the other purposes of this subtitle.
`(2) To tax all consumption of goods and services in the United States once, without exception, but only once.
`(3) To prevent double, multiple, or cascading taxation.
`(4) To simplify the tax law and reduce the administration costs of, and the costs of compliance with, the tax law.
Normal wages of normal employees are not taxed by the government lewislynn only in those special cases such as those of a taxable service provider that would normally collect the NRST from the government for remittence to the government does the government remitt the tax on behalf of the taxable service provider as part of its contract.
You would have known this if you had bothered to read and include the full section you extracted from lewislynn:
`(a) LIABILITY FOR COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF THE TAX- Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).
`(b) TAX TO BE REMITTED BY PURCHASER IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of taxable property or services purchased outside of the United States and imported into the United States for use or consumption in the United States, the purchaser shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.
`(2) CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.
Don't take my word for it, it's better explained in Emancipating America from The Income Tax.
Government Services and PurchasesThe question of the proper tax treatment of government services--such as municipal garbage collection, utilities, visits to national parks, and rides on Amtrak--presents special problems. [56] To the fullest extent possible, a national sales tax should provide parity between government services and private services. Excluding commercial activities of the government from the tax base would provide a tax advantage when government is competing with private providers of services. Hence, when the government sells a good or service, such as public transit or publications, the sales tax should be imposed on the sale price. [57]
The complication is that most government goods and services are not sold in the marketplace. They are often given away and in many cases no market price exists for the services in question. Moreover, the recipients or beneficiaries of the services are unclear or unknown. For example, how would we allocate the benefits conferred on the public by national defense, the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, National Public Radio, or the White House?
Taxing this part of the economy is not as administratively simple under a sales tax as it is under an income tax. Government services are taxed by both the current graduated income tax and the flat tax--through the income tax imposed on government workers' wages and salaries (i.e., most of government value added). One conceivable way to tax government fully and equally under the NST system would be to impose a separate excise tax on government wages. That is the approach we have adopted in this study. [58]
The complication is that most government goods and services are not sold in the marketplace. They are often given away
Given away?....that shows what he thinks of the confiscation of our money to the government.
BTW, it's interesting they noted NPR as a government service in the same breath as the powerhouse agency's "national defense, the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the White House?"....All supported by taxpayers only to be taxed once again under your fraud...but of course before a sales tax is imposed those "services" are just "given away" aren't they?
Want another?
The most popular was the one introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER). He is touting this as a national sales tax, and the rate he pegged within the committee was 23 percent. Upon questioning, we found out that it is not 23 percent, it was almost 30 percent, on every good and service produced in this country, prescription drugs, funeral services, everything. We talked to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a scientific committee, to give us expertise. They said that national sales tax, to be revenue neutral, would have to be a 59 percent rate. Is that what you are going to replace the current code with?Interesting, I asked the gentleman a question. I said, Mr. LINDER, would the national sales tax apply to wages for municipal employees? He said, Oh, no, [Page: H2274] GPO's PDF no, no, no. Then one of his staff persons poked him on the back and said, it is in the bill.
It is in the bill. So the authors do not even know what their proposal is. As the questioning developed, your municipality would have to pay the Federal Government 30 percent of their municipal wage base, because it is a service. And where would your municipalities get the money from? They would radically increase the property tax. In the City of Milwaukee, that would be a very, very bad mistake, because property taxes are relatively high.
Sorry...You are wrong again as usual. "Any government" wages salary and benefits would be subject to your phony sales tax...and this further illustrates how mislesding your use of "sales tax" is.
It is in the bill. So the authors (and you) do not even know what their proposal is.
To suggest that government "services" like national defense or the White House or any other's for that matter would be funded by a sales tax only to be taxed once again as a "service" is nothing short of fraud, not to mention the HUGE increase in the cost of government.
Your plan starts with a lie in it's "sales tax" title, then continues the lie with the rate, then YOU have to lie because it can't stand on it's own merits.
Simply put, your plan sucks.