[ancient_geezer]

A tax on all sales is simply not Constitutional. The Federalist Papers show that.

Strange, I can't seem to find that either in the Constitution, or in the Federalist Papers.

Could you provide us with a reference, and quotation of such?

[agitator]

[Taxes] prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed--that is an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that “in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.” If duties are too high they lessen the consumption--the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. - Hamilton, Federalist #21.

This was the thinking vis-a-vis all excises as well as duties. A tax on whiskey - a single item,  is one thing. It is self regulating. A tax on everything is something else. A tax on a single commodity can be avoided, a uniform tax on everything (like an NRST) cannot be avoided and therefore provides no negative feedback loop - a concept the founders understood.

I have nothing further to say on the subject so feel free to break out your Taxprotester's Hall of Fame sheet now. I won't be back. Bye.

[lewislynn]

Strange, I can't seem to find that either in the Constitution, or in the Federalist Papers.

Could you provide us with a reference, and quotation of such?

Try this one:

from HR2525:

`SEC. 703. GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.

`(a) GOVERNMENT PURCHASES-

`(1) PURCHASES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT- Purchases by the Federal Government of taxable property and services shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 101.

Then this from:Wisconson Dept. of Revenue:

Sales of goods and services to the federal government or to any of its incorporated or unincorporated agencies or instrumentalities are exempt from the sales tax. Taxing purchases by the federal government would violate the U.S. Constitution, so the fiscal effect of this exemption has not been estimated.