And this means what? You're using a trade union for a testimonial? Since when does a trade union have the interests of America at heart? 
Posted on 11/06/2002 1:39:57 PM PST by Tree of Liberty
Neil Cavuto just interviewed Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., the director of the OMB, and Neil let it be known that he's hearing rumblings that Pres. Bush is considering a total re-write of the tax code and that SecTreas O'Neill is strongly pushing a national retail sales tax!
And this means what? You're using a trade union for a testimonial? Since when does a trade union have the interests of America at heart?
Reckon how many have read and analysed the implications in HR2525. Have you read HR2525? (This is the second or third time I've asked this question)
But, you see, the statement about the poor not having to pay tax oin necessities was framed as "The poor won't have to pay NRST on necessities, which communicates that they at the point of purchase will pay a lower amount than the others standing in line. This is a attempt to mislead.
An up front and honest statemetn would have been, "The poor can fill out a government form projecting what they will spend on necessities next month amd receive a government check for that amount, if the organization which processes those forms think that projection is with in reasonal limits, and receive that check in time to use it for the month projected.
Do you see the difference? The statement "The poor won't have to pay NRST on necessities" amounts to a lie. And things like this is what advocates will use to convince America to exact an NRST. If a program has to be advertised using deception, what does that say about the program?
BTW, why are you so nasty? What's your problem?
You've been on this forum a whole four months longer than my four years here. Not to mention I've read many of the tax threads.
Then you know I've read and analyzed the NRST HR2525. Why do you ask me if I know it?
Yes. And I comprehend it better than you as noted below.
All right then, if you have read and understood it, answer this question. If the NRST collections at a certain percentage didn't maintain the set (the current level at the initial implimentation of HR 2525) level of social security, what, by law would have to happen?
I don't understand the relevance of your next statement in this post.
I written and implimented many payrolls in my times as a consultant. Everything is automated. Payroll clerks either have a number of other jobs, or they come in only a couple days a week.
So you claim.
What costs, related directly or indirectly to taking and reporting income taxes, that would raise each individual item off production line any noticable amount?
Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $1,000 billion additional dollars are added on onto consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
Not even counting the taxes FICA & business income tax paid as well.
see also: (Payne '97, Pilla '95, AGCCA 2000, Williams 2000)
WRONG William! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
Goods you buy to be used in the PRODUCTION of products for retail sale are NOT TAXED under H.R.2525 William! Only goods and services sold to the final consumer ARE TAXED William!
The prouducts you purchase to be used in the production of the items you sell AT RETAIL will be cheaper than ever because they will no longer contain the hidden upstream tax and compliance cost component they currently do contain!
If, as I understand what you have told us about your business, you do not sell at retail but wholesale only this would be a HUGE boon to your bottom line William!
But, have you read and understood HR2525? I dont' believeyou've declared that. I may have missed it, if so give me a link, I have questions to probe your understanding of it.
I didn't use his numbers to make a point. I don't have to,
Right.
I have written and implimented too many payrolls for small and large businesses. (Detailed in another post to you).
One may claim anything as an faceless individual on the net. Which is why I chose to relie on the studies of those who are well known and have a verifiable reputation in the field. Your self serving anectdotals are valueless.
Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $1,000 billion additional dollars are added on onto consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
Your charts and graphs mean nothing to me.
Obviously, but then the charts and graphs aren't really meant for you. They are meant for those who read these threads and take the time to investigate beyond the rhetoric of the demogogue.
If they are meaningful, provide the clear and concise explanation of how they relate to the topic at hand.
You are incapable of inference and understanding charts and studies yourself? But why do I bother to ask that? for the answer is obvious from your display of ignorance and lack of scholarship through out this thread.
A M E N ! ! !
That is EXACTLY what H.R. 2525 seeks to do! PLEASE read it!
No, items under the nrst if bought for business purposes will be 20-30% CHEAPER, Will.
Prices of items bought for consumption will be about the same.
Do you read?
Damned right I have William but it is PATENTLY obvious to all that YOU have not!
Fool.
LOL! Since you seem to LIKE that term, why not join us here at ScraptheCode.com!
but the items I used to buy are 30% higher.
The error in your analysis is that you pretend all business is encompassed by your self serving claims. The exceptions to what you claim are profuse, glaring and evident:
Tax Analysts Document Number: Doc 1999-32575 (25 original pages)
|
[37] ... Proponents of an income tax ignore the basic economic fact the taxes we impose on the business sector are somehow also ultimately paid by humanity. What happens to upstream payroll, self-employment, and corporate taxes and why are these business taxes different from a VAT? [38] While the relative ratio of how much is pulled back or pushed forward depends on market forces, it is a safe assumption that some business taxes find their way into goods and services purchased by consumers.
[39] Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of Harvard University's Economics Department, believes that the price of goods and services are inflated by about 20 percent or more by upstream taxes consumers ultimately bear. In a recent paper Dr. Jorgenson estimated the built-in taxes contained in the price of goods and services. /22/ In the chart above, he quantified the hidden component of tax, estimating that producer prices would fall on repeal of upstream taxes an average of about 22 percent. |
Prices of tens of hundreds of thousands of items all contain a portion dedicated to paying the costs of the income tax, which come to 20-30% depending on industry/product. See numerous links on thread if you like.
Just like any other cost, tax costs must be paid for. Hence monies must be collected to pay those costs. The monies are collected by making prices higher, among other things.
If you want links to studies backing this assertion, look on the thread. But as you've said you refused to look at them and wanted something strightforward- there you go.
Remember that you should look at the facts before making more ignorant statements.
Sure there is, if you want the bite of a 30% (or higher) NRST reduced you fill out governemnt forms.
My analysis of Chapter 3, section 301.
The rebate may be claimed by sending a form to the government (IRS) consisting the names of the members, their social security numbers, the family member the check will be made out to, certification of citizenship for each member, certification of completeness of list of members, certification that no member were incarcerated as of date and the address, signed under penalties of perjury by all of-age members. Filing for a rebate is not necessary, unless you want the rebate.
For filing a false rebate form you face criminal indictment. For a mistaken or wrong rebate form you face civil penalties. These are covered by Section 505.
Notice the last paragraph. What kind of organization would be necessary to do this?
Like the forms retail businesses must send in, it will be sone monthly. If it is done yearly, how will that help?
No IRS?
My analysis of Chapter 4, section 401.
States who have a sales tax and sign an agreement with the feds will collect and remit the government's position, other wise a federal agency will do it directly (Section 404), as it will if the state breaches the agreement in a number of ways. See the section itself for details.
Further analysis of Chapter 3, section 301.
Each family, living in the same residence, composed of individual, spouses, and other direct relatives who have social security numbers, and are citizens can claim a rebate on taxes paid for a month (Section 302 and 305) of the current tax rate x the poverty rate (Section 303) determined by the Department of Health and Human Services. Section 302, 303 and 305 are complex with many inclusions and exceptions requiring administration and oversight.
What kind of organization will be needed to administrate the process?
If you have a problem with my analysis, post specifically where I read the actual wording of the bill wrong and how it is wrong.
"Right now, I sell and item for "X", which amount "Y" I keep after distributing cost of material and expenses. The amount "Y" I have to spend and can buy things every month. Under an NRST, if I sell the item for the same amount, I keep the same amount of money after expenses and costs, but the items I used to buy are 30% higher. "
The error is that items you buy for your business will actually be 20-30% CHEAPER. They'll have no tax component inflating their price. You'll be able to buy supplies for your business for 20-30% less.
Big time ignorance on your part Wil
=================== BTW, since you will be mfging your stuff at a cost that is 20-30% below what it costs today, you could lower your price and increase your market share..... hmmmmm...
And this means what? You're using a trade union for a testimonial? Since when does a trade union have the interests of America at heart?
GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY! WHAT are we to do with someone who can't tell the difference between an association of independent businessmen and a TRADE UNION but CLAIMS tax expertise???
SHEEECCCCCHHHHHHHH!!!!
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.
