Also the article talks of levying a payroll tax on government workers in the discussion of this issue. That does not appear to be in the bill.
Also the article talks of levying a payroll tax on government workers in the discussion of this issue. That does not appear to be in the bill.
All I can find is that the income/payroll tax system & flat taxes levy taxes on government worker's wages & salaries.
Therefore government workers cannot be exempted from a sales tax or the SS/Medicare portion of the tax, merely because their income comes from the government.
Therefore everyone, government employee and private sector alike, are required to pay the sales tax which obviously must ultimately come from income once it is spent.
What they describe as gross purchases (a separate item from consumption) seems to best be approximated by the investment outlays entries. Otherwise, I can't tell exactly where they got their numbers.
Only thing I know, is that investment properties under the NRST are not taxed, and investment properties are defined as those pertaining to the generation of income. "Capital" outlay's by the government, at least those not for the purpose of generating income, may very well have NRST collected on them by contractors and service providers when work for the government is being done. Most government buildings are not for the purpose of generating income to the government, and one agency that clearly is, the IRS, is abolished by the NRST.
Services to the government are taxed and collected by service providers, if the service happens to be the construction of a government building such looks like it may very well be taxable under the NRST. There does not seem to be any exception in the definitions to prevent that. Nor logically should it be if the goal is revenue neutrality and trying to assure that all sectors are taxed in a uniform manner under a single stage tax system which a "Retail" tax is.
Remember the goal of revenue neutrality is a legal requirement inorder to get he bill enacted. It does not allow for much wiggle room unless one is able to demonstrate a clear budget reduction allowing an overall reduction in tax rate. The rate on retail (i.e. consumption) purchases is uniform as regards all persons and should not be change for one person (natural, governmental, or corporate) over another where those same are taxed today via their consumption/capital as opposed to investment purchases.
PAYGO RULES: CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
House: auto sequestration if Receipts or Appropriations legislation in deficit increase,
House Point of order waivable by unanimous consent
Senate Point of order waivable by 3/5ths vote.
May be waived under Sequestration Rules on declaration of War or
conditions of <1% real economic growth for 2qtrs."Most Budget Act waiver motions require a three-fifths vote of Senators, although most three-fifths requirements will expire in 2002."
Sequestration Process:CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909" PAYGO rules require that an increase in direct spending or a decrease in revenues must be offset by an equal amount of spending reductions, revenue increases, or a combination of the two so that the budgetary effect of new legislation is not projected to increase the deficit, or reduce the surplus, for any fiscal year through FY2006."
Personally I would not put a whole lot effort into trying to wring out the last dollar of accuracy in the revenue neutrality argument. Time is likely to see the whole issue go away to be replaced by more overriding concerns like personal liberty and family financial privacy.