In response to your
746 and
747:
It is dually noted that injected by you in your post 747 is the first time the issue of whether the poor would be exempt from paying the NRST under HR2525 has been raised in our back-and-forth posts. Who are you trying to "fool"?
You weren't fooled? Really? If there is a provision in HR2525 that exempts the poor from paying the NRST, it would be a new addition. Would you care to post it, in case Principled fails to? You did see me ask him, didn't you? You didn't mention it.
There's no provision to exempt the poor -- they simply get a "rebate" (prebate) check each month that covers the nrst they pay. It's obvious you're putting forth another straw man argument. Else wise, you thought there was a provision in HR2525 that exempts the poor from paying the NRST in which case you've again demonstrated your ignorance. IMO, it's your intent to deceive, not mere ignorance.
Response to post 746:
We had a fun time in those days. You're a Johnny-come-lately.746
Wow, aren't you special -- NOT! 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.
Have you even read HR2525, much less studied it?746
Yes. And I comprehend it better than you as noted below.
To: Principled; William TerrellWT, netiquette flag.
William Terrell: When I explained the structure of the NRST, all by one were horrified. 721
That is likely due in large part to your ignorance of the bill and your love of the income tax.
He can't even get it right on this forum where there's a ton of supporting information so as to help him not get it wrong on this thread. He is either ignorant of important points or he chose to deceive the reader. Knowing that to include a key point would refute one of his deceptions. You identified that in your last response as shown below:
William Terrell: ...have larger than average incomes, exactly the ones that can tolerate a sales tax and still be able to buy most of what they have in the past 717
Principled: Oops, Will. You forgot that poor folks have negative or zero tax rates under nrst. Who you tryin' to fool? 719
He didn't fool me. I was on to him from the get go. Thus the reason for my first post to him: "To all readers, a simple response is all that is needed. Read the Americans for Fair Tax at fairtax.org."
I hazard to guess his vested interest in the present tax system -- tax accountant? tax lawyer? bureaucrat? sells tax avoidance information? He claims to have talked to a lot of people about the NRST and "all by [sic] one were horrified". How many of them have yet to understand that the reason they were likely horrified was not because of the NRST but rather, because of William Terrell's ignorance or intent to deceive them. Oh well, it's not my or your credibility on the line.
727 posted on 11/08/2002 1:02 PM EST by Zon
they simply get a "rebate" (prebate) check each month that covers the nrst they pay. It's obvious you're putting forth another straw man argument. Else wise, you thought there was a provision in HR2525 that exempts the poor from paying the NRST in which case you've again demonstrated your ignorance. IMO, it's your intent to deceive, not mere ignorance. 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.
You've posted this before and I've already answered all these questions and statements. Check my prior posts to you, Bigun and Principled. You all seem to cross post the same thing.
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.