Why so nasty?
It's not "nasty" to point out that someone is clueless about the topic they're discussing. "Clueless" is a nice thing to say about someone who says they've read and understood hr2525 but doesn't even know that necessities are untaxed and doesn't even know that business ot business transx are not taxed.
So what, my 30 years of experience of payroll system says that companies spend a tiny amount collecting and sending taxes to the fed.
So your 30 years of experience has not been at the ownership level- or near it. You simply gloss over the fact that fica taxes and an employer's accompanying "contribution" cost a LOT by saying "it doesn't cost that much to collect and send them in". Good grief, did you forget the cost of the tax itself?!
You don't have very much experience with the inner working of companies, large and small, do you?
LOL. Nice try. You "forgot" about the cost of tax itself. Yeah, you're a real experienced, talented consultant. Had trouble finding work lately?
Ohmigosh you forgot income taxes paid by your company. Ohmigosh you forgot that your investors will have a reduced ROI based on the expense of those taxes.
Ohmigosh you don't know what you're doing. I hope whoever you work for gives you CLEAR instructions.
5) under an nrst, your co will not have to collect or remit ANY tax (you've claimed you sell to retailers, not to the final consumer)...so there is no tax at all related to anything your company does!!! "You wouldn't be affected" huh?
I don't now. I use legitimate contractors. That's right there's no tax to speak of to be relieved of,...
Yes there is tax to be relieved of! Your contractors will not have to pay income, payroll, or any taxes - hence they can lower prices to you. Also, anyone your contractor buys from will be relieved of any and all federal tax obligations also.
...so I would have to raise prices so that I would make enough money to buy the things I'm used to buying at a 30%+ increase in everything.
Again, your fundamental position is wrong. Prices for your business purchases will decrease, not increase.
I don't doubt that taxes that companies actually pay are passed on to the consumer. But my experience as a consultant argues against it being a significant amount.
And I would believe you, an income tax lover, over the vast universe of existing data compiled by verifiable experts why???? Further, you have shown to be quite ignorant on the bill itself, asserting that it is regressive (it's obviously not) and asserting that business purchases are tax (they're not). These two "mistakes" are so fundamental that you either really have no idea about the bill or you're lying. Either way, I don't trust your posts.
Your economists have their heads up their asses.
Perhaps you haven't had the vast experience with smaller businesses? Maybe take a look at a few of the small business organizations that endorse the nrst like say, oh, NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS UNITED. Or do they not know as much as you... "have their heads up their arses" as you put it?
Tell me, why don't you want to eliminate the income tax, and replace it with nothing?
I never said this wasn't the case. However, try getting a Congressman to submit such a bill.
You claim to be have read and understood the bill. But you don't know it from your arse. You thought the nrst was regressive - it's not... see the info on thread. The poorer you are, the less tax you pay; and folks below the poverty line have negative tax rates. How could you say you've read the bill but not know this Will???
You continue to post that your business purchases will be taxed under the nrst- they won't be. How on earth you could be on these thread for more than 10 minutes and think that is beyond me. I can only deduce that it is purposefully misstating.
You also claim 30 years exp. in consulting in tax related areas. That's funny. You may have been an employee for 30 years, but you don't get the big picture of taxation and business.
Yes, I want to eliminate socialist policies, that's precisely why I advocate the nrst. The fact that this bill would put an immediate stop to socialist polices is exactly the reason liberal dems oppose the nrst so vehemently.
You also claim 30 years exp. in consulting in tax related areas. That's funny. You may have been an employee for 30 years, but you don't get the big picture of taxation and business.
He claims to be a "Tax Consultant" , while he indicates others here on FR need not pay their income and payroll taxes using the 861 TP argument and such clap trap. LOL.
You know like in Thurston Bell's organisation, you can pay him several thousand dollars and call your self a consultant, charge hundereds of dollars an hour, hyping Bell's Americans aren't required to pay income taxes line of the 861, subChapter 'N bovine excretement and similar such clap trap getting folks into deep trouble.
Like one of Bell's protoge's who failed to remit FICA for his employees and then keeps it for himself instead and not informing them or giving them therr full paycheck so they can submitt FICA on their own as independant contractors.
Real nice bunch of guys these are.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that state citizens are exempt from income tax.
KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
A good article published in The New American to read and consider:
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm