THE NATIONAL SALES TAX HOAX

uhuh.com ^ | John William Kurowski

[balrog666]

Bravo! You've come a long way in a short while. Keep it up!

[nanny]

Bravo! You've come a long way in a short while. Keep it up!

Are you just joshin' me?

[rolling_stone]

First off to reply to your concern that the NRST doe not return more money to the consumer, I believe it doees by making tax collection more efficient.

I disagree, the businesses are already under a 30% tax but it is disguised. Same revenue is collected, some from business some from individuals but more waste with the present system. If businesses paid all the taxes, it would be reflected in the prices, if individuals pay all the taxes, they will have less money to pay for goods and services. As someone once explained to me, imagine there is only $18 in the world, it goes from producer to consumer, with cuts along the way for everyone, including the government. Then from consumer to producer. The more efficient the process, the more each step along the way gets to keep. Less waste means more you, me and the government gets to keep(at least you and me, the govt can keep the same). There is competition from other countries for the $18, and those that are more efficient or competitive, by means of technology, lower wage rates, lower taxes, get a better chance at that $18. I would like to see the USA have a fair chance at the international markets and a better chance at competing against lower wages by having lower or no taxes on exports. Eventually that money would find its way back to the USA (and taxed) via the companies profits and salaries to their employees which are eventually spent on consumption. Without those international sales there will be less money made and subsequentally consumed in the USA. More consumption in the USA means more jobs and profits here (and more NRST taxes paid).......

If I could I would make a pie chart showing current situation (considering evasion to be equal in both but IMO it it will be less in NRST)

1. Total revenue example 10

2. Total tax example 3

3. Cost of complying and collecting tax example 4

4. Total income to consumers & businesses after all taxes example 3

Then a chart showing proposed..

1. Total Revenue example 10

2. total tax example 3

3.Cost of complying and collecting tax example 2

4. Total income to consumers & businesses after all taxes example 5

If the cost of compliance is reduced, then the amount of revenue for the government can remain the same and the amount of income to the consumers & businesses can rise directly equal to the savings in compliance & collection costs. This increased efficiency alone would make our country more competitive against others with more burdensome tax systems like the EU VAT etc Our consumers would have more money to spend and save making the country stronger....Imagine making dinner for 4 where you waste 30% of the food in making it. Then come up with a way to only waste 10% of the food, saving 20% from waste you would then be able to make a dinner for 5 plus some with the same amount of food you started with, the only loser being the garbage...you still buy the same amount of food from your grocer but use it more efficiently..(please don't tell me the scraps go to the hogs who become dinner later, that doesn't work well in our govt, I know many hogs are in Congress...that will make the example more long and drawnout)....

[PhilWill]

"And a NRST won't change that, so why bring up such a strawman in the first place?"

The NRST is not intended to completely move the federal government back to its constitutional limits, although it is an incremental step in that direction.

The NRST is about providing a simpler, fairer, more efficient mechanism for the federal government to raise its revenues. In so doing, it will save billions of dollars per year in compliance costs, provide far more economic stimulus than the tax cuts we hear being so fiercely debated in Washington, and would constitute quite possibly the biggest transfer of power back to the people in the history of the republic.

For many of us, that is enough to merit our support.

[PhilWill]

"As a manufacturer, I know that my costs will change less than 2% from the NRST, so no change will occur in my prices and yet, at the same time, the cost to my customers will go up 23% due to the NRST."

You must be at the bottom of the food chain, then. If you are a manufacturer selling to end users, you have a LOT more cost of the current system imbedded in your final product than 2%. You have to understand how these costs cascade throughout the system.

[PhilWill]

"Amongst many other benefits, this is a chief one--one that is likely to go a long, long ways towards ending the days of trade deficits. I believe with all my heart this is the first step to revitalizing our manufacturing base."

Right on, EV. That is a HUGE advantage of the FairTax, and one that the flat tax can't match. However, don't forget our other distressed economic sector that would be helped - agriculture.

[PhilWill]

"So, you are saying that all the tax now paid by corporations will be shifted onto the backs of citizens?"

Eskimo, you missed the point entirely. Corporate income taxes already ARE on the backs of citizens!!

[ancient_geezer]

First, why are these the only two options -

why not a national sales tax at a much lower rate and all participate.

The NRST is set for a revenue neutral tax with the broadest participation, where all persons spending consumption dollars in goods and service sectors in the United States participate.

Revenue neutrality, meaning capacity to generate the same revenue into the Treasury as the tax law it replaces (i.e. all federal income, payroll, and gift/estate taxes; individual and business)

Revenue neutrality is required by the Budget Enforcement Act, without revenue neutrality, the must be no challenge to the proposed legislation questioning revenue neutrality as measured by CBO.

The other options are merely the the alternative indirect tax systems that can be implemented that are broad enough to meet the revenue neutrality reqirement of law.

Now there is just no way the 'starving babies- elderly in the streets' scenario should even be mentioned. I know it would be by the democrats - but certainly not by a Republican or a conservative - not necessarily the same animals these days.

You answer your own question, it just takes one Congress Critter's challenge to enforce the revenue neutrality mandated under the Budget Enforcement Act.

First I have to know who you think will be deprived of their very survival if an across the board tax is instituted.

The NRST is a cross the board tax. Your question is irrelavent and not germane. Everyone pays the same tax rate at the retail cash register for all goods and services purchased. Every legal resident requesting it recieves the same amount of FCA.

We don't starve people in this country - the spector just gets resurrected often for political gain.

The remark is totally irrelevant.

[PhilWill]

"I'm also thinking, maybe I tell the manager that I'll give him $800 for that "used" TV (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and Uncle Sam don't need to know."

How many stores that sell appliances have used inventory? Having been through both sales and income tax audits, I can tell you that sales tax audits are trivial, compared to income tax audits. The kind of collusion you are envisioning (if it were material in scale) would stick out like a sore thumb in any reasonably competent audit.

[ancient_geezer]

Wow!! I am misinformed - I thought this was supposed to release more dollars to the consumer and spur economic growth.

Dollars expended on tax compliances costs that occur under the income/payroll tax system (about 65 cents for every dollar paid into the U.S. Treasury), are released for more productive uses than tax litigation, accounting, and planning. That (on the order of $1 Trillion in the present economy) is what becomes available to spur economic growth through redirection of funds from unproductive activities to productive use.

There are no more total dollars in the economic system after the NRST than before it, which is how it should be to avoid inflationary pressures that would induce the price increases you say you fear so much.

Now to go one further on your x amounts of dollars chasing goods - many times prices have gone up on everything and Americans have had to make the choice of buying necessities or luxuries. In that case, luxuries might get cheaper - to those that can afford it - but necessitities will trump the day for many.

That is just one of many justifications for the FCA,

1) to assure those who would otherwise not have choice in what to expend their earnings on do.

2) The FCA lowers tax burden on all individuals yet does not violate revenue neutrality requirements of the BEA, removing that barrier to net tax reduction the the individual and still maintain constant revenue paid into the Treasure as current law.

3) The philosophical one of not taxing the resources necessary to maintenance of life.

for a partial but interesting list.

I have proposed a better plan and a fairer plan and a plan that is totally non-intrusive - but you have dismissed that out of hand as politically incorrect or unfeasible.

Politically incorrect has no meaning. Political viability under the revenue neutrality requirements of the Budget Enforcement Act ensure that your plan (10% NRST replacing all federall income and payroll taxes) will never see the light of day.

They already have my shirt - now they are after my independence.

You have neither under the current income payroll tax system not will have either under proposed flat tax and VATs. The only increase in a measure of independence will come from being free of legal requirements to account for and report family income to the government available under the NRST.

I am just asking that you take a step back and look at it in terms of future generations - and see if you are not just trading one evil for an even worse evil.

The "worse evil" is to retain any system invading household financial privacy. The NRST in the form proposed removes legal requirements of household reporting of total income to the government, and provides total visibility of the tax burdens of the federal government to all citizens. Those are substantive advances in my book.

I fail to see your "even worse evil" over the current system which demands databasing resident addresses, enforced dependance on government paychecks and operative legal jeopardy as regards all household financial privacy.

It is half-a-loaf or maybe in your eyes 3/4-a-loaf - but is the loaf that is left palatable. For me, it isn't.

You are certainly welcome to try to enact your own vision of Utopia, and fail for lack of political viability and failing legal requirements of revenue bill introductions.

Good luck, getting over the hurdles in your way, to fail is to keep the current system and potentially worse when they convert business taxes into a full blown EU VAT where you lose the whole war and not just another battle.

Read and know what is coming if we are not successful in repealing individual and business income taxes with a viable NRST:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/foundationmessage03-00.html

"Under the WTO definition of the term, a sales tax is an indirect tax, as is an European-style VAT. The economic equivalence of an European-style VAT and a subtraction-method VAT is well-established. A subtraction-method VAT is essentially identical to a business income tax except that all purchases of plant and equipment may be expensed, rather than depreciated as under current U.S. law."

They working on it now, with direct implementation on the current tax structure, as well as with the Forbes/Armey/Specter Flat Tax proposals:

---

None other than the father of the flat tax, Robert Hall of Stanford University (along with Alvin Rabushka), in his 1995 Ways and Means Committee testimony said, "The Hall-Rabushka flat tax is a value-added tax."

Which was pointed out again in additional hearings in April of 2000:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm

"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"

"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."

The Flat Tax; Chapter 3, by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka

In our system, all income is classified as either business income or wages (including salaries and retirement benefits). The system is airtight. Taxes on both types of income are equal. The wage tax has features to make the overall system progressive. Both taxes have postcard forms. The low tax rate of 19 percent is enough to match the revenue of the federal tax system as it existed in 1993, the last full year of data available as we write.

Here is the logic of our system, stripped to basics: We want to tax consumption. The public does one of two things with its income—spends it or invests it. We can measure consumption as income minus investment. A really simple tax would just have each firm pay tax on the total amount of income generated by the firm less that firm’s investment in plant and equipment. The value-added tax works just that way. But a value-added tax is unfair because it is not progressive. That’s why we break the tax in two. The firm pays tax on all the income generated at the firm except the income paid to its workers. The workers pay tax on what they earn, and the tax they pay is progressive.

To measure the total amount of income generated at a business, the best approach is to take the total receipts of the firm over the year and subtract the payments the firm has made to its workers and suppliers. This approach guarantees a comprehensive tax base. The successful value-added taxes in Europe work this way. The base for the business tax is the following:

Total revenue from sales of goods and services

less

purchases of inputs from other firms

less

wages, salaries, and pensions paid to workers

less

purchases of plant and equipment

The other piece is the wage tax. Each family pays 19 percent of its wage, salary, and pension income over a family allowance (the allowance makes the system progressive). The base for the compensation tax is total wages, salaries, and retirement benefits less the total amount of family allowances.

FLAT TAX, VAT TAX, ANYTHING BUT THAT TAX; Duke Law Magazine, Spring 96:

• "The flat tax is essentially a VAT, with a personalized element for wages. Thus, the business tax allows deduction of all purchases -- as does a VAT -- but also allows deduction of wages. The wage income that is taken out of the VAT base, however, is also taxed, but is assessed against the individual wage-earner, not against the business."

 

Concerning Proposals for a Flat-Rate Consumption Tax
Before the Joint Economic Committee, Statement of Robert S. McIntyre
Director, Citizens for Tax Justice May 17, 1995

• The Hall-Rabushka flat tax, and its Armey and Specter variants, would replace the current personal and corporate income taxes with a new tax that is conceptually identical to a "subtraction-method" value-added tax, a version of a national sales tax, with two major modifications: First, imports would be exempt from the flat tax, while exports would be subject to tax. Second, to mitigate the regressivity of the VAT, cash wages, pensions received and other cash earned income would be taken out of the VAT base (i.e., deducted by businesses) and taxed directly to individuals, with exemptions. Thus, structurally, the flat tax is exactly equal to a value-added tax with an import incentive, an export disincentive and a personal rebate based on a percentage of a capped amount of cash wages, pensions and other earned income.Businesses compute a typical "subtraction-method" value-added tax by adding up their taxable gross receipts and subtracting the cost of previously taxed items. Thus, in computing the VAT, businesses deduct their purchases from other businesses, whether for supplies, services, machines, land or whatever. (In another, more common form of a value-added tax, known as a "credit-invoice" VAT, businesses get a tax credit for taxes paid on purchased items. In general, this produces the same result as a "subtraction-method" VAT.) Ultimately, the total tax base for a VAT is equal to retail sales of taxable items, and a VAT is thus equivalent to a retail sales tax. As noted, however, the flat tax base differs from a usual VAT, however, in that wages are deducted by businesses, and taxed at the personal level

CONSUMPTION TAX PROPOSALS; 1996 Deloitte & Touche LLP

• One concern associated with the flat tax is whether the low advertised rates will produce the same amounts of revenue as the current income tax. A June 7, 1995, Treasury Department analysis of a flat-tax plan similar to the Armey proposal, concluded that a rate of at least 22.9 percent would be needed to make the plan revenue neutral, that is, it would allow the government to raise as much revenue as is currently raised. Although the proposal is designed to raise less revenue than present law, the extent of the shortfall will concern policymakers.

• The Armey bill, H.R. 2060, would replace the current corporate income tax with a tax on business activities equal to 20 percent (17 percent after 1997) of business taxable income. The tax would apply to every person engaged in a business activity, whether an individual, partnership, corporation, or otherwise. Taxable business income would be gross active income (that is, income other than investment income) reduced by an array of business deductions.

• This business activity tax resembles a VAT computed by subtracting the costs of inputs from gross receipts, except that H.R. 2060 allows a deduction for cash wage expenses. Note that, under the bill, cash wages are subject to tax at the individual level at the same flat rate applicable to business profits. Thus, the combination of the business activities tax and the individual tax is roughly equivalent to a VAT. In addition, taxing wages at the individual level allows a generous personal exemption that makes the personal tax more progressive. To ensure that compensation is taxed once, tax-exempt entities that pay compensation other than as cash or retirement plan contributions would be subject to an excise tax.

The Flat Tax is a VAT even as the current income/payroll tax structure now in place is a subtraction method VAT, in that it is a levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production, it is passed on to the consumer hidden in the price of goods and services.

[PhilWill]

"Thirdly, this 'rebate' just makes no sense. Everyone will have to file a form (each month?) and receive a check (each month?). There is something about it that just doesn't feel right. Once again, those that have/are deriving their income from the work of other taxpayers are still getting a free ride - we haven't fixed one of the basic problems of this nation."

The rebate idea came out of the research which the FairTax is based on which indicated that the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to a tax system that made it difficult, if not impossible, for those at the lower end of the economic ladder to maintain a minimum subsistence level. Americans also did not want a regressive tax. The rebate was designed to be much fairer and less subjective than exempting specific items or groups of consumption, which is the way that the states have historically addressed that problem.

[ancient_geezer]

P.S.

You left out the FCA(not rebate) request is only renewed annually, not monthly, is strictly and expressly voluntary :o)

[nanny]

The NRST is a cross the board tax. Your question is irrelavent and not germane. Everyone pays the same tax rate at the retail cash register for all goods and services purchased. Every legal resident requesting it recieves the same amount of FCA.

Now we were discussing an across the board - no rebate system. You have said if there was no rebate that people would be deprived of their very survival - life even. I want to know what people that would be - what income I suppose is what I mean. I am trying to ascertain what group you think would be deprived of their survival for an across the board - NO REBATE TAXATION OF 10 to 15%?

We don't starve people in this country - the spector just gets resurrected often for political gain.

The remark is totally irrelevant.

No it is not irrelevant to this debate since you brought up the spectre of people being deprived of their survival - didn't you mention something about having to change the constitution and taking out the inalienable righ to life - if a tax and no rebate was imposed on some people? Or was that the other person who was debating? I can look it up - but would rather not. So when someone tells me a tax would deprive people of their survival and other dire predictions - I have to respond with the fact that we do no starve people in this country. The dire threat of non-survival of people is the irrelevancy. But it is assinine to even be discussing that. NO one will starve - no one will be deprived of their right to life - the pursuit of happiness - could be.

[nanny]

The rebate idea came out of the research which the FairTax is based on which indicated that the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to a tax system that made it difficult, if not impossible, for those at the lower end of the economic ladder to maintain a minimum subsistence level. Americans also did not want a regressive tax. The rebate was designed to be much fairer and less subjective than exempting specific items or groups of consumption, which is the way that the states have historically addressed that problem.

You are not one of those other guys with another ID are you? Because I have been around and around with them on this issue.

By the way, do you know how often the 'reports' will have to be filed and how often checks will be mailed. I can't find it quickly in any of the information and no one has told me - just said I was wrong - so do you know?

I fully, fully, totally, and completely understand why the rebate was put in there. There has never been any question in my mind why. Now if they just wanted to protect a 'fragile' part of society, couldn't we come up a better way to do that? I have asked what segment of society that would be. NO one has answered. Lower income doesn't mean much - but I will take a step and say 'lower income'. Now since we know that in this day and age anyone who is 'low income' is more than likely receiving some form of government aid. Food stamps, free lunches for the kiddies, medicaid, WIC, etc. These people will have to continue to report their income to the agencies in order to get these things. No one has mentioned cutting off their goodies.

My proposal - an across the board tax of 10 to 15% - no rebate - give these lower income a little boost on their checks, etc. and stay out of people's lives. No 'requests' necessary for the rest of us - not monthly checks to become ingrained in our psyche and we are still better off than if we all paid in 23 t 30% - had to report and still had to be at the mercy of a government check each month. Tell me what is wrong with that?

I realize everyone won't be getting that government check each month - but they won't be paying in as much taxes. Now doesn't it strike you as strange that the government says we are going to take 20% of your money - but we graciously ( if y ou ask and only if you ask) are going to give you back 5% in a check each and every month of your life.

Of course we could talk about the huge amount of freight that is going to be taken from that money as it goes from you to the states to the federal governmetn and back to you. How much do you think it will take to process the 'requests' and cut the checks each month? It won't just be a cut and dried affair - nothing is with the government. How much could be saved by no rebate, a bump to the lower income on some of their freebie packets. NOw the biggest benefit would be that we do not have a nation of people dependent in mind, if not in fact, on a check from the government each month. That is not a good thing - there is no way that could ever be a good thing.

[eskimo]

"So, you are saying that all the tax now paid by corporations will be shifted onto the backs of citizens?"

Eskimo, you missed the point entirely. Corporate income taxes already ARE on the backs of citizens!!

Yes, I've heard all those simple minded, nonsense, tax justifying, propaganda ploys before and the truth is that everyone in the economic chain raises their prices when the political parasites begin to bleed them more, including the individuals who work for corporations.

Unions will become fashionable again and skilled workers will seek to recover their newly increased tax burden and those who will bear the bulk of this idiotic tax scheme are those who have paid tax all their lives, are living on their savings and now will be bled again.

[ancient_geezer]

You have said if there was no rebate that people would be deprived of their very survival - life even.

Read again, I have never said that, I have said that it is arguably unconstitutional to tax expenditure which occurs below that point necessary to survival. That describes a threshold of dollar expenditure(a personal exemption level) the government has no authority to tax from any individual.

I want to know what people that would be - what income I suppose is what I mean.

It is not a people measurement, it is a threshold expenditure level below which taxation can be considered immoral and constitutionally impermissable in a political system that claims life to an unalienable right (refer: Declaration of Independance).

Povertylevel is a measure that can be used to calculate where any taxation of gross income means access to food, clothing, medical or shelter can fall below the minimums for supporting a typical human being at health levels necessary to be able perform long term gainful independant labor without economic assistance. Such would be a threshold describing personal survival exemption from federal taxation.

I am trying to ascertain what group you think would be deprived of their survival for an across the board - NO REBATE TAXATION OF 10 to 15%?

Doesn't matter who or how many people are at that level, survival level expenditure should not be taxed for anyone. Only expenditures above the level should be subject to taxation.

it is not irrelevant to this debate since you brought up the spectre of people being deprived of their survival

There you are wrong, I have made the claim that there is a certain economic level of activity below which all individuals should be immune from all taxation, as such taxation constitutes that which is necessary to life. Anything above that level is morally permissible. In a society claiming all have an unalienable rights to life liberty and pursuit happiness which government may not endanger except by due process finding of guilt for committed crime, there is a prescribable level of resource consuption which government may not constitutionally lay claim to with out it becoming a taking under the 5th amendment.

It has nothing to do with any specific person being deprived of life, it has to do with immunity from taxation of those resources necessary to sustain the minimums of life, allowing those resouces above that threshold to be the subject of taxation.

That immunity is compounded of the requirements of equal protection under law, and the foundational assertion that life is an unalienable right.

But it is assinine to even be discussing that. NO one will starve - no one will be deprived of their right to life - the pursuit of happiness - could be.

And that is why I stated discussion of starving people to be irrelavent to the issue of the FCA

Sufficient health is a precondition to the pursuit of happiness, life itself is an precondition of pursuit of happiness, liberty is a precondition to pursuit of happiness. Thay which is necessary to the minimal maintaince of any percondition of the pursuit of happiness cannot be said to be morally subject to taxation.

I take povertylevel to be a fair measure of that consumption which sustains survival to not be subject to taxation. Anything above that survival level of consumption can be said to be fair target for some level of taxation determined by that which the electorate willingly allows to be imposed up all through processes of representive government.

[ancient_geezer]

By the way, do you know how often the 'reports' will have to be filed and how often checks will be mailed. I can't find it quickly in any of the information and no one has told me - just said I was wrong - so do you know?

Read the bill nanny: the hyperlinks to it the information and the bill itself has been repeatedly provide to you.

H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

 

And I have explicitly informed you that the request is annual to the Social Security Administration, with payments monthly.

Here are the sections to refer to:

H.R.25 CHAPTER 3--FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE

`Sec. 301. Family consumption allowance.

`Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of--

`(1) the rate of tax imposed by section 101, and
`(2) the monthly poverty level.

`Sec. 302. Qualified family.

***

`(d) Annual Registration- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary. The annual registration form shall provide-- ***

`(e) Registration Not Mandatory- Registration is not mandatory for any qualified family.

`(j) Determination of Registration Filing Date- An annual or revised registration shall be deemed filed when--

`(1) deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the address of the sales tax administering authority.
`(2) delivered and accepted at the offices of the sales tax administering authority; or
`(3) provided to a designated commercial private courier service for delivery within 2 days to the sales tax administering authority at the address of the sales tax administering authority.

`Sec. 304. Rebate mechanism. (describes monthly payment schedule)

`(a) GENERAL RULE- The Social Security Administration shall provide a monthly sales tax rebate to duly registered qualified families in an amount determined in accordance with section 301.

***

`(c) WHEN REBATES MAILED- Rebates shall be mailed on or before the first business day of the month for which the rebate is being provided.

`(d) SMARTCARDS AND DIRECT ELECTRONIC DEPOSIT PERMISSIBLE- The Social Security Administration may provide rebates in the form of smartcards that carry cash balances in their memory for use in making purchases at retail establishments or by direct electronic deposit.

[ancient_geezer]

My proposal - an across the board tax of 10 to 15% - no rebate -

Submit your bill to congress, see how long it take to make it nose dive with the first democrat to stand up and object the measure for lack of revenue neutrality under the Budget Enforcement Act.

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.

"CBA points of order, like most others, are not self-enforcing. In order to enforce a congressional budget rule, a Member must raise a point of order against the legislation violating it. When a point of order is raised against legislation that may violate a substantive provision of a budget resolution, a determination of whether the legislation would cause spending or revenue levels to be breached is based on estimates supplied by the Budget Committee of the appropriate house, under section 312(a) of the CBA. Generally, when a point of order is sustained, the violating bill or amendment fails and is not considered or the violating provision of a bill or amendment is stricken. "

The the revenue neutral tax rate for a Sales Tax to replace all federal taxes must be equivalent to:

Total fed taxes as reflected through gross family income is 23.5% (taxfoundation)

For the NRST taxing all goods and service, with no exception of any individuals, that works out to be 23% of family consumption spending.

 

Good luck getting you 10% sales tax even on the floor of the House, much less survive the Senate where democrat philibusters take over.

[robertpaulsen]

That may very well be true, given the current sales tax amounts (say, 1% to 7%). But my theory is that a sales tax of 33% to 36% will tempt some consumers and retailers to find a way. It's a bunch of money.

[nanny]

And I have explicitly informed you that the request is annual to the Social Security Administration, with payments monthly

YEs, after we had debated all day and half the night. But once a year is better - still very unpalatable. Now perhaps if the rebate came once a year, it would be better. Why can't that be?

`(a) GENERAL RULE- The Social Security Administration shall provide a monthly sales tax rebate to duly registered qualified families in an amount determined in accordance with section 301. *** `(c) WHEN REBATES MAILED- Rebates shall be mailed on or before the first business day of the month for which the rebate is being provided. `(d) SMARTCARDS AND DIRECT ELECTRONIC DEPOSIT PERMISSIBLE- The Social Security Administration may provide rebates in the form of smartcards that carry cash balances in their memory for use in making purchases at retail establishments or by direct electronic deposit.

OK, does this mean the SS admin is going to mail all checks or just to those on SS?

Will the smart cards be mandatory? This posting doesn't tell.

Now I will read all this - but you are posting things that need to be questioned and now - not next week when I have read this. If you are going to post something - I will question you and now.