Well Im getting carried away here - the fed scam is something Im quite passionate about. I will let you guys get back to your discussion, but I want to suggest a book. This is a fantastic book that I think every American should read regarding the history of our central bank. There are better books but this is the best introductory material out there and gives a wonderfull overview of history.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0912986212/002-7900086-8464069?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html

"A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." - Congressman Ron Paul (Member, House Banking Committee)

Sean Kelly wrote:
> In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
> 
>>The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)
> 
> 
> One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax
> laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a
> prime example.  There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New
> Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to
> encourage its residents to shop locally.  If their sales tax went from 8% to 33%
> this effect would be even more pronounced.  This possibly isn't a reason in
> itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting
> fact.
> 

Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.

> 
>>Even if companies dont offer goods at lower prices, (which they would, in order to get an edge on the competition) think of stock options and dividends. With earnings sky rocketing, that money would find its way back into shareholder's pockets (read - your 401(k)). I think that by eliminating the built-in welfare of the income tax (lower incomes having a negative tax rate) the government even saves at least some money on the bargain.
> 
> 
> The shareholder's pockets perhaps, but how far above the poverty line do folks
> have to be before they have acces to a 401k?  I grant that the new system would
> encourage people to save so perhaps things would improve, but I think this
> largely supports my argument that the law would be better for the wealthy than
> the poor.  That said, its sheer simplicitly is definately appealing.  I'll have
> to find some time to read the bill today.
> 
> 
> Sean
> 
> 

Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is not for you.

In article <dj907a$46s$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
>
>Sean Kelly wrote:
>> In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
>> 
>>>The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)
>> 
>> 
>> One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a prime example.  There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to encourage its residents to shop locally.  If their sales tax went from 8% to 33% this effect would be even more pronounced.  This possibly isn't a reason in itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting fact.
>
>Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.

You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on clothing at all:

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf

It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared foods.

>Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is not for you.

I believe in it to a point, but I think there's a bit of slippage between theory and practice.  What happened when the US currency was floated off the Gold standard is sufficient testament to that IMO.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> In article <dj907a$46s$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
> 
>>Sean Kelly wrote:
>>
>>>In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)
>>>
>>>
>>>One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax
>>>laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a
>>>prime example.  There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New
>>>Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to
>>>encourage its residents to shop locally.  If their sales tax went from 8% to 33%
>>>this effect would be even more pronounced.  This possibly isn't a reason in
>>>itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting
>>>fact.
>>
>>Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.
> 
> 
> You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on
> clothing at all:
> 
> http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf
> 
> It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared
> foods.
> 

No, I dont misunderstand you.

Before NST:

NJ = 0% NY = 8%

After NST:

NJ = 23% NY = 31%

The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than before the NST.

> 
>>Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is not for you.
> 
> 
> I believe in it to a point, but I think there's a bit of slippage between theory
> and practice.  What happened when the US currency was floated off the Gold
> standard is sufficient testament to that IMO.
> 
> 
> Sean
> 
> 

In article <dj9i6l$jaa$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
>
>Sean Kelly wrote:
>> 
>> You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on clothing at all:
>> 
>> http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf
>> 
>> It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared foods.
>
>No, I dont misunderstand you.
>
>Before NST:
>
>NJ = 0% NY = 8%
>
>After NST:
>
>NJ = 23% NY = 31%
>
>The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than before the NST.

Oops, I misunderstood.  You had said before that this bill would not alter state tax law, and I took that to mean that NJ state tax on clothing would remain at 0%.  That it would be raised to 23% is a substantial difference.



Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> In article <dj9i6l$jaa$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
> 
>>Sean Kelly wrote:
>>
>>>You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on
>>>clothing at all:
>>>
>>>http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf
>>>
>>>It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared
>>>foods.
>>
>>No, I dont misunderstand you.
>>
>>Before NST:
>>
>>NJ = 0% NY = 8%
>>
>>After NST:
>>
>>NJ = 23% NY = 31%
>>
>>The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than before the NST.
> 
> 
> Oops, I misunderstood.  You had said before that this bill would not alter state
> tax law, and I took that to mean that NJ state tax on clothing would remain at
> 0%.  That it would be raised to 23% is a substantial difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Sean
> 
>


What I meant was that it would not override any existing sales tax, they would just add. I think you understand. :-)