Posted on 10/17/2004 7:57:10 PM PDT by baseball_fan
The income tax not "putting the American citizen back in control of national fiscal policy" does not mean the NRST does. Neither do.
Lets see, saving and investing tax free, puchasing used goods tax free or grow your own for that matter to minizing purchaces. Not to mention that each individual voter is proptionately appraised of the cost of government with each visit to a store providing that knowledgable basis on which to exercise his vote for appropriate represention in governemnt. Each individual certainly does appear to me to be empowered in many ways that ultimately effect national fiscal policy, both directly and indirectly. Much more so than under the current regime of graduate taxation that distorts the economic picture so grossly for the elecorate as it does today.
As Keyes points out, "with a sales tax, we could deny funds to a spendthrift government – and give ourselves a tax cut – whenever we make the private choice to alter our spending and saving habits."
As you could do now by reducing your income.
LOL, and be a pauper.
With the NRST you have to choice of growing your investment wealth for the future, as well a legitimate tax free purchasing of used property and goods, and earning a income increasing your estate minimizing our taxed purchases to minimal levels.
With the income tax well you can just kinda be a pauper or choose to be a criminal instead. Real choice there.
OMG, you actually found a website that says income taxes are for political and social control. Wow, how long did that take to find? If it's on the internets, it must be true!
LOL, not long at all actually as the obvious is well represented.
If the perception of that price is obscured there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
What makes you think the government's expenditures has anything to do with it's revenues?
The lack of perception of cost to the individual of government excess is the issue addressed by a Retail Sales Tax. In theory the government could be run on the printing press totally hiding the individual cost, at least until the inevitable hyperinflation and collapse took place.
I prefer to see the NRST and a visible taxation providing a proportionate measure of the cost of government back to the electorate myself. It is only through knowledge that the electorate can be expected to exercise the "Eternal Vigilance" necessary to the survival of liberty in a representative republic.
Where taxation is concerned the Founders nailed the most appropriate appoach to taxation:
|
Control of excess government and excess expenditure OTOH is up to the electorate to select those who will exercise restraint, an NRST provides a measure on which the electorate may reasonably react to excessive impositions arising out of excessive expenditure and be encouraged to select those more fiscally restrained to represent the nation in the halls of Congress.
The current suggestion by the Bush administration that it might do away with the so-called income tax and the IRS, and replace it with a national sales tax, has several serious problems.
Firstly, it is an end-run to avoid taking responsibilty when the reality that the so-called income tax has been the most massive financial fraud in human history goes mainstream during a Bush administraion, as is about to occur.
Secondly, a national sales tax will not pass constitutional scrutiny. Primarily, because it violates the Constitutional prohibition against the federal governemnt interfering in private contracts.
Shortly before Bush's announcement that he would do away with the income tax and IRS in the first year of his second term, if re-elected, Hollywood producer Aaron Russo, six-time Oscar winner, and producer of movies like "The Rose" and "Trading Places", had notified the White House and the Treasury Department that he was going to produce and release an expose feature film for national distribution, along the lines of "Fahrenheit 9-11", that will put IRS out ofbusiness by exposing to the masses the FACT that the current income tax is a FRAUD, has been since it's inception, robbing generations, and that top government leadership, in BOTH major political parties, have known about it all along, and condoiend and encouraged the theft.
It is NO coincidence that Bush went to the media with his "idea" shortly after being put on notice, after all, Bush is the master of the "preemptive strike". Bush does not want to be seen as the bad guy when this goes mainstream, so will seek to dismantle IRS BEFORE it does, but replace the income tax with something FAR worse, that the People will believe, in their ignorance, is far better.
A national sales tax violates the inalienable RIGHT of Citizens to their own property, and to enter into contracts for its acquisition, exchange, sale, and disposal, as GUARANTEED by the Constitution.
When governemnt gets in the middle of a perfectly legal contract for the exchange of private property, demanding a cut of the transaction, it has made itself a third party to the contract, without the invitation and consent of the original two parties. No VALID contract may be entered into where all parties do not knowingly and willing concent to the contract with all parties involved.
Another probelm is striclty economic. The suggested rate of hte natioanl sales tax is pegged between 20 and 30% INITIALLY, the current proposal only locks in the rat e for the first two years, however, after which it would "float" according to governemtn spending. As the governmnt spends more, the tax would AUTOMATICALLY increase, WITHOUT A VOTE. Where there is no vote, there is no representation. The American Revolution was based upon the grievance of taxation without representation.
There would be no cap on the percentage of the tax, and with government unconstrained regarding it's spending, tax rates of 100%, or more, could easily result i na short period of time. In fact, this plan would ENCOURAGE massive increases in government spending, as government would perceive that taxpayers would simply have to cough up however much the government decides to spend.
Imagine, if you would, that even at a rate of JUST 33%, a $30,000 automobile becomes a $40,000 automobile. At a rate of 100%, the price of the car doubles.
Another negative aspect of a national sales tax is it's unavoidability. Ther are only tow types of taxes permitted by the Constitution, being direct taxes, and indirect taxes. Direct taxes are characterized as being taxes on rights, and unavoidable and may not be passed on, while indirect taxes are taxes on privileges, also called EXCISES, which are avoidable or may be passed on.
The Constitution forbids direct taxes on individuals. They must be "apportioned" to the states, according to their population. Numerous Supreme Court rulings have determined that the so-called income tax IS an EXCISE (privilege) tax and that the 16th Amendment "granted no new powers of taxation but kept the income tax in the form of an indirect (EXCISE) tax, to which it inherently belongs". (see Brushaber)
The Federal government has NEVER enacted a direct tax into law, as its administraion would be a nightmare.
While the income tax law IS Constitutional AS WRITTEN, as an EXCISE tax on PRIVILEGED activites, the real CRIME is that the government pretends and enforces the income tax AS IF it were DIRECT tax on the exercise of RIGHTS, while completely disregarding the constitutional requirement for apportionment among the states in order to do so. Assuch, the law itself is Constitutional, while its implimentation is blatantly unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal.
While I aplaud ANY effort, from ANY party to do away with the IRS and the income tax, or to AT LEAST constrain it to it's original intent and purpose, which was to tax foreigners working in the U.S., Americans working outside the U.S., government employees, and corporations, We must be diligent in NOT allowing the government to put something FAR worse in it's place, suach as a national sales tax, as a "fix".
The Citizens of the U.S.A. own their own labor, and their own property. The Federal govenrnment MUST recognize that the rights to personal property are SACRED, and cannot be taken away without due process and a court order, issued by a court of lawful jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has ruled that labor is the most fundamental and sacred for m of property, upon which all other property, and rights therein, are derived.
Those who do not have 100% ownership of their own labor, and the things they trade that labor for to survive and prosper, are SLAVES. On this there is NO middle ground to be had. Either WE have 100% right to our own labor and property derived from exchanging our labor, or the government has the power to take all of it. We are free, or we are not.
Firstly, it is an end-run to avoid taking responsibilty when the reality that the so-called income tax has been the most massive financial fraud in human history goes mainstream during a Bush administraion, as is about to occur.
The income tax needs to end,end run or not.
| "As a matter of fact, what the income tax does — and this is the debate that I think we always try to get into in order to let you and him fight, see — and the people of this country are led down a path where the actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government." . . . "The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system." "In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation." |
Secondly, a national sales tax will not pass constitutional scrutiny.
Constitution for the United States of America:
There are no exception to that rule.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856 edition:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
A national sales tax violates the inalienable RIGHT of Citizens to their own property
Sale is the transfer of property to another, in exchange for value. A tax on the excerise of of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise.
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
- While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned
Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)
- An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.
The remainder of your screed can be readily summed up in a singular definition:
TP'r : One who's tax evasion sales pitch and argument has the substance of used toilette paper.
I know this tread is a little old (and I'm too new for the vanity thing), but here is what I'm about ready to send to the WH:
Dear Sir or Madam:
Since President Bush now has his mandate, I am sincerely hopeful that he and the Congress will look at the US Tax Code with the seriousness it deserves. Since Mr. Bush has alluded to it, I offer this.
I have come to the conclusion that the tax system in this country is unfair – plain and simple – and it applies only to those who choose to be above board (and receive W2s and report honestly). For that straightforward reason alone, I wanted to at least vocalizing my opinion (did this Tuesday also by voting). Therefore, I felt the need to write this e-mail.
The current tax system is designed to hurt those who contribute to the economy (versus the populace that do not). I wanted to offer what I think is the best tax policy. I’m no policy wonk (I did graduate with an Accounting undergraduate degree), but an idea never hurt so I submit to you mine.
Taxes should be based on consumption – period. Not on income whether earned or through investment avenues. I offer the following to back this position.
Ø There are all types of ways to “hide” income or not report income when you are not the receiver of a W2, 1099, etc. I’m sure the Government is well aware that there are thousands (maybe millions) who work “under the table” or receive rents that are not reported. Those who trade in cash, drug dealers, prostitutes, those without conscience, etc. These folks should have to pay their fair share for our defense. Citizens do not have a stake if they do not have to pay.
Ø Consumption taxation would be far simpler and it would catch most of the under ground transactions (theory being everyone must eat). This, of course, would exclude the illegal transactions being bought. Using common sense, illegal transactions would be greatly reduced from that of the current system.
Ø Most merchants have the infrastructure already in place with the adoption of state sales taxes. Those that do not would have accounting staff or services available that were involved in the income tax process.
Ø Consumption should be taxed on ALL transactions; food, clothing, services – everything at the main point of sale to the buying public. BTB transaction should be tax-free. This would keep the percentage to a low figure and not keep any one sector of the economy from participation.
Ø Creating exemptions for the poor starts the complication. I believe everyone should contribute to our Country, including the poor. This tax would still be “regressive” with the assumption being the more you make, the more you spend. Simple.
Ø Citizens do not have a stake if they do not have to pay. This fact alone breeds more liberalism with our money. Once all the citizens pay, there will be more scrutiny on big government (labor department, energy, etc. etc.)
Ø The cost to do business to comply with all the current loopholes is huge. Businesses need internal accountants and outsiders to comply with the law. The calculation, when changed, would be so simple that a high school student could do the math (sales x % = tax).
Ø This method gets the Government out of my personal data. I do not like the fact that I have to tell the Federal Government that I made “x”, I had interest income of “x”, etc. Also having to report in yearly is dreaded by most, I’m sure.
Ø The cost of funding the IRS would be substantially reduced with individual audits being eliminated. Businesses, I believe, would be more inclined to follow the law if sufficient punishments were built into it.
Ø John Kerry having an effective tax rate of 12% is one reason why I’m writing this. He wanted me to pay more, while him and his wife pay pennies.
Ø I bet the coffers would “runneth” over under this scenario without 1/8th of the pain.
Being a red-blooded American, I have no problems whatsoever giving my share to the cause. It is the huge percentage of my brethren that do not that gives me heartburn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.