Posted on 03/09/2005 12:51:53 PM PST by truthfinder9
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
You should have read the article more closely, he wants to phase in from an income tax to a sales tax, thought some want both systems *cough*democrats*cough*.
You should have read it more carefully, bfore posting.
Perhaps it is YOU who should read more carefully, Greenspan is NOT supporting both systems at once, but it stating the tax panel will have to decide.
Greespan wants a new tax and keep the old tax.
I supposed there are some who would like to go along with income taxes and a VAT, from government's point of view that's a money machine that'll strip blood out of turnips and leave the skin to blow in the wind.
Your scheme is backfiring.
Mines right on target, up to you to scotch whatever ole Greenspan might be thinking about if it differs from below:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
|
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25), offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25,S.25
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 for additional information:
"One popular idea is to craft a new code that includes both an income and consumption tax."
Just for grins, let's see how many people on this thread would support such a move.
Protagoras, how about you?
The constitution prohibits a direct tax unless it is apportioned among the states by population. It took a constitutional amendment to get the income tax past that little detail.
Based on my understanding of a sales tax or VAT, I think it fails constitutional muster because of that prohibition. Of course the Supreme Court may disagree, ruling that, by definition, a sales tax is apportioned by population or, more likely, that it does not constitute a "direct tax." They have done sillier things in the past.
However, there is precedent that it takes a constitutional amendment to repeal a constitional amendment (remember Prohibition?). A simple law doesn't suffice.
Failing a constitional amendment to repeal the income tax, we would be left with 2 taxes.
And, contrary to what Greenspan says, that would NOT be a good thing.
Based on my understanding of a sales tax or VAT, I think it fails constitutional muster because of that prohibition.
A direct tax is upon on owner merely for his ownership of property or a capitation levied on a persons existance per-se.
Any retail sales tax is an excise, an indirect tax levied on exchanges and activities of commerce and trade and fully authorised under Article I Section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution to be levied under rule of uniformity throughout the United States.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference.
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.
"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
Failing a constitional amendment to repeal the income tax, we would be left with 2 taxes.
Repeal of the statute is repeal of the tax, period. Thus repealing the statutes of the income tax and instituting a retail sales tax for the use of consumption of goods and services merely leaves one tax not two.
A tax on income is merely allowed not mandated any more than any other mode of taxation.
As far as amending the constitution to get rid of the power to levy an income tax, yes that is something that should be done, and can be done given a political will and conditions that allow the amendment process laid down in Article V to go forward.
The catch 22, is Article V of the Constitution, and its 2/3rds vote of both housed of Congress to even propose and amendment, much less provide for 3/4ths of th states to ratify such.
As the last century under the income tax, with virtually continuous bills in place awaiting a vote in Congress, it is clear that as long as an income tax is on the books, there will be no movement forward for repeal of the 16th or prohibition of the taxation of income in any form.
Repeal of the income tax statutes and the replacement of the income tax with a viable Retail Sales Tax provides the political and practical environment to encourage the success of an amendment to remove the power of Congress to lay or collect income taxes. That however is not going to happen as long as any tax on income remains in the statutes of the United States.
The first step it to repeal the statute & put an alternative tax in place.
Only then can the second step of amending the consitution be successful.
"One popular idea is to craft a new code that includes both an income and consumption tax."
Just for grins, let's see how many people on this thread would support such a move.
LOL, French might like it, they'll surrender to anything, so I hear.
I haven't seen much in the way of popularity for both income and sales taxess anywhere around here.
Though there are some even here taken in by the "Flat Tax" which is indeed a wage plus subtraction method VAT, called by any other thing still smells as bad when yer nose gets rubbed in it.
So if that is what ole Greenspan is talking about being "popular" well, even scams occasionally are "popular". I for one don't by the "Flat Tax" scam.
How bout you, Protagoras? You supporting the income tax plus VAT known as a "Flat Tax?"
I read the Chairman's actual testimony, in addition to the news reports. He basically said two things
1. consumption taxes would stimulate the economy and increase the savings and investment rates, and
2. because of political considerations, it might be difficult to go completely to a consumtion tax system, so he urged the commission not to strive for "purity".
With all due respect to the Chairman, I think his economic judgement is clearly superior to his political judgement. He apparently is unaware that any move to layer a sales tax on top of the income tax would be fiercely opposed by the very people that would be needed to support any fundamental change of this sort.
"I haven't seen much in the way of popularity for both income and sales taxes anywhere around here."
That was my point. That is why I said that Mr. Greenspan's economic judgement is apparenty ahead of his political judgement.
He's certainly suggesting it (agreed?), and Greenspan is normally so circumspect that that amounts to a support statement.
I don't support taxes.
But I know policy wonks like you live to debate the alternate forms of theft.
Never getting at the real problem, you basically are endorsing the theft and just arguing about how to steal the money with the least discomfort to the victim.
"Bend over America, I promise this won't hurt too much".
Why treat the rich unfairly?
He is not agreeing with it, he already stated in the article he would prefer a consumtion (sales) tax, he's just stating all the sides in that statement.
They are setting the stage.
They are going to use you poor dupes to give Americans the shaft.
Perhaps they want to kill your plan so much that they will endorse it, fool with it, tinker with it and in the end, it will be totally different from that which you proposed in the first place and you will be forced to oppose it. They will then claim that the people don't want it and the whole thing will be abandoned and the status quo will prevail.
Your correct protestations that what you opposed is not what you proposed will not be on page six, they will be on page fifty six. In small type. They will be lost in the wind.
That is precisely what they are doing with the so called "Social Security reform". A simple concept which people agree with in principle (private accounts to replace SS) has been --cked up so badly that now most Americans oppose it. The absolute worst thing Bush could have done was press for these tiny, imbecilic accounts that can never be justified and will not solve the fundamental problem,,,,so that's exactly what he did.
Your scheme is as doomed as that one.
You boys don't get it, these guys are pros. They know politics, they know how to screw you over and make you thank them for it. You underestimate them, and they continue to manipulate and abuse you, and will forever.
The 2nd amendment was the founders answer to the question, and sadly, it will probably come to that.
But I know policy wonks like you live to debate the alternate forms of theft.
ROTFLMAO, been called alot of things but never a "policy wonk".
Never getting at the real problem, you basically are endorsing the theft
Strange, I don't see a single thing you have managed to do for the "real problem"
A Century of of experience and rants by folks like you under the income tax, makes it clear that we will not get anywhere near smaller government from where we are (the income tax):
TAXES
and just arguing about how to steal the money with the least discomfort to the victim.
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
- It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.
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.