Posted on 07/26/2013 7:40:02 AM PDT by TexasCajun
Tax reform is apparently so treacherous for senators these days that they require the utmost protection from the public -- half a century's worth.
The leaders of the Senate Finance Committee last month asked senators to submit written proposals detailing tax breaks they'd like to see preserved once the tax code is reformed and explain why. The point was to help inform committee leaders in their efforts to craft a tax reform bill.
The request apparently wasn't embraced, and the committee has now promised skittish senators that their proposals will be kept secret for 50 years.
A memo sent out on July 19 promised to mark all submissions "COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT COPY.
These materials may not be released to the public from the National Archives or by the Finance Committee prior to December 31, 2064."
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Secession. Now more than ever, it’s the right thing to do.
I second that.
As for locking up tax proposal for 50 years: what could the vermin possibly have to hide?
I like this idea. The Republicans are short on vision. The RNC should have a list of amendments for the ready to be voted on at such a time as when we have the needed majorities. It may seem like pie in the sky but without this vision, they just hurry to the next election with the only goal of beating the Democrats.
And be subject to the same taxing and enforcing authority as everyone else. The Scoundrels in Washington have gotten away with all kinds of things yet claim that they have the same laws as the rest of us. BUT, these "same laws" that they have are enforced by the likes of the Capitol Police. Wink, wink. Whereas you and I have these laws enforced by the likes of the FBI, IRS, etc.
Sorry to have to tell you but you are grossly misinformed.
First, the Flat Tax is an Income Tax and requires the 16th Amendment to be constitutional.
Second, THE FLAT TAX NEVER STAYS FLAT. Don’t think for a second that our United States has never had a a Flat Tax. There have been several, starting from 1861.
Thirdly, the FairTax is not designed to be a progressive tax. Why is it then described as progressive?
The answer is because a rebate of taxes of $196 per month, the same amount for every qualified individual American, and mind you, that Rebate is a tax cut, will leave those at the poverty line untaxed and those above the poverty line will be taxed.
EVERYONE lives tax free at the poverty line and below. For those that spend above the poverty rate, they are taxed by the National Retail Sales Tax (NRST).
Because incomes vary and because spending varies according to income, the Rebate as a percentage of all NRST taxes paid will vary.
It just happens to turn out to be a graph that looks progressive; it is NOT progressive by design.
There is no income tax under the FairTax and there can never be. The Income tax code is abolished and the 16th is repealed.
There is more than ten times the support in Congress and at the grassroots for the FairTax than there is for the Flat Tax. That’s because most people start out thinking the Flat Tax is a good idea, a needed simplification, but when they get informed from history and from law, and they start to fully understand the FairTax, THEN they go with the FairTax because hands down it wins in every category.
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied be explicitly stated by the judge before the opening and after the closing arguments.
I have a whole list. One for repealing the 17th, one for stabilizing out monetary policy and reigning in spending that I'm particularly pleased with:
Fiscal Responsibility Amendment |
Section IXAnd be subject to the same taxing and enforcing authority as everyone else. The Scoundrels in Washington have gotten away with all kinds of things yet claim that they have the same laws as the rest of us. BUT, these "same laws" that they have are enforced by the likes of the Capitol Police. Wink, wink. Whereas you and I have these laws enforced by the likes of the FBI, IRS, etc.
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax or fee by virtue of their position.
Already covered in Section VI.
Howso? The quoted portion I gave was from your provided link.
First, the Flat Tax is an Income Tax and requires the 16th Amendment to be constitutional.
There are more holes regarding the 14th amendment than the 16th's ratification IIUC.
Second, THE FLAT TAX NEVER STAYS FLAT. Don’t think for a second that our United States has never had a a Flat Tax. There have been several, starting from 1861.
See my post 15: that amendment would guarantee it.
Thirdly, the FairTax is not designed to be a progressive tax. Why is it then described as progressive?
By the very link you gave it says that it is progressive. So, I have no answer for you.
Oh, nice. I would make it another clause rather than replace the prohibition against questioning/denying the right of nullification, however.
It will work as well now as it did last time. No retreat, no surrender.
I like that. I’d be willing to accept the entire thing without amendment.
And be subject to the same taxing and enforcing authority as everyone else. The Scoundrels in Washington have gotten away with all kinds of things yet claim that they have the same laws as the rest of us. BUT, these "same laws" that they have are enforced by the likes of the Capitol Police. Wink, wink. Whereas you and I have these laws enforced by the likes of the FBI, IRS, etc.
In addition, did you know that the IRS will prepare taxes for any congresscritter free of charge? I would imagine they are somewhat more lenient with the criminal class than they are us average citizens.
OneWingedShark,
The fact that you have found freerepublic.com and have chosen to participate is evidence that you are a cut above the low-information voter, but you are not much more that a small cut above. I don’t mean that in a harmful way, we all have to start somewhere. But there are some very serious people on this website with a lot of experience and insight into politics and political philosophy and you, I and many
others here would do well to observe and learn from them.
You seem to be hung up on the word ‘progressive’. Do you know that this word has a different meaning when applied to tax code as it does when applied to a political group?
Let me make it simple for you. Do you know the FairTax can leave ANY American individual untaxed no matter how rich or wealthy? I will repeat:
ANY AMERICAN INDIVIDUAL CAN PAY ZERO NET FEDERAL TAX UNDER THE FAIRTAX.
Don’t believe it? Take Warren Buffet for example. He’s worth say about $50 Billion at least in what is known publicly.
Warren can move into a studio apartment, buy food and bathroom goods at the local Coop, take the bus or ride a bicycle, and pay his utilities all for the grand total of about $1100 per month. Yes, Warren can do that. And in so doing Warren will be left tax-free even if he earns and pays himself a billion dollars from his businesses.
You see EVERYONE can choose to be tax-free under the FairTax because the FairTax is based on RETAIL SPENDING. We have the choice under the FairTax as to how much we want to pay in federal taxes.
Now normally, people will spend enough to be satisfied to know that they, their families, their friends and community are having a good and abundant life. That’s human nature. So most people are going to be paying the NRST above the level of spending for the essentials of living (the poverty line).
And because the Rebate is fixed and the same for every American individual, people can choose by their spending choices whether to be untaxed or maximally taxed or somewhere in between.
THE FAIRTAX IS NOT AND CAN NEVER BE A PROGRESSIVE TOOL TO BE USED BY ‘PROGRESSIVE’ POLITICAL GROUPS.
THE FAIRTAX IS ‘PROGRESSIVE’ IN ITS NATURE BUT NEVER POLITICALLY BECAUSE PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SPEND WHAT THEY DESIRE AND HAVE CAPACITY TO SPEND.
Tax Reform Amendment
Section I
No tax, federal or state, shall ever be withheld from the wages of a worker of any citizen of either.
Section II
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. This section shall be explicitly stated by the judge before the opening arguments and after the closing arguments.
Section III
The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, therefore no tax (or fine) shall be laid upon munitions or the sale thereof.
Section IV
The seventh amendment is also hereby recognized, and nothing in this amendment shall restrict the right of a citizen to seek civil redress.
Section V
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever exceed 10%.
Section VI
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.
Section VII
No retroactive or ex post facto tax (or fee) shall ever be valid.
Section VIII
The congress may not delegate the creation of any tax or fine in any way.
Section IX
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax or fee by virtue of their position.
Section X
Any federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent applying, attempting to apply, or otherwise causing the application of an ex post facto or retroactive law shall, upon conviction, be evicted from office and all retirement benefits forfeit.
Flat Tax. As few exemptions as humanly possible.
Another thing I would add to a flat tax is a limit. Income derived from COMBINED taxes, Federal, State, Local shall not exceed a certain percent. It seems to me that that Section V seems to authorize any governments up to 10%. Perhaps, I am reading it wrong, but that looks like 10% for Federal, 10% for State, 10% for County, 10% for City.
And, another thing I would add is the borrowing amount (money printing) shall not exceed X amount. Because you know that by now, if the FedGov cannot get enough tax money, they just print it, borrow it whatever. Then get the popcorn.
I could live with that, I guess. I’d still be wanting to lower it below 10% though
I get what you're saying; but a tax-reform amendment is not the place to put that correction.
Indeed; this is so. I had considered having the combined limit but then we get into jurisdictional clashes: if there's a 10% combined limit then what is the result when the FedGov, New York state, New York County, and New York City happen to set their rate at 5%?
It seems to me that the best way to avoid that would be to have each put as a 10% limit and let the State/County/city drive out the people they will with onerous taxation. It would be California x 1,000, especially when they get the individual bills from their respective governments.
Yes, I agree, it's not the ideal solution: but it does support the idea that if you don't like the policies of your city/state you can move.
And, another thing I would add is the borrowing amount (money printing) shall not exceed X amount. Because you know that by now, if the FedGov cannot get enough tax money, they just print it, borrow it whatever. Then get the popcorn.
Nope - Not in a tax-reform amendment; that calls for a separate Financial Responsibility amendment:
Fiscal Responsibility Amendment |
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.