Posted on 02/10/2015 6:43:07 AM PST by HomerBohn
9% flat income tax. No deductions. No exemptions. 9% from the first dollar. IRS can be reduced to a few dozen employees or eliminated. Many lawyers would have to find honest work or cease eating. Resources would be released for further non IRS related waste fraud and abuse purposes. Government, alas, would see revenues increase steadily.
Don’t let anything like The 10th Amendment and the constitution of each state get in the way of your opinion.
It is amazing to me the enormous power the IRS has when collecting debt. The reason is the result of giving the government the right to tax income. By doing so, personal income is no longer your property and not subject to due process. Scary when you think of taxes from this perspective.
I am in favor of a FLAT tax from an economic perspective. No doubt your plan would be a tremendous economic stimulus. However, from a liberty perspective I have to go with the FAIR tax. See my post #44 second paragraph for one reason why we should repeal the 16th amendment and have a FAIR tax.
So! You're one of those greedy 1% that aren't paying their fair share.
When I think of this damned infernal 'graduated' system of taxing people to death I get very angry.
If we had a tax rate of, say 10% for everyone then someone making $1 million would pay $100,000.
A person making $100,000 would pay $10,000.
Why not have a flat tax and why not have it paid into the state in which a person resides? The state would take a percentage out to run 'necessary' state services and remit a portion to the central socialist government. States already have a tax apparatus so the only losers would be the thousands of bureaucrats who loaf at the IRS.
The whole idea that the government can seize property and earnings through what are thug tactics is an atrocity. The IRS should be where the onus is placed on not the citizen. They should be required to provide clear proof of money owed and the citizen should not have to prove their innocence. We haven’t lived in a Real America for a long time. This kind of thing goes on all the time.
The Gestapo, KGB, IRS, are all alike, and all a consequence of government being bigger and more powerful than should be allowed. Big government is nothing without the power to intimidate and abuse citizens.
County Sheriff Scott London for president.
Yes, we need a federal tax collection agency to properly fund appropriate federal activities as the Constitution directs. Notice that the Constitution originally forbade "direct taxation" and an amendment was required to impose the income tax.
The IRS, acting in its legitimate role as federal tax collection agency, should consist of ... you ready for this? ... Two people, working two days twice a year.
Congress passes a budget. The IRS, such as it is, takes the bottom-line total of that budget, divides it by the number of members of Congress (both House and Senate), then sends each state a bill for that amount times the number of its Congressional representatives. That process will take two people no more than two days (if not about 2 minutes) to compute the tax bills and inform each state of what it owes. The two IRS agents chat around the water cooler until their 2 days are up, then go home.
A suitable period later (say, six months), the two IRS agents reconvene, review the rather large checks submitted by each state, deposit them, sort out any issues with doing so, and send the President a list of those states not in compliance and the amounts due.
Done.
Cheap.
Let each state determine how best to contribute its fair share to fund continuation of the Union.
Several things; the Constitution guarantees that:
No person shall […] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law(amd 5),
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed(amd 6), and
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed(amd 8)
Sheriffs derive their authority and power from their respective state constitution and/or state statute.
And federal agents from the Constitution for the United States.
Not all federal laws are legitimate; only those which qualify under This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
, the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that most of the laws/agencies/rules/regulations are, in fact, illegitimate. (The War on Drugs is a stellar example: most of it is founded on re-imagining the commerce clause to mean that the federal government can dictate trade within a state and case law stemming from the repealed 18th amendment.)
In fact, sheriffs in one state might might have more authority and power than a sheriff would have in another state. Since the sheriff is technically not a federal empowered official, he or she has no lawful purview or authority over a federal agent carrying out federal duties. A federal agent does have lawful authority to arrest a sheriff in a hypothetical situation if a sheriff interferes or tries to impede a federal agent faithfully carrying out their duties.
Again: 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments.
The FAIR tax is entirely too complicated, especially if it includes the horrendous “prebate” and too open to fiddling. Normally the percentage is fixed way too high by proponents because they want it to be”revenue neutral” and supersede all general taxes including state levies which would further erode the sovereignty of the States. It appears to be a centralist scheme.
I would think that the proper course of action would be to contact the sheriff and ask if he would like any assistance now or in the future regarding this situation. I noticed his phone number posted up thread, and here is his email: sheriff@co.eddy.nm.us
joins with other Sherriffs like Sheriff Joe Arpiro and Sheriff Paul Babeu, all uphold the law as written no matter what. We need these men, a rare breed of American who believe in and follow the dictates of our U.S. Constitution in the face of this lawless administration.
Considering the references supporting some form of federal sales tax, I gotta say: WTH? Y’all are cheesed off by the IRS playing “enforcer” over income taxes, and you want to replace it with something even MORE INVASIVE? Remember: the Income Tax as we know it started with a very short & simple form, and mutated into the monstrosity we have now. What makes you think that promises to not do X won’t mutate into doing exactly X and a whole lot worse?
Proposed theory: you buy a case of Pepsi, and your checkout bill has a 10% tax applied, paid by the retailer. Your prebate will be deposited in your bank account January 1.
Likely reality: you buy a case of Pepsi, swipe your debit card, your name/SSN is extracted, your purchase category (”Junk Food: Sugar”) is run against your Obamacare medical history (”high chance of inherited diabetes”), the Michelle Obama Healthy Food Surcharge of 25% is applied, the DHS PerpFinder Program performs an instant background check (you tell me how that turns out, how the store guard will react when notified that a CCW-licensed individual is at Checkout Lane #5, and what a product cross-reference with recent purchases could turn up for potential contraband production), and another datapoint is added to your dossier of behavior & travel. Your prebate is reduced by the amount fitting your likely increased medical costs, prepaying expected insulin & treatment costs, and prorating your expected unemployment for health reasons.
Don’t think it won’t happen. We have the technology for it RIGHT NOW, just not the compulsion to apply it.
That’s why the Fair Tax or a similar system is dead on arrival. It removes power (and employment) from too many thug wannabees.
True. And historically in the west, and especially in New New Mexico and Arizona, The Marshals were extremely careful to cooperate with the Sheriff.
Despite what the movies portray, Marshals had less power than a sheriff. Even worse, they were very short of manpower and facilities. If a US Marshal wanted to lock someone up, federal facilities almost didn’t exist. The only jails and lockups were run by sheriffs.
Offend one and you have nowhere to take your prisoners.
To a limited degree this is still the case. If the Marshals would have arrested this sheriff, they would be out of business in that county. And for more fun, surrounding sheriffs might go along with it.
The bitter truth for the feds is that they cling to a very slender reed of control. Mass disobedience could easily arise over something widely perceived as unjust. And they really don’t have the power to force widespread compliance.
And their location; you may want to pay them a visit later...
By the way this POTUS is not doing anything to clean up a criminal IRS....I am sure Hillary would not do anything either to bring that organization to heel.
” A federal agent does have lawful authority to arrest a sheriff in a hypothetical situation if a sheriff interferes or tries to impede a federal agent faithfully carrying out their duties. “
A federal agent has no more authority than a sheriff. A sheriff who sees a federal agent violating someone’s civil rights may indeed prevent that agent from his unlawful action. The sheriff may interfere all day long. And for extra fun, Federal agents do not have exemption from traffic laws.
Feds are accustomed to bending rules, and using intimidation. A sheriff may stop them and arrest them if he pleases.
The only time a Fed ever arrests a sheriff is if they are committing a crime, like dope, bribery, etc.
If you are right, tell us the last time the feds arrested a sheriff for simply impeding them?
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.