CAVUTO REPORTS THAT BUSH CONSIDERING SCRAPPING THE IRS CODE!!!

Neil Cavuto just interviewed Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., the director of the OMB, and Neil let it be known that he's hearing rumblings that Pres. Bush is considering a total re-write of the tax code and that SecTreas O'Neill is strongly pushing a national retail sales tax!

No, I think the exact opposite. Which is why I don't want that level of power given to a single individual who is subject to even less oversight than members of Congress.

The HHS has a long track record of using honest calculations to determine the poverty level, certainly far more honest than how members of congress trash the U.S. constitution to the harm of all citizens. However, members of congress could start to correct their frauds by being honest like the HHS and passing HR2525. That you fail to acknowledge the wide disparity in the honest track record in the HHS calculating the poverty level from the track record of fraud perpetrated by congress regarding the graduated income tax is to be expected from persons that chose deceit over honesty.

Under GCA'68, the secretary of the treasury has the ability to declare that certain arms don't have a sporting purpose.

Congress wrote and passed GCA'68. Thus it was congress that created the problem that need not exist in the first place.

"The framers of GCA'68 borrowed an idea--that certain firearms are "hunting weapons"--from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of Gun Control.- Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, "sporting purpose," was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA'68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so."
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/laws/us/origin.html
Excerpts from an article in the May 1993 Guns and Ammo by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
The ability of the bureaucracy to misuse power it is granted is well established,

Members of congress violating their oath of office to empower most of the alphabet agencies. The IRS being but one of them. Congress created the problem. You have only tin-foil-hat assertions the the HHS would suddenly become a monster in regards to determining the poverty level. You wrote: "They can simply say the poverty level is $150,000." 901

Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936

Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939

Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.

The HHS has a long track record of using honest calculations to determine the poverty level

Irrelevant, since there is no mechanism in place to insure that future supposed honesty (and your assertion is a lie in any case. Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement). Until Bensen used his regulatory power to ban several shotguns, the treasury department had a history of assuming 12 gauge shotguns were suitable for sporting purposes. All it took was one person willing to abuse that power, in the same way that it would only take one person to abuse the power granted under the "prebate" system to pervert the US economy into communism.

However, members of congress could start to correct their frauds by being honest like the HHS

That you are willing to trust an unelected bureaucracy with almost complete arbitrary power over the US tax system over the elected representatives of the people suggests that you are either irrational or are sympathetic to tyranny. And if you believe that the HHS is an "honest" agency then you have no clue of their history. Under the Constitution, most of their activities are self-evidently illegal, and they have a long history of decisions based upon political bias rather than good public policy.

Congress wrote and passed GCA'68. Thus it was congress that created the problem that need not exist in the first place

And it would be Congress that would pass the equally flawed national sales tax "prebate" system. That Congress has made terrible mistakes in the past in granting an unelected bureaucracy power over the control of firearms does not excuse or legitimize a future mistake such as granting an unelected bureaucracy power over the U.S. economy, something your "prebate" system does.

Members of congress violating their oath of office to empower most of the alphabet agencies. The IRS being but one of them. Congress created the problem. You have only tin-foil-hat assertions the the HHS would suddenly become a monster in regards to determining the poverty level

Do you realize what you are saying? You essentially admit that the bureaucracies have misused powers that Congress has granted them, but you somehow believe that the HHS will be magically immune to this abuse of power. Of course Congress "created the problem". But just because they've created such problems in the past doesn't excuse attempts to create even worse problems (such as the socialistic "prebate" system) in the future.

The system that you are advocating is flawed. When those fatal flaws (the ability of the secretary of the HHS to arbitrarily set the value of the government handout) are exposed, your response, rather than suggesting a correction to the flaw in the system, is to insist that somehow the HHS can be trusted with this arbitrary power and throw personal attacks at anyone who continues to point out the massive flaws in your system. And you still refuse to admit that a government handout to every household in the United States is socialism, when it quite clearly is.

and your assertion is a lie in any case. Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement

I didn't know about that one specific Clinton strong arm tactic. I wonder what sort of initiatory threat of force Clinton used. Perhaps evidence is in the 900 illegally obtained FBI files that the Clinton's had possession of.

My claim that the HHS has a long track record of honesty was not a lie. It was an error. Since you don't know the difference between an error and a lie here's a quick lesson: Person A asks person B what day of the week it is. Person B responds, "it's Tuesday". Unbeknownst to person B it is actually Wednesday. Person B made an error not a lie. Had person B said "it's Tuesday" knowing full well it was actually Wednesday that would be a lie not an error. Now's your chance to correct your error and apologize for claiming that what I wrote was a lie.

That's one fraud compared to how many thousands of frauds and abuse by the IRS? IRS Abuse Reports -- The Case Against the IRS

Do you realize what you are saying? You essentially admit that the bureaucracies have misused powers that Congress has granted them, but you somehow believe that the HHS will be magically immune to this abuse of power.

I compare the track record of the basically honest HHS to the basically corrupt IRS. They are miles apart. Do you realize what you are saying? You, with your tin-foil hat assert: "They [HHS] can simply say the poverty level is $150,000." Thus overnight turn into a monster that the NRST is intent on kill a monster IRS in the first place. That you fail to acknowledge the wide disparity in the comparatively honest track record in the HHS calculating the poverty level from the track record of fraud perpetrated by congress regarding the graduated income tax is to be expected from persons that chose deceit over honesty.

Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936

Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939

Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.

From: #937:

Your assertions [that the wealthy pay a lower % of wealth in taxes than the poor or middle class] are mere repetition despite strong and clear evidence counter to what you want us to accept on the basis of your mere words.

Assertions? Mere repetition? You are denying the obvious! Show me ONE reputable source that even attempts to deny this. The “evidence” you offer uses the value of a person’s home as a proxy for his wealth. This would be laughable even if your calculations didn't stop at a $60,000 income level.

I suggest you take a good refresher course in economics… assuming of course that you have ever been exposed such a course in your experience.

Actually, I’ve read and written extensively on the financial sector.

Moving the finances in payment of production, may termed "unproductive" in terms of manufacturing. Its loss to the economy and ability to deliver payment for goods and services would be of great negative impact to any economy.

You don’t recognize a parasite when you see one.

Deuce: Some of the activity will be curtailed, while the rest of it will be taxed. I’m fine with that.

Geezer: Spoken as a true socialist.

Curtailing some activity that can’t bear a ½ of 1% tax while taxing that which can constitutes a socialistic position to you? What is your criteria for considering something socialist?

My claim that the HHS has a long track record of honesty was not a lie. It was an error

My apologies; I assumed that anyone familiar enough with the HHS to be willing to transfer so much power over the economy to it would be sufficiently familiar with its history. But you, who have labeled simple statements of fact as "deception", along with your many other unfounded personal attacks, should not be so quick to be offended.

I compare the track record of the basically honest HHS to the basically corrupt IRS. They are miles apart

The HHS is anything but "basically honest". I suggest you take a closer look at the various scandals that have plagued the agency. In any case, it is irrelevant, since even if it was an "honest" agency (and it is not), the idea of transferring arbitrary power over the economy to it via the "prebate" system is foolish. Even it it were an "honest" agency, there is no mechanism in place to assure that it would continue to be so. And in any case, even with "honest" numbers, the "prebate" system is still a government handout to every household in the U.S.

You, with your tin-foil hat assert: "They [HHS] can simply say the poverty level is $150,000."

It isn't a tin-foil hat assertion when they really can do that, and the current system would allow them to do just that. Not only is your attack Ad Hominem, it isn't even remotely accurate.

That you fail to acknowledge the wide disparity in the comparatively honest track record in the HHS calculating the poverty level

As has already been shown (and even admitted to by members of previous administrations) no such "honest track record" exists. In fact, the opposite (manipulation of the value for political purposes) is the case. To believe that somehow the HHS will suddenly become "honest" and not abuse power that it historically already has abused is quite foolish, especially when it would relate to the ability to socialize the entire economy via the "prebate" government handouts.

from the track record of fraud perpetrated by congress regarding the graduated income tax is to be expected from persons that chose deceit over honesty.

I claim you have lied because you state something that is a lie, and you get offended and insist your lie was just an "error". Then you claim that my opposition to giving an unelected bureacracy essentially total control of the economy is "deceit" and somehow equates to support of the graduated income tax, something I have never advocated. Once again, it is you who are being deceitful, since in this case you are setting up a Straw Man argument that I have never advocated.

Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie.

Zon: You, with your tin-foil hat assert: "They [HHS] can simply say the poverty level is $150,000." 943

It isn't a tin-foil hat assertion when they really can do that, and the current system would allow them to do just that.

And you can go postal and shoot up the local mall and kill a dozen people. If the HHS declared the poverty level was anywhere near $150,000 is would be a completely obvious fraud.

Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936

Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939

Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.

And you can go postal and shoot up the local mall and kill a dozen people.

So you would not be opposed to passing a law making it legal for someone to do that, because it is unlikely they would actually do it? To suggest that the a government bureaucracy be given the power to do something as equally repulsive, with the only justification for delegation of that power being that they 'probably won't use it' is the height of foolishness.

If the HHS declared the poverty level was anywhere near $150,000 is would be a completely obvious fraud.

Again, that is irrelevant, since there is no mechanism to prevent them from doing so. To suggest that it is a "fraud" would do no more to prevent its implementation than insisting that secretary Bensen's classification of some semi-auto 12 gauge shotguns was a "fraud" and illegal under the 2nd amendment. History, including recent history, is full of various government agencies making declarations that are obviously nonsensical and unconstitutional, yet the results of those declarations remain in effect. Public opinion of what is a "fraud" is no limit on the power of an unelected bureaucracy that is insulated from the effects of public opinion.

You still refuse to admit that giving government handouts to every household in the U.S. is socialism, which it quite clearly is. Even worse, you advocate a system which empowers an unelected bureaucracy with the ability to arbitrarily determine the amount of that handout. When this obvious flaw in the system is pointed out, you insist that the fatal flaw will never be exploited because doing so would be a "fraud", even when that very same agency has a history of adopting, for political purposes, equally "flawed" values for the exact same arbitrary number.

Curtailing some activity that can’t bear a ½ of 1% tax while taxing that which can constitutes a socialistic position to you? What is your criteria for considering something socialist?

Ever hear of truth in lending? I suggest you engage in a little truth in taxation.

That "½ of 1% tax" is compounded by the number of accounts & instuments the money must pass through to consumate the trade becoming a 365% tax on the basic value of the commerce being financed.

That is not only socialist it is down right usurous and confiscative.

As posted in a prior reply regarding the effect of the Tobin tax you advocate:

http://www.europarl.eu.int/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm#chap3
Table 1: Simple annualised effective Tobin Tax rates for differing turn-around periods, assuming constant exchange rates (see also " Calculating equivalent annual tax rates"

Nominal Tax rate (%) Effective Tax rate (annual %)

1 day/ trading day* 1 week 1 month 3 months 1 year 10 years

0.01 7.3/4.8 1.04 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.002

0.05 36.5/24.0 5.2 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.01

0.1 73/48.0 10.4 2.4 0.8 0.2 0.02

0.15 109.5/72.0 15.6 3.6 1.2 0.3 0.03

0.2 148/96.0 20.8 4.8 1.6 0.4 0.04

0.25 182.5/120.0 26.0 6.0 2.0 0.5 0.05

0.5 365/240 52.0 12.0 4.0 1.0 0.1

1.0 730/480 104.0 24.0 8.0 2.0 0.2

* As formulated by Tobin, the annualised rate was calculated on the basis of what a round-trip would cost if carried out every day, on the basis of 240 trading days in the year.

You don’t recognize a parasite when you see one.

Transfer of payment across both time and space for goods and services without risk to those who it is due is parasitic?

Ever hear of a futures contract sold by a producer to remove risk of currency value, and price change of goods contracted for future delivery? Someone needs to take on that commercial risk or trade does not take place at the levels necessary to sustain our level of commerce, and that is the people who engage in your "unproductive", "parasitic" activity. That risk by the way is substantially induced by irratic government fiscal and monetary policies more than any other factor.

Government protection, of private property my eye. The market does the protect from the rapacious inroads of government manipulations of currency base and central banking control of intrest rates under government auspices.

The risk of price currency changes are spead among those who trade the contracts, an action which assures delivery of goods and services for a guaranteed payment not subject to manipulations of government monetary supply and other other intrusive factors external to trade.

Such is activity is the same activity as insurance plays on an individual level. That insurance requires the spread of risks among those willing to take the risk on for the possiblity of eaking out a profit with regard to unpredictable market changes across time .

So you would not be opposed to passing a law making it legal for someone to do that, because it is unlikely they would actually do it?

There is already a law prohibiting any person form going postal. Similar could be done for the HHS to ensure honest calculation of the poverty level. No law can guarantee any random person out of a quarter billion people won't go postal. A law prohibiting the commissioner at the HHS from putting out a dishonest poverty level $number is far far easier to "guarantee" that he abides by the law than a random person from a quarter billion people going postal. But you'd never think rationally that far ahead. But you do think irrationally far ahead to proclaim your tin-foil-hat assertion that: "They [HHS] can simply say the poverty level is $150,000." Despite it being a completely obvious fraud if HHS did that, and there would be a law prohibiting the HHS commissioner from putting out a dishonest poverty level $number in the first place. Your words show that dishonesty knows no bounds and the need for such a law.

You still refuse

I didn't refuse I simply ignore your false assertion.

Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936

Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939

Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.

There is already a law prohibiting any person form going postal. Similar could be done for the HHS to ensure honest calculation of the poverty level

But such a law does not exist. Enact it first (or as part of the proposal), and the worst flaws in the system would be eliminated. The "prebate" would still be a government handout and still be socialism, but at least it wouldn't have the previously discussed fatal flaw. But as the proposal exists right now, it DOES have that flaw.

But you do think irrationally far ahead to proclaim your tin-foil-hat assertion that: "They [HHS] can simply say the poverty level is $150,000.

Without the modification to the law that you just proposed (but neither exists in reality nor in the currently proposed legislation), they CAN simply do that. To suggest that pointing out that fatal flaw, which quite clearly DOES exist, is "tin-foil" is dishonest on your part, a dishonesty that you continue to pursue to hide your initial refusal to admit the existence of the flaw.

Despite it being a completely obvious fraud if HHS did that, and there would be a law prohibiting the HHS commissioner from putting out a dishonest poverty level $number in the first place

There is no proposal for such a law prohibiting fraudulent poverty levels, since "poverty" is an arbitrary concept. To suggest that there "would be" a law is meaningless. Pass that law first, or as part of the legislation, since without it my objections to the system are self-evidently correct.

Your words show that dishonesty knows no bounds and the need for such a law

Such a law quite clearly would be needed. The fact that you now admit as such, even though you continue to characterize the pointing out of that the flaw as "tin-foil" or a "false assertion", shows that you recognize that the flaw does exist. But to suggest that the reason why such a law needs to exist is somehow related to my "dishonesty" (simply because I point out that without such a mechanism there is no limit on the "prebate" government handout amount) is irrational.

He fears that too many people will actually learn the truth about the possibility of eliminating the socialist/marxist income tax

So now my opposition to a system that creates the possibility of communism merely on the whim of an unelected bureaucracy is "marxist"? If anything is "marxist", it is your defense of a system that involves government handouts to every household in the U.S.

Of course he'll come back denying that he's pro income tax

More Strawman attacks. I have never advocated an income tax, nor opposed a national retail sales tax as a replacement for an income tax. What I oppose is your stupid government handout mechanism. Not only is it socialism, but as the bill is written it gives arbitrary power over the amount of those government handouts to an unelected bureaucracy. That, quite clearly, is a flaw. At least Zon has (finally, rather than ignoring the flaw for so long) proposed a solution to this flaw by making a "fraudulent" value for the poverty level illegal. Even so, that solution is probably unworkable (a better solution would be to remove that as a basis of the calculation entirely, or base it on a percentage of average per capita income).

But the bill as proposed does not provide a solution to that flaw, and your Ad hominem arguments (ironically calling me a "marxist" BECAUSE I oppose a system that would implement socialism) do nothing to correct that fatal flaw.

Keep on flappin' techno!

I haven't a use for the combination of stupidity and/or dishonesty you've shown.

How a refund redistributes wealth???? How dumb is that... so dumb I think you may be lying.

Some places you say that it would be better to simply exempt certain items rather than refund the tax on necessites. What's the difference?

You need government to define what you need? Not me.

Why would you want or need to have government in control of what "necessities" are... that's the difference you desire.

Ignorant or purposefully misleading- I have no use for either. SHould you ever decide to be honest I am happy to engage.

Go ahead and use some big words on me now.... it'll make you feel better.

Happy FReeping or DU-ing or wherever you usually hang.

Zon: Your words show that dishonesty knows no bounds and the need for such a law. 952

Such a law quite clearly would be needed. The fact that you now admit as such,

Yes I do based on your words of dishonesty in several of your posts, dishonesty knows no bounds; thus you have demonstrated a need to thwart dishonesties that may also crop up in HHS.

Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936

Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939

Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.

How a refund redistributes wealth???? How dumb is that...

It isn't a refund. As the legislation is written, it is a government handout, whose value is set by an unelected bureaucracy (based on an arbitrary "poverty level" value). Your lies and ad hominem attacks do nothing to change those facts.

Some places you say that it would be better to simply exempt certain items rather than refund the tax on necessites. What's the difference?

The difference is that the "refund" has nothing to do with the amount of tax paid, and could easily (by manipulation of the arbitrary "poverty level" value) be used as an instrument of wealth redistribution. The worst that making some items "tax free" could do would be to allow them to be purchased without any government influence. There is no way that government can give money out of the treasury to certain political groups via not charging taxes, and that is something that the "prebate" system certainly WILL do. The moment after legislation like this is implemented, there would be scores of "poverty pimps" insisting that the poverty level is too low and the "prebate" value needs to be set to a higher value. And since, as the legislation is currently written, the only thing necessary to modify that poverty value, and associated government handout value, is a statement of that fact by the bureaucracy published in the Federal Register. A leftist secretary of the HHS could implement communism with this system as easily as a leftist secretary of the treasury was able to ban certain shotguns, merely by the stroke of a pen.

Why would you want or need to have government in control of what "necessities" are... that's the difference you desire.

It isn't what I desire, it is what I merely find preferable to a system that would allow government handouts (of any value desired by a future administration) to every household in the U.S.

Ignorant or purposefully misleading- I have no use for either

Then stop being ignorant or purposely misleading. Either you are ignorant of the facts surrounding the flaws in the currently proposed system, or you are being deliberately misleading and you have some ulterior motive in establishing the mechanisms of socialism that the proposed legislation would mandate. Since you have already shown your willingness to be misleading (claiming that I have advocated marxism and an income tax just because I oppose a socialist redistribution system that is even worse), it is unclear as to exactly which sin you are guilty.

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.

Nominal Tax rate (%)	Effective Tax rate (annual %)
Nominal Tax rate (%)	1 day/ trading day*	1 week	1 month	3 months	1 year	10 years
0.01	7.3/4.8	1.04	0.24	0.08	0.02	0.002
0.05	36.5/24.0	5.2	1.2	0.4	0.1	0.01
0.1	73/48.0	10.4	2.4	0.8	0.2	0.02
0.15	109.5/72.0	15.6	3.6	1.2	0.3	0.03
0.2	148/96.0	20.8	4.8	1.6	0.4	0.04
0.25	182.5/120.0	26.0	6.0	2.0	0.5	0.05
0.5	365/240	52.0	12.0	4.0	1.0	0.1
1.0	730/480	104.0	24.0	8.0	2.0	0.2