Posted on 09/02/2005 11:01:09 AM PDT by pigdog
Comment: 50 Reasons I Support the FairTax (How many reasons can you give for supporting the present IRS tax system?)
Those Who Know the Facts Love the Fair Tax www.fairtax.org
FairTax and Individuals and Families (Family-friendly tax reform)
1. It allows workers to keep 100% of their pay, with nothing withheld the IRS or for Social Security and Medicare payments.
2. It is revenue neutral with the present income tax system, funding the federal budget at current levels.
3. It shifts the tax to consumption. Records show that consumption is more stable than income, therefore the tax revenue stream is likely to be a more stable and predictable amount.
4. It is progressive, a “prebate” of the tax amount up to the poverty level is given to everyone. This means that those spending below the poverty level have a net gain because the “prebate” exceeds the amount paid in taxes. (Under the present system the working poor pay the payroll tax even if they get a full refund of income tax withheld.)
5. It doesn’t tax pre-owned items – clothes, cars, homes. Only new items are taxed when sold by a business to an individual.
6. It is expected to remove an average of 22% of the cost of American made goods by removing the built-in payroll tax (the other 7.65% of earnings that employers pay), corporate income tax, and other business taxes that are now passed to consumers as an “embedded" tax of approximately 22% due to the cascading of income and payroll taxes paid by U.S. employers, at every step of production, to the U.S. Treasury. Competition will cause prices to fall by approximately that amount, on average.
7. It allows families to save more for home ownership, education, and retirement. An average family making $50,000 will have $7,500 more spendable income.
8. It removes the need for formal accounts of the 401(k), IRA, HSA, etc., varieties. Anyone, rich or poor, will be able to set up any kind of savings or investment account without regard to taxes or the government. No special knowledge of tax law is necessary.
9. It makes educational tuition a tax-free expenditure of tax-free income.
10. It eliminates the income tax and the IRS. Members of Congress and the public overwhelmingly agree that the current internal revenue code is cumbersome, intrusive, coercive, and inefficient.
11. It eliminates 90% of the cost of compliance. American families and American businesses waste an estimated $250 – $600 billion per year (and countless hours of time) doing the paperwork necessary to comply with the current tax code. That is roughly $1,000 – $2,000 annually for every man, woman and child in the U.S. (Businesses typically pass their tax bills and compliance costs on to the consumer, i.e., individuals and families.)
12. It’s simple, unambiguous, and certain, the opposite of the current tax code, 60,044 pages and counting.
13. It assures that no American will find, at the end of the year, a need to get a loan to pay taxes as an alternative to penalties, interest, or cheating.
14. The broader tax base comprises everyone spending money in the U.S., including the ten percent of our economy (an estimated $1 trillion) that today is underground or under the table. Under the FairTax, the illegal drug dealer will pay his tax just like the rest of us when he buys his sunglasses, BMW, and other items, as will those who work for cash and undocumented immigrants, all of whom receive government and societal benefits.
15. It encourages work by letting workers keep 100% of their earnings and giving a rebate, in addition, making the notion that “the more you work, the more money you have”, a reality, unlike the current system where welfare is lost when you go to work, so the first dollars earned after taxes just offset what a welfare recipient is currently receiving in assistance, so working is perceived as disadvantageous.
16. It allows more of the lower income families to become home owners by allowing a second job income above their current income (all tax free) to be applied to a mortgage. Money for down payments for homes is also saved totally tax free, causing it to accumulate faster.
17. It has the result that all lending in America will be at the equivalent of today’s tax exempt interest rates, which are 25%-30% less than today’s taxable home mortgage interest rates. This will create a huge boom in housing purchases and allow existing homeowners to refinance and reduce their cost of homeownership substantially.
18. It allows families to retain farms and businesses in the hands of those who built them through the elimination of the death tax.
19. It allows families to give tax-free assistance to one another by eliminating the gift tax.
20. It gives individuals (and businesses) the right to donate as much as they want to in a given year to charitable causes, without concern for exceeding an allowed limit on giving.
21. It encourages individuals to self-insure, making the health system more direct-pay (no 3rd party pay), thus bringing costs down.
22. It puts an end to the anxiety for honest taxpayers that begins soon after January 1 for most of use, culminating in wondering whether we’ve claimed everything we legally could and nothing we shouldn’t, all without raising questions at the IRS. It makes April 15 just another day. (Perhaps it will be a holiday after the FairTax is enacted!) FairTax and Social Security and Medicare
23. It eliminates the regressive payroll tax that hurts the poor. Currently, every one of us is taxed a minimum of 7.65% on our first-dollar of wages up to $90,000 (the cap for FICA, not Medicare), if we earn that much. It provides funding for Social Security and Medicare at a level equal to or greater than the present.
24. It provides that all 290 million Americans and 51 million visiting tourists fund Social Security and Medicare with their purchases. Today only 110 million workers fund these programs via deductions from their paychecks.
25. It assures that the wealthiest Americans will be voluntarily helping to fund social security with every last dollar they spend above the poverty level. Today, earnings are subject to FICA taxes only up to $90,000. The wealthiest Americans therefore do not pay into the system above that amount. If their earnings are from investments, no earnings fund the Social Security system.
FairTax and the Economy
26. It increases investment in business by eliminating the capital gains tax.
27. It allows for better planning by businesses, because they no longer have to consider tax implications for everything they do.
28. It makes higher employment or better compensation possible in the small business sector, where today it costs approximately three dollars in compliance costs to pay one dollar in payroll and income taxes.
29. It makes American products more competitive overseas by removing the embedded tax from them, thus lowering the prices of our exports, which compensates for low foreign wages.
30. By making our exports more competitive overseas, it lowers our balance of trade deficit and increases employment at home.
31. By removing the embedded tax from them, it makes American products more competitive with imports here, compensating for the low cost of imported products from which taxes have been removed before exportation to the U.S.
32. It encourages investment in companies located in the U.S., thus providing a home for money already in the U.S. and attracting more. The U.S. will be the most attractive tax-free haven in the world for doing business.
33. It encourages repatriation to the U.S. of money held by U.S. individuals and companies now in foreign countries, with no tax consequence. American companies will return from offshore and overseas.
34. It results in a windfall profit, likely to be invested in job-making businesses, for many of those holding taxable corporate high interest bonds at the time of passage of FairTax, since the bonds will not be taxed under FairTax. (Currently, a higher interest rate is usually paid to entice investors to buy the corporate bonds rather than go with the lower interest, but tax free, municipal bonds.)
35. It results in Federal Reserve rates being based on current consumption, which is rather stable, instead of future earnings, which are less predictable, resulting in surer inflation prevention.
36. It reduces production costs for farmers and other subsidized businesses, leading to a reduction in subsidies, thus reducing the federal budget.
37. It moves many individuals now providing tax advice (return preparation, advice, accounting, planning, and records maintenance) into an expansive economy where they will be producing goods and services. There they can add to the standard of living of all Americans and likely earn more than they do currently, instead of shuffling paper for the government (and not contributing anything economically to society).
FairTax and Churches and Non-profit Organizations
38. It frees churches and other non-profit organizations from the expense of filing tax returns and paying their half of Social Security and Medicare payments for employees. There will no longer be any 501(c) (3), 501(c) (4), etc., non-profit tax status, because there will be no more tax to be exempt from.
39. It restores to churches and non-profit organizations the 1st Amendment right to engage in free speech, without fear of losing their tax-free status. FairTax and Rights and Freedoms
40. It restores the 4th Amendment, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, from which the IRS presently is exempt.
41. It restores the 5th Amendment, which guarantees the right to due process. Under current systems the IRS has their own courts with their own set of rules not included in the 5th.
42. It restores individual privacy. The government no longer needs to know where you work, what you are earning, and what you are doing with it.
43. It relieves citizens of the risk of facing the shift in burden of proof that is so common with the current system, i.e., the taxpayer is guilty unless innocence can be proved, but even the IRS staff sometimes gives conflicting interpretations.
44. It eliminates the need to have a "marriage" clarification declaring who you live with, as that no longer has any bearing at all on a state or federal sales tax.
45. It eliminates the need for courts to decide which divorced parent gets to take the tax deduction for children.
46. Without FICA to pay, most states, counties, municipalities, and school districts will see a large increase in their state budget revenues, additionally lowering the overall tax burden (State & Federal) for most Americans.
47. It eliminates the administrative costs incurred by states in collection of state sales taxes because states will piggyback the state tax collection onto the national tax collection, for which they are compensated by the FairTax ¼% administrative cost give-back. (Retailers receive an equal amount for collecting the FairTax.)
FairTax and Politics<\b>
48. It cleans up a major flaw in campaign financing, eliminating campaign donations for "tax favors".
49. It eliminates wrangling in Congress over tax cuts, the tax code, and who is or is not paying a fair share of the tax bill, providing more time for debate on more productive issues.
FairTax and the Environment
50. It’s good for the environment. Reportedly, the IRS sends out 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year. Laid end to end, they would stretch 28 times around the earth. Nearly 300,000 trees are cut down yearly to produce the paper for all the IRS forms and instructions. Also, since it taxes only new items, it would encourage buying tax-free pre-owned cars, clothes, furniture, houses, etc. Reuse is good for the environment, too.
Kenneth J. Van Dellen (with help from friends)
Gawd!!! Am I glad you're not pro-FairTax.
With the FairTax as the tax law of the land, the 16th amendment becomes merely a anachronism - much like the prohibition amendment and it should easily pass as a repeal bill - AND be ratified.
The Squirrels primary argument always seems to be to try to claim the FairTax supporters are lying. That's ALWAYS argument #1 with them it seems. And YOU'D be well-advised to clean up the myriad of falsehoods that keep being promoted in response to detailed information from the FairTax supporters.
It would no doubt surprise you to know that everything we post are not "lies", etc. In fact, that is vanishingly small from what I've seen when you still have several pposters making claims contrary to the language in the bill even. Get your house in order first my friend.
FairTax isn't that an oxy-moron, not you... the proposal.
Anything that sounds too good to be true,,,,,,,,,,,,IS
Repeal the 16th amendment..
Your view is that the repeal of the income tax code would lead to repeal of the 16th amendment. I understand your argument but strongly disagree with it.
Any may disagree.
Frankly, I don't see why Congress would repeal the 16th amendment once the income tax is repealed.
Control of Congress and the Whitehouse is strong incentive, especially with the overwhealming support of the electorate behind such a repeal. But then you can certainly disagree with the potential for that as well.
They'll say, just as YOU are saying, "It isn't necessary. We ABOLISHED the income tax. We ABOLISHED the IRS. Amending the Constitution is hard! We can't get the other guys to go along with it! And we'll never get 3/4 of the states to ratify it!"
They could certainly say that, but that won't get them vote one from the electorate.
But they'll have less incentive than they have now. They'll use the same excuse you use now: It isn't necessary.
Ahh but the excuse now is the income tax is necessary to pay the bills, there is no other tax to replaced it. That has been the situation for 92 years. Besides enough of their constitutents get a free ride under it so their seats are totally safe.
However, whether I'm right or your right, NRSTers who say there is no mechanism by which it could be done are spreading falsehoods. If I were an NRSTer, I would repudiate those posters, because they make my side look bad to folks trying to find an honest debate.
Hmmm, what mechanism are you proposing to repeal the 16th with the income tax system in place that does not suffer from the fact that with the income tax in place means don't need to even let a repeal resolution out of committee.
Besides, why would Congress enact a resolution to amend the constitution when there is always the Flat Tax to be held out as a way to go, which of course needs the 16th amendment for constitutionality as it is yet another income tax, not the mention the employee side of the SS/Medicare taxes (not addressed by Flat Tax) which require the 16th in place as well.
Gee you think maybe that there will be no repeal of the 16th as long as an income tax exists? With 92+ years of political history in this nation to judge from that is not even a bet a sucker would take a position against.
Wait for 16th repeal = Keep the income tax and VAT that is coming right down the pike behind it.
One way
ECONOMY; A New Money Machine for the U.S.; The old ways can't keep up. We need a value-added tax to meet revenue demands.
August 29, 2004 Sunday
by Bruce Bartlett.
http://www.ncpa.org/abo/quarterly/20043rd/clip/20040729lat.htm
or another:
Issue: What Is the Best Way to Collect a Value Added Tax?
A value-added tax (VAT) generally is a tax imposed and collected on the value added at every stage in the production and distribution process of a good or service. Although a VAT may be computed in any of several ways, the amount of value added generally can be thought of as the difference between the value of sales and purchases of a business. (e.g. Revenues - Costs = Taxable Business Income)
***
Subtraction-Method VAT. Under the subtraction method, value added is measured as the difference between a business's taxable sales and its purchases of taxable goods and services from other businesses. At the end of the reporting period, a rate of tax is applied to this difference in order to determine the tax liability. The subtraction method is similar to the credit-invoice method in that both methods measure value added by comparing sales to purchases that have borne the tax.
***
The subtraction method differs from the credit-invoice method principally in that the tax rate is applied to a net amount of value added (sales less purchases) rather than to gross sales with credits for tax on gross purchases. A business's tax liability under the credit-invoice method relies on the business's sales records and purchase invoices, while the tax liability under the subtraction method may rely on records that the taxpayer maintains for income tax or financial accounting purposes
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm
"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"
"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."
The Flat Tax; Chapter 3, by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka
Here is the logic of our system, stripped to basics: We want to tax consumption. The public does one of two things with its income—spends it or invests it. We can measure consumption as income minus investment. A really simple tax would just have each firm pay tax on the total amount of income generated by the firm less that firm’s investment in plant and equipment. The value-added tax works just that way. But a value-added tax is unfair because it is not progressive. That’s why we break the tax in two. The firm pays tax on all the income generated at the firm except the income paid to its workers. The workers pay tax on what they earn, and the tax they pay is progressive. To measure the total amount of income generated at a business, the best approach is to take the total receipts of the firm over the year and subtract the payments the firm has made to its workers and suppliers. This approach guarantees a comprehensive tax base. The successful value-added taxes in Europe work this way. The base for the business tax is the following:
Total revenue from sales of goods and services
less
purchases of inputs from other firms
less
wages, salaries, and pensions paid to workers
less
purchases of plant and equipment
The other piece is the wage tax. Each family pays 19 percent of its wage, salary, and pension income over a family allowance (the allowance makes the system progressive). The base for the compensation tax is total wages, salaries, and retirement benefits less the total amount of family allowances.
Concerning Proposals for a Flat-Rate Consumption Tax
Before the Joint Economic Committee, Statement of Robert S. McIntyre
Director, Citizens for Tax Justice May 17, 1995
- The Hall-Rabushka flat tax, and its Armey and Specter variants, would replace the current personal and corporate income taxes with a new tax that is conceptually identical to a "subtraction-method" value-added tax, a version of a national sales tax, with two major modifications: First, imports would be exempt from the flat tax, while exports would be subject to tax. Second, to mitigate the regressivity of the VAT, cash wages, pensions received and other cash earned income would be taken out of the VAT base (i.e., deducted by businesses) and taxed directly to individuals, with exemptions. Thus, structurally, the flat tax is exactly equal to a value-added tax with an import incentive, an export disincentive and a personal rebate based on a percentage of a capped amount of cash wages, pensions and other earned income.
Absolutely. I think they could score well with the anti-immigration/America First crowd and many others. There are several areas where they have real advantages. But instead of making these arguments, fair taxers insist that this is some kind of miracle cure for everything. There are pros AND there are cons. But they have to exaggerate their pros and lie about the cons, and frankly they look silly trying to spin those arguments. Yesterday's debate on the backward bending labor curve was simply an exercise of stupidity on their part. They can't concede any point no matter how small or how wrong they are.
Frankly, I don't see why Congress would repeal the 16th amendment once the income tax is repealed.Actually, I think the states would be a harder sell. Do you think the states would repeal the 16th and lock themselves into a tax system that has them paying hunderds of billions in taxes?
Dear ancient_geezer,
"Hmmm, what mechanism are you proposing to repeal the 16th with the income tax system in place that does not suffer from the fact that with the income tax in place means don't need to even let a repeal resolution out of committee."
The same mechanism that would be used to repeal the 16th amendment after the NRST is in place, which also suffers from the fact that with the NRST in place, the politicians won't need to even let a repeal resolution out of committee, as they will have their cake while eating it, too.
But whether it is politically LIKELY, it is nonetheless a falsehood to say that the mechanism doesn't exist.
The fact is, there is nothing in the Constitution or in law to prevent repeal of the 16th amendment before the NRST came into being. The NRST legislation could be written to take effect only after repeal of the 16th amendment, or a repeal amendment could provide a transition period.
If you want to argue that that's impractical, that's a matter of opinion and not a falsehood, per se. However, to say that it can't be done, is not possible, is a falsehood.
You are not, as far as I know, one of the posters guilty of this falsehood. Your argument has ever been that it's just too hard politically to get done, but that then we'll wave some fairy dust, and all of the sudden, the 40% of the population that is unalterably liberal will suddenly become conservative, and will replace Ted Kennedy and Barbara Mikulski with folks who will repeal the 16th amendment, and that then at least 8 of the blue states, with entrenched liberal legislatures, will magically go conservative and vote to ratify this repeal amendment.
Although to me your argument fails self-evidently, it's a projection of what is possible, and it is certainly within the realm of what is legally possible that your otherwise unlikely scenario could come to happen. Your argument, your projection, in my view is dead wrong, but it is not a falsehood.
On the other hand, to say that the NRST legislation can't be written with a trigger to take effect with the repeal of the 16th amendment is a falsehood.
It disapppoints me that the more reasonable voices for the NRST won't stand up and be counted to repudiate nonsense like that.
Be honest: Yes, the 16th amendment could be repealed. Yes, the NRST could be written with a trigger. But it's just too hard, we'd never get the NRST, and we want the NRST so badly that we're willing to take the risk of winding up with both the NRST and the income tax.
sitetest
Actually there is no "hundreds of billions" at all. That was just anopther of your liberal daydream/nonsence pieces with no information to back it.
Dear Your Nightmare,
I'm not even sure that all the putatively red states would ratify the repeal amendment.
I think the liberal politicians like Sens. Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Mikulski, and others would run around the country telling folks, "Why do this?? You're tying the hands of the United States! What if we have a big recession, and we need to tax the rich to close the deficit?? What if we have a really big war, and we need to tax the rich to pay for it??"
And then, the folks who lose the NRST fight (liberals) will go to their liberal audiences and say, "We were defeated with the NRST, and it's JUST NOT FAIR THAT THE RICH AREN'T PAYING TAXES ANYMORE!! But we won't let them pass the repeal of the 16th amendment!"
That none of their arguments will make any sense will not make them any less effective, regrettably.
There are more than 12 states in the United States of America where to endorse ideas deemed to be conservative, no matter how good or sound they are, is to invite political death.
sitetest
FairTax isn't that an oxy-moron, not you... the proposal.
In comparison to the current federal income/payroll tax system, what would you prefer to call a consumption tax?
As one may discern from Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, it is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.
"[T]he Equity of Imposition, consisteth rather in the Equality of that which is consumed, than of the riches of the persons that consume the same. For what reason is there, that he which laboureth much, and sparing the fruits of his labor, consumeth little, should be more charged, than he that living idlely, getteth little, and spendeth all he gets; seeing the one hath no more protection from the Common-wealth, than the other? "
Taxing in accordance with
"what they actually take out of the common pot, not what they leave in."
makes emminent sense to me.
At least the founders of our Constitution seemed to figure it that way:
- "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."
- "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."
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "
"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."
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."
Repeal the 16th amendment
By all means do so. Of course there is the little problem of prying such a resolution out of Congress while the income tax is still in place. 92+ years of political finagling ain't managed it yet.
And with the full paycheck going to workers, your ASSUMPTION that prices would only fall 8-10% (and also cost 30% more according to you) is nothing but that ... an ASSUMPTION of yours and since we know you strenuously oppose the FairTax on the pretext that it is "dishonest", etc. it seems reasonable that we can take that little fact of your bias into accountGuess you didn't either and you even posted it. If that's the letter from the 75 economists, you left out the parts where your 75 economists say or even agree that everyone would get 100% paychecks and retail prices would drop 20%...----
Guess you didn't read the letter from the 75 economists ... it is THEY who ALL say that the worker will get their full check.
Were you saying something about dishonest, bias and ASSUMPTIONS?
And then, the folks who lose the NRST fight (liberals) will go to their liberal audiences
You might take a look at who has actually supported an NRST and who doesn't some time:
Better yet visit a few liberal blogs and find out what liberals actually think of the worlds most regressive tax on the poor and VRWC scam to steal from the poor and give it to the rich.
Too, too phunnie, Looey. Check post #78 before running your mouth off. It's been posted for a long time.
Perhaps you just to read phaster???
Sounds like more Bovine Scatology to me.
You were asked in post #87 to post some information relating to you questionable claims re 16th repeal.
Please either do so or stop the nonsense since you have no idea what you're talking about..
But whether it is politically LIKELY, it is nonetheless a falsehood to say that the mechanism doesn't exist.
Since the resolution you must write is the proposal for repeal itself, with income tax in place it will sit just exactly where every other such resolution across the last 92+ years to repeal the 16th will sit in the Congressional committee and never see the light of day.
What you describe is to over come a catch 22. Play it the wrong direction we stay right where we are with VAT style sales taxes coming at us ontop of income tax whatever form Flat or otherwise.
For the only way to stop that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting excises and duties, good luck.
The fact is, there is nothing in the Constitution or in law to prevent repeal of the 16th amendment before the NRST came into being. The NRST legislation could be written to take effect only after repeal of the 16th amendment, or a repeal amendment could provide a transition period.
Fact is there in nothing in the Constitution or in law to force even the proposal of a repeal of the 16th amendment past that Congress. Nor is there anything in the Constitution to prevent a VAT or any other sales tax from being imposed ontop of income taxes now, nor has there ever been.
The fact is the American electorate will not stand for both under any condition, and there is a solid 92+year history of that one as well.
If you want to argue that that's impractical, that's a matter of opinion and not a falsehood, per se. However, to say that it can't be done, is not possible, is a falsehood.
Go ahead propose your repeal. There are other already on line that would only take a small amount of change to implement what you demand. Go for it.
In the meantime, the VAT awaits.
On the other hand, to say that the NRST legislation can't be written with a trigger to take effect with the repeal of the 16th amendment is a falsehood.
Actually the NRST legislation could be written as the required Joint Resolution to propose repeal the 16th, with implementation of specified legislation, such as HR25, on ratification.
However, 92+ years says clearly that it will not get out of Congress for even an attempt at ratification by the states.
Flat Tax with VATs however remain the cause of the times, and I have no doubt whatever which will happen and which will not.
It disapppoints me that the more reasonable voices for the NRST won't stand up and be counted to repudiate nonsense like that.
I guess you'll just have to be disappointed then as I totally disagree with your premise. For the very dangers that you hold up for the enactment of an NRST replacing all income taxes, is much more immediate in present legislation to tax consumption ontop of currently proposed income taxes today with much greater probability of success than any resolution requiring repeal of the 16th with income taxes in place.
Be honest: Yes, the 16th amendment could be repealed, with an NRST implemented on ratification.
Yes, the NRST could be written with a trigger.
Actually the trigger of necessity would be the Joint Resolution required proposing repeal of the 16th for which 2/3 of both House & Senate for mere enactment of the proposal per Article V of the Constitution. 92 years of history says ain't going to happen with an income tax in place.
. But it's just too hard, we'd never get the NRST, and we want the NRST so badly that we're willing to take the risk of winding up with both the NRST and the income tax.
Versus the certainty that we will end up with a VAT and income tax in place before a Joint Resolution to propose repeal of the 16th would ever get out of Committee whatever kind of tax were to be implemented on ratification of such proposal.
Sorry I will go for a risk of something happening any day over what I see as a certainty with the direction of proposals for VAT with income taxes coming from both sides of the isle, openly and in stealth forms both. A VAT nor any consumption type tax requires a constitutional amendment for enactment. The threshold to achieve such, especially in a stealth proposal of such is much less than the threshold of a proposal for amending the Constitution.
As I see it there are only a few areas of disagreement.
Whether or not an employee can get his gross pay and prices can still be lowered to offset the 23% or 30%, no need to get into the inclusive exclusive thing, sales tax.
The repeal of the 16th Amendment.
If you think there are other significant areas that are deal killers, please bring them up before we continue.
Dear ancient_geezer,
"You might take a look at who has actually supported an NRST and who doesn't some time:
"H.R. 25 Cosponsors, by Political Party"
Precisely!
Thanks for making my point!
Should the NRST pass, the liberals will go to their liberal audiences, and complain bitterly about it to their liberal audiences. And they will vow to their liberal audiences to fight to the death not to permit the 16th amendment to be repealed, thus letting the evil rich folks off the hook once and for all.
That their views will amount to little more than raw, used sewage will not reduce the effectiveness of their demogoguery.
I'm glad you agree with me.
If the NRST is passed, the liberals will dig in their heels (will HAVE TO dig in their heels to have any chance of political survival with their constituencies) and will block the repeal of the 16th amendment.
sitetest
Actually there is no "hundreds of billions" at all. That was just anopther of your liberal daydream/nonsence pieces with no information to back it.You don't think the states paying 29.87% on all their purchases and the wages of their employees would be hundreds of billions of dollars?
If the NRST is passed, the liberals will dig in their heels (will HAVE TO dig in their heels to have any chance of political survival with their constituencies) and will block the repeal of the 16th amendment.
Of course to get that income tax back into the books, they will have that little problem of getting past all those folks, including many of their constituents that remember just how bad income taxes and the IRS that goes with them really are.
Sorry the real danger lay in leaving an income tax on the books now, the stealth sales taxes await Congress's pleasure on both sides of the isle. No constitutional amendment of anykind required. Just the right Flat Tax pitch to get it in, and always saddled with the bureaucracy and personal intrusion that goes with income taxes, always.
"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.
Personally I prefer to see the income tax thrown out, and let them fight to put it back instead of handing them the certain victory for fear that I might have to put up resistance to a future income tax with all the barriers to enactment that exist for every bill introduced to Congress.
Bottom line the income tax must go, whatever it takes to achieve that.
| "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." |
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.