Posted on 04/04/2006 2:17:28 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
The FairTax (HR 25 in the US House and S 25 in the US Senate) is a federal retail sales tax that replaces the entire federal income and Social Security tax systems, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare.
More FairTax benefits:
No tax on used goods. No tax on business inputs. With the FairTax, if you choose to buy any new good or service, the sales tax is charged just as state sales taxes are computed today. If you choose to buy used goods - used car, used home, used appliances - you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no FairTax. So, in deciding what to buy, you get to choose whether or not you pay the FairTax.
No federal sales tax up to the poverty level means progressivity like today's tax system. Furthermore, to ensure that no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?
All Americans take home their whole paychecks. Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks. Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or their compliance costs, which drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay. Did you know that hidden income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 to 30 percent of all retail prices? It's true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices - from 20 to 30 percent higher than they would otherwise be - for everything you buy.
Tax criminals - don't make criminals out of honest taxpayers. Today, the IRS admits to 25 percent non-compliance with the code. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax taxes those engaged in the underground economy capturing their income at the cash register. The substantial decrease in points of compliance - from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers - also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the code.
The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home. Most importantly, U.S. exports are not burdened by the FairTax, as they are with the current income tax. So the FairTax allows U.S. exports to sell overseas for prices 22 percent lower, on average, than they do now, with similar profit margins. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, foreign imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries' value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.
YOU are in charge! The FairTax moves us from a system that taxes what we earn to a system that taxes what we spend. Under the FairTax, you control your tax liability, not the government. The FairTax puts "we the people" in charge of our money, and puts us all on the path to economic freedom!
To enact the FairTax and unleash the full economic potential of the U.S., we must apply Vocal and Persistent pressure on Congress each week.
Email, call or fax your members of Congress today. Send them this simple message: "Please support replacing the federal income tax code and become a co-sponsor of HR 25 or S 25, the FairTax."
Argumentum ad verecundium doesn't cut any ice with me.
Special pleading never cut any ice with me.
Nothing cuts any ice with you, and you will never see your utopia just status quo which is where your vision leads for lack of public support and any common sense. Good day to you.
But if you honor your word for a change, that's fine with me.
You have slung ad hominems/insults at me and others on this thread. I thought you liked that kind of thing. Thus you got tagged with them nickname spaghetti boy.
You haven't read the bill (H.R.25) and as ancient_geezer pointed out in post 146: you are "merely throwing sphegetti at the wall to see what sticks rather than presenting rational arguments."
Shalom Israel: If you want to abolish taxes, I'm behind you 100%.143
Shalom Israel: You lobby them to change their oppression a teensy bit. I want to see them shut down entirely.217
I think, ancient_geezer nailed it in his 201 post: "Sorry, don't buy your cant of taxes are theft. More a tax protest/anarchist's position than one of a rational position taken from Constitutional considerations." 201
You're a tax protesting anarchist, IMO.
Well, faulty logic doesn't, at any rate.
...and you will never see your utopia...
I will not live to see the end of oppression--that's true. Unlike you, I don't respond by choosing to collaborate with the oppressors.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. An ad hominem is an argument of the form: you're wrong, because you're stupid. What I did is not that. What I said was: you're wrong (and, by the way, you're also stupid).
I will not live to see the end of oppression--that's true
I would certainly hope not, as your view of what the world should be would be the end of the constitution and the republic it guarantees. Everyman for himself anarchy is not a warm fuzzy in anyone's lexicon.
Unlike you, I don't respond by choosing to collaborate with the oppressors.
To an anarchist like you have claimed for yourself, any government at all is collaboration with oppressors. I'll stick with working to rebuild the basis of government this nation was established on, a constitutional republic with limited and enumerated powers.
Anarchy is just a formula that leads to a tyranny of the warlord and whoever carries a bigger gun to harass and oppress his neighbor. As a conservative I have no interest nor truck with those who deal in chaos. I have seen more than enough examples of such in my life time and have no desire to see more.
Your fears are overblown. Remember: Hobbes was a moron. Hobbes was a moron.
To an anarchist like you have claimed for yourself...
Anarcho-capitalist, please. "Anarchists" are almost all mob-rule socialists.
...any government at all is collaboration with oppressors.
Certainly. But I'll gladly take the minarchy designed by the founders, if I could get it. What I won't do, under any circumstances, is repeat the lie that our present government is what the founders created. The Constitution is long dead. Its primary use today is as a facade to legitimate out-and-out totalitarianism.
Anarchy is just a formula that leads to a tyranny of the warlord...
In one sense I agree with you: people are so stupid, that if you gave them freedom, they would become utterly terrified, and run around in a panic trying to figure out who's their master. People are not ready for freedom, and so in a sense don't deserve it. Franklin's cynical "if you can keep it" was prophetic.
On the other hand, you are amazingly confident that you know exactly what would happen if we instituted something completely unprecedented in the world. Since your ability to prophesy the effect of even minor changes in tax law is so poor, why would you believe that you can so confidently predict the outcome of a completely revolutionary society?
As a conservative...
The left-right dichotomy is a fiction. The true dichotomy is liberty versus state control. You and your leftist "foes" both believe in state control; you merely bicker about which rules to impose on the unwilling.
Nevertheless, I've already stipulated that I'm perfectly happy to settle for a minarchist republic. You've ignored that; perhaps because you don't know what "minarchist" means. It means "that government is best which governs least." It means reducing government to its bare minimum. The founders believed in that. You don't.
Nevertheless, I've already stipulated that I'm perfectly happy to settle for a minarchist republic. You've ignored that; perhaps because you don't know what "minarchist" means. It means "that government is best which governs least." It means reducing government to its bare minimum. The founders believed in that. You don't.
The founders believed in a structured form of govenment delimited by the Constitution they established.
I note that you have stated that your intent is to remove key elements of that Constititution, i.e. taxation, as represented in Article 2, Section 8 clause 1 of that Constitution.
"taxation is theft"
"You believe in their fundamental right to pass laws. I believe it's high time to abolish it."
and its basis in the governing bodies that it provides and grant of express authority to enact law within the section 8 enumerated powers to do so.
Since that is undoubtedly your stand, to claim:
"But I'll gladly take the minarchy designed by the founders, if I could get it"
Is ingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest on its face. Especially in view of your demands to through the baby out with the washwater. In that light your statements regarding your minarchist republ.
Nevertheless, I've already stipulated that I'm perfectly happy to settle for a minarchist republic. You've ignored that; perhaps because you don't know what "minarchist" means. It means "that government is best which governs least." It means reducing government to its bare minimum.
The founders believed in that.
What is obvious is that you don't as you reject the basis of the government they did establish and provide for with the institution of government under their authorship of the Constitution.
You don't.
I would suggest you not succumb to the pretense of reading others minds and declaring what they believe in. What I believe in is the restoration of our government back to the boundries laid out in the Constitution regardless of your attempts to build a strawman by characterizing my positions otherwise.
You mean a flat tax like the one we had in 1865?.......never mind.
They explicitly believed in limiting the power of government as much as possible, consistent with their belief that it was necessary for maintaining the peace.
I note that you have stated that your intent is to remove key elements of that Constititution...
Forest. Trees. You're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic: the Constitution is already dead, yet you're pretending to defend it. If you want to do something, instead of blowing hot air, then do something about the unconstitutional spending that takes place, rather than continuing the rape using a new method.
All entitlement programs, including social security, medicare and medicaid, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $1 trillion.
All regulatory agencies are unconstitutional: they are departments of the executive branch given legislative powers; the legislature has no authority to delegate legislative power to anyone. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $30 billion in the federal budget; another $800 billion in indirect costs such as compliance costs.
All economic subsidies, including but not limited to farm and other food price supports, Amtrak, and the Import/Export bank, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated annual savings: $650 billion.
All foreign aid is unconstitutional. Eliminate all of it. Now. Estimated annual savings: $25 billion.
If the Constitution were followed, the US budget would be less than $700 billion, instead of about $2.4 trillion. Naturally, taxes would be reduced commensurately. Then we could talk about the best form of tax. What you're doing is supporting about $1.7 trillion in unconstitutional spending, while blathering as if you're defending the Constitution.
Like I said: rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
On the other hand, you are amazingly confident that you know exactly what would happen if we instituted something completely unprecedented in the world. Since your ability to prophesy the effect of even minor changes in tax law is so poor,
Retail sales taxes are hardly unprecidented in the world, in fact we have 45 five examples of there successful implementations in the states, many of which have economies in excess of most nations in the world. Texas being a fine example of not only using retail sales tax but managing to do without income taxes as well, as is called for in the FairTax legislation.
FairTax just implements what has already been shown to be a sucessful formula for funding the basic functions of a government. The FairTax legislation simply takes what has been successful in the political laboratories of the states and implements it on a national scale using state expertise in administering sales tax systems to administer the same on the national level.
why would you believe that you can so confidently predict the outcome of a completely revolutionary society?
LOL, talk about slipshod logic and fallacy this really takes the cake. Just looking at the result of such revolutionary societies that have many examples throughout the world. Anarchy leads to a dead end.
The nasty part of revolutions is there is no way to control the outcome to a good result as by definition there is no-one responsible for steering the ship away from the shoals. The general path of anarchy usually ends up in tyranny and dictatorships in one form or another regardless of the expressed intents of its proponents in initiation revolution in the first place.
Not interested in the least in going down your path. Seen to many examples of anachy and where it leads in the world.
What is the FairTax?
Something we will never see. It is the modern day version of the hunt for the holy grail.
Apparently, "we the people" overwhelmingly desire welfare, social security, drug benefits and all manner of socialist handouts. So by your reasoning, you too are a socialist, since you're one of "we the people".
In reality, there's no such thing as "we the people". There are individuals. Many want the government to act as their agent, stealing resources at gunpoint from other, unwilling individuals. Which is one reason I don't vote: I don't want you pretending that a vote for Bush means I want to take his "prescription butter benefit" up the tailpipe.
If you know of a plan that would eliminate taxes...
You just said, "Since you too are powerless to stop the oppression, you might as well join us in debating whether we'd rather be stabbed or bludgeoned."
You dingbat. What's unprecedented in the world is complete elimination of government, as a way to end the oppression once and for all. You're positive you already know that, without Teddy Kennedy watching you like a hawk, you and your neighbors would erupt in a shooting war for domination of your block. You dismiss such a suggestion as guaranteed "chaos", when you haven't the foggiest what it would really be like.
By contrast, you also make confident predictions about the impact of the "fair tax", which are easily seen to be absurd on their face.
So far you've revealed two ridiculous assumptions about humans. First, you assume that they do not adapt to new conditions (they do). Second, you assume that, unless Teddy Kennedy keeps a sharp eye on them, they'd all suddenly start raping, pillaging and murdering each other (they wouldn't).
Just looking at the result of such revolutionary societies that have many examples throughout the world.
Ignorance clearly breeds absolute confidence. But we already knew that. It has seldom or never been tried in history. On the occasions that it has was tried, such as colonial Pennsylvania for about a decade, it has worked well. But, being ignorant of such things, you're comfortable throwing a dart at a map and saying, "Rwanda. See? It doesn't work!" as if Rwanda was a relevant example.
Not interested in the least in going down your path.
Of course not: you believe in oppression; you simply want the oppressors to do things your way.
Seen to many examples of anachy and where it leads in the world.
It's safe to say that you've never seen an anarcho-capitalist society in all your life. You're picking some random hell-hole and labeling it that, meaninglessly. I might as well counter, "I've seen enough brothels to know that your philosophy doesn't work either."
All entitlement programs, including social security, medicare and medicaid, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $1 trillion.
Fine go ahead, I don't see your plan for accomplishing it. The FairTax legislation takes the initial first steps toward achieving that by assuring the entire electorate perceives the financial burden such programs impose through a common tax system that all participate in rather than the mechanisms in place that remove large sectors from even the perception of paying the bill for largess.
All regulatory agencies are unconstitutional: they are departments of the executive branch given legislative powers; the legislature has no authority to delegate legislative power to anyone.
Congress does not have the power to delegate legislative power to agencies. However agencies are the implementation of executive power authorized by legislative authority of Congress through implementation of law. And Congress without doubt has been given authority to enact laws that implement there authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, as well as several other areas under the enumerated powers of Article II Section 8.
Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $30 billion in the federal budget; another $800 billion in indirect costs such as compliance costs.
With your magic wand to make this happen? LOL.
All economic subsidies, including but not limited to farm and other food price supports, Amtrak, and the Import/Export bank, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated annual savings: $650 billion.
Sounds good, but once again you lack the magic wand to make it happen. Without the electorate perceiving a personal cost to them as a result of such subsidies, (e.g. consumption tax that all perceive the participate in) same old pattern will continue. FairTax legislation implements the first and necessary step toward electorate involvement in the political process of getting government back under control.
Walter Williams puts the essential problem before us and hints at its resolution very simply:
It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
- Walter Williams
Without the feed back of the costs of largess to the electorate, guess what government does what it does best pander to those who figure their getting a free lunch, and assure they don't wake up to reality by hiding the costs from their view.
Bush touts relief as tax day looms
Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.
That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, figuring someone else foots the bill.
All foreign aid is unconstitutional. Eliminate all of it. Now. Estimated annual savings: $25 billion.
Fine, why haven't you done it, what your plan that gets us from where we are today to where we should be. What's your first step in the process.
If the Constitution were followed, the US budget would be less than $700 billion, instead of about $2.4 trillion. Naturally, taxes would be reduced commensurately. Then we could talk about the best form of tax. What you're doing is supporting about $1.7 trillion in unconstitutional spending, while blathering as if you're defending the Constitution.
No change with out the involvement of the electorate. Where's your plan to bring them on board. The FairTax retail sales tax involves all persons directly in the process of paying for the largess. Until people perceive the cost in their lives of the largess they demand, guess what they will continue to demand more govenment.
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
APRIL 5, 2001
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.
Like I said: rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Throwing out cliches doesn't make what you say a viable plan for change. Nor does what you say, have much to do with the reality of implementing the changes that must occur from the ground up to get where we would like to be from where we are today.
Changing the tax system to one that is transparent and perceived by entire electorate is but a first step in a long process of restoring government to the bounds envisioned by the founders of our Constiutional republic.
Your anarchy is not an answer nor a process with defined goals it is merely the institution of choas which begs for tyranny to step in.
You dingbat. What's unprecedented in the world is complete elimination of government, as a way to end the oppression once and for all.
There are plenty of examples in the world of such attempts. They end up being less than anarchist would hope for. Mainly tyranny and dictatorships that gravitate to the vacuum created by no on at the helm.
By contrast, you also make confident predictions about the impact of the "fair tax", which are easily seen to be absurd on their face.
So far you've revealed two ridiculous assumptions about humans. First, you assume that they do not adapt to new conditions (they do). Second, you assume that, unless Teddy Kennedy keeps a sharp eye on them, they'd all suddenly start raping, pillaging and murdering each other (they wouldn't).
Foolishness and total fallacy at work, lets see you succumb to the use of both adhominen strawman attacks not to mention total absurdity to bolster your lack of plan to get from where we are today, to where we ought to be.
You are welcome to your anarchy. I will have none of it. The world has seen the results of anarchy and it isn't pretty.
It has seldom or never been tried in history.
It has been attempted endless times through out history every revolution is merely the anarchist at work, unfortunately the promise of anarchy morphs into tyranny before the revolution even completes it process. Sorry not interested at all in your idea of a utopian world without government.
Of course not: you believe in oppression; you simply want the oppressors to do things your way.
Since we know that in your lexicon, government = oppressors. That is merely stating the obvious.
Yes I want govenment to operate in a particular manner, that being the expression of the Constitution as written and established by the founders of this nation. Always interesting to watch an anarchist at work in twisting even the basic meaning of words to couch his arguments in language that hides the reality of what he actually is saying.
It's safe to say that you've never seen an anarcho-capitalist society in all your life. You're picking some random hell-hole and labeling it that, meaninglessly. I might as well counter, "I've seen enough brothels to know that your philosophy doesn't work either."
Since you claim there never has been one, you have never seen one in all your life either. From what I have seen of you I doubt I would ever care to see the result of such. All anarchy guarantees is no one at the helm when the ship hits the rocks.
Your complete disregard for history concerning the impetus for expanding black market activity discredits you.
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.