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."
Knock off the personal attacks!
Can we also have cautions issued for attacks on our republic. What do you all think about that?
I love the republic, that's why I want it back. But apparently you don't, since you're asking for free speech and debate to be curtailed. What a shame.
LOL! Duh, I can't believe you missed the whole point of my saying what I did.
My bad--sometimes I need slapped upside the head with a /sarc tag.
That's OK, no one else even responded to the question. That's telling, isn't it?
Demonstrated preferences, Geezer. You spend energy backing a tax-code change that does nothing to address the real problem, and mock people who point out what the real problem is.
LOL, you sure have a disconnect from reality there. The root problem is and always has been with the electorate and complacence of the Ameircan people. The the govenment we have are where they are because we the electorate put the representatives we have chosen and put there and keep them there.
For now I'm trying to convince people to shoulder their responsibility. If enough people decide to go ahead with it, I'm ready to march on Washington with them, muskets a-blazing.
Why should any listen to you.
All you offer is a ship headed through the shoals and pirates with no one at the helm other than your own good self maybe? ROTFLM(_|_)O.
You can keep your guns blazing, testosterone fill view of how to change the course of the ship of state. I'll have no part of your anarchist's view of world utopia. Its a dead end going nowhere.
And don't you know that a portion of your SS, which they calculate as the return of your tax contibution, is not counted to you as taxable? Thanks for confirming my low opinion of intellectual honesty and/or IQ of "fair tax" fraud proponents.
John Cox, a Republican from Chicago, announced that he'll probably run for president, in 2008. He wants to abolish the I.R.S. and start a national sales tax.
If you want to read more about John Cox, please check his website, www.cox2008.com. He supports penalties for illegal immigrants, and he's pro-life.
See, the way this works is this:
I post a comment to you.
You read it. Actually read the words.
Then you respond.
You apparently skipped the 2nd step.
Now go back and try it again because I explained all of that to you already.
When you come back, tell me how successful you have been in eliminating all of that excess, wasteful and blatantly unconstitutional spending? What departments have you eliminated? What spending cuts have you achieved? Who have you elected that has picked up the torch and led us into battle against the government?
I'll save you some time. The answers are ZERO! NONE! NO ONE!
We've been trying it your way for a long time and we keep losing. This is a new approach that once in place will spur tremendous economic growth for mostly everyone and get the government off our backs.
Do you like the income tax? Do you think that it is fair? Do you think that it is constitutional? Do you think that it is American in it's intent and effects?
Can we also have cautions issued for attacks on our republic. What do you all think about that?
I'm pretty sure you two can continue attacking our constitutional representative republic and the Admin Moderators nor Jim Robinson will stop you. When you come into his "living room" (FreeRepublic) and post personal attacks at his guest they may decide to ban you. And rightfully so because it's clearly posted that personal attacks are prohibited.
100% agreed. But where we disagree is that I consider your fixation on changing the modality of taxation to be just such an example of complacence: you're spending energy on how the government gets its unconstitutional moneys, instead of on stopping it.
Why should any listen to you.
Nobody will. We haven't evolved far enough from the monkey stage. People are too willing to follow their emotions--not to mention the alpha male with the biggest fangs.
Its a dead end going nowhere.
All my hopes are pinned on (1) evolution of humans into an intelligent species, or (2) the coming of Messiah, whichever happens first.
Completely irrelevant. I know I can't eliminate it. But I also know something you seem not to: eliminating it is of the utmost importance. To beg our assailants to use a bludgeon rather than a knife is to completely miss what really matters: we are under attack, and the assailants must be stopped.
We've been trying it your way for a long time and we keep losing.
The one thing we can be 100% sure of is that you have not been trying anything "my way". I'd be interested to hear you state what you even think "my way" is.
Do you like the income tax? Do you think that it is fair? ... Do you think that it is American in it's intent and effects?
No. Neither would a consumption tax be.
Do you think that it is constitutional?
Thanks to the 16th amendment, the answer is of course "yes." However, most of what the money is spent on is not Constitutional. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary carry as much weight with me as Dred Scott.
Funny, I was pretty sure you were the one doing that.
But where we disagree is that I consider your fixation on changing the modality of taxation to be just such an example of complacence: you're spending energy on how the government gets its unconstitutional moneys, instead of on stopping it.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Any other mechanism for funding government other than taxation is suspect, with excises, duties impost in the nature of consumption taxes favored.
- "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."
"A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."
"As revenue is the essential engine by which the means of answering the national exigencies must be procured, the power of procuring that article in its full extent must necessarily be comprehended in that of providing for those exigencies."
"As theory and practice conspire to prove that the power of procuring revenue is unavailing when exercised over the States in their collective capacities, the federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes. "
Your mere stating something to be unconstitutional is little more than demogoguery and hyperbole, certainly not an accurate characterization of the content of the Constitution.
Your insistance on abolishing taxation in fact places you in a camp that promotes extra-constitutional means.
Why should any listen to you.
Nobody will.
You are certainly correct in that in any case. Maybe there's hope for humanity afterall.
Its a dead end going nowhere.
All my hopes are pinned on (1) evolution of humans into an intelligent species,
Obviously you being the proto for that intelligent species no doubt. </sarc>
or (2) the coming of Messiah, whichever happens first.
Which promises more government, the opposite of what you claim is the ideal, the overthrow of all government.
At least you are consistently inconsistant in your views.
Any other mechanism for funding government other than taxation is suspect...
It is impossible to fund government by anything other than taxation. Wherever government gets its money, if paying up is mandatory, that's what we call "taxation". That being the case, your statement isn't particularly meaningful. The set of "suspect" alternatives is empty. There are no alternatives.
Your mere stating something to be unconstitutional is little more than demogoguery and hyperbole...
Then point out exactly where I go wrong. AFAICT, you aren't terribly clear what I'm referring to at any given moment. Redistribution, in the form of entitlements or other direct transfers, is unconstitutional. Reposing legislative powers in an executive agency is unconstitutional. Each thing I have called unconstitutional is, in fact, unconstitutional. One thing I have not called "unconstitutional" is taxation itself, and as you might guess there's a reason I haven't done that.
Obviously you being the proto for that intelligent species no doubt. </sarc>
Jesus said of the baptist that there is none greater born of women--but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. If it were the case that I was the smartest man on earth, I'd still be considered a dummy by humans who have evolved intelligence. And of course I am not the smartest--far from it. It isn't that I'm smart; it's that most humans are so unbelievably stupid that they can't follow simple directions or think in a straight line. We were evolved to survive, not to think logically.
Your insistance on abolishing taxation in fact places you in a camp that promotes extra-constitutional means.
You clearly don't know what "extra-" means. What I propose is well within the limits of the Constitution: the Constitution places limits on the Federal government, but nowhere does it say that the federal government can't do less than the Constitution allows.
But, as a first step, I'd be happy to get it to stop doing more than the Constitution allows. After that's accomplished, we can talk about streamlining it even further. Until then, I'm foursquare behind any true Constitutionalist.
Which promises more government, the opposite of what you claim is the ideal, the overthrow of all government.
I believe in eliminating human government, because humans are unfit to rule each other. If God wants to take over, I'm all for it. No contradiction there.
You either have a reading problem or a comprehension problem and I'm not sure which it is.
I clearly state that the spending is out of control and unconstitutional and want to eliminate, but you don't see to see or understand that.
The classic definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expecting a different result. We have tried your way -- which I see as demanding that they stop spending and by electing pols who will abide by their oath of office. It's a great plan, but it just hasn't worked. There aren't a sufficient number of people rising up to join in that effort BECAUSE THEY DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM.
Unlike any other plan out there, the FT exposes the cost of government, ie, the problem.
If you read this far, do you believe that there is anything good about the FairTax? Anything at all?
Then worry about that, rather than fiddling with things of secondary importance.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM.
I've told you repeatedly, people aren't as stupid as you seem to believe. If my source of income is tax dollars, then THERE IS NO PROBLEM. So I pay some of my ill-gotten gains back out--SO WHAT? I'm still a winner, on net. That's what's escaping your attention.
If you read this far, do you believe that there is anything good about the FairTax? Anything at all?
The question is irrelevant to the real problem. The real problem is that some people get far more tax dollars than they pay out. Those people aren't fools: they know that reducing taxes or cutting spending would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
It is impossible to fund government by anything other than taxation. Wherever government gets its money, if paying up is mandatory, that's what we call "taxation".
However, it is you who propose that taxation be abolished altogether not I.I do not deny that taxation is the basis of funding government and in fact point out its necessity as the founder saw it an provided for such in the Constititution.
The set of "suspect" alternatives is empty. There are no alternatives.
So you now deny the alternative of no taxation and no government you have proposed. For such, in principle if not in the realm of practicality anyway, is an alternative to taxation. One that you hold out as being the appropriate route to take in revolutionary overthrow of government and tossing all the rascals out in favor or anarchy and everyman for himself.
Then point out exactly where I go wrong.
Your insistance that no taxation is the answer. Where by your own admission taxation is the only mode a governement my implement to fund any of its functions. And certainly you go wrong in deciding money derived from taxation are unconstitutional in any sense of that word. The only thing that can be ascribed to unconstitutionality is the use to which moneys are put when the indeed lay outside constitutional boundries. The money has no such taint.
But where we disagree is that I consider your fixation on changing the modality of taxation to be just such an example of complacence: you're spending energy on how the government gets its unconstitutional moneys, instead of on stopping it.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Now if it is your intention to repeal such programs that do not lay within the enumerated powers of the national government, fine. I even join you in that characterisation and work for the abolishment of all but that few hundred billion necessary to the limited scope that I perceive the national government aught to be constrained to. But taxation and the revenues derived therefrom are not the issue in any sense of the word. The enactment of unconstitutional acts by Congress with no accountability to such action is the real issue and you have not begun to address what actually must be done except through up your hands in despair, revolt and throw out the baby with the bath water.
It isn't that I'm smart; it's that most humans are so unbelievably stupid that they can't follow simple directions or think in a straight line. We were evolved to survive, not to think logically.
And you of course being a superior being above most human are are the misunderstood exception. Others have belieived that of themselves as well, most warlords, tyrants and dictators assume such qualities for themselves. Scratch an anarchist you ultimately find the core of wannabe warlord in the making.
What I propose is well within the limits of the Constitution: the Constitution places limits on the Federal government, but nowhere does it say that the federal government can't do less than the Constitution allows.
What it does do is unambiguously establish taxation as the means funding providing for paying debts and common defense and not alternatives enumerated anywhere in the document. To enumerate is to deny alternatives else enumeration would not limit what government may do.
Your alternative is no government, that is not within the Bounds of the Constitutional gurarantee of a republican form of government which. Your alternative of anarchy denies the existance of government period.
I believe in eliminating human government, because humans are unfit to rule each other. If God wants to take over, I'm all for it. No contradiction there.
LOL, I suggest you start with reading Romans 13:1-7, not to mention Christ's words on the subject, of rendering to Caesar, which clearly suggests that human government derives it basis for the exercise of power from God and exists at God's behest, as a thorn to keep you in line.
If you are figuring on justifying your stand of no govenment until God comes and and hits you in the head with it through religion. I see just a slipshod way to rationalize your no government stand forgetting that religion supports the existance of human govenments and due respect of them including the payment of tribute (i.e. taxes).
Romans 13 1-7.
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Take your baloney and sell it elsewhere.
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.