Posted on 02/23/2004 1:31:24 PM PST by ancient_geezer
John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a pure consumption tax:
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.S.1493
Sponsor: Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] (introduced 7/30/2003)
Title: A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
So Ron Paul's amendment has a chance at enactment & ratification:
H.J.RES.15
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/28/2003)
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
(But modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR25 calls for, or we will see European style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
How far we've come! We leave a birthright to our children that is nothing less than slavery on the installment plan. While our forefathers were no longer ready to suffer evils that were insufferable, we have tamely surrendered our wages to the convienence of a pay stub and work the equivalent of every fourth year without pay in servitude to government. Over the course of a working man's life, that amounts to more than a decade of slavery. It's high time to end the cancerous growth of government and free up our wealth to do with as we please--we may just have a better world for it.
The fight was not against taxation; it was against taxation without representation. The states, immediately upon achieving their independence, all imposed taxes-- very substantial ones in some states; and as soon as the U.S> Constitution was ratified, the federal government started levying and collecting taxes.
At the birth of our nation, the people were ready to fight, without great debate, when Parliament levied a 20cent tax on any advertising done in newspapers.
Actually the fight was over representation not taxation per se.
An interesting quote from the past as regards taxation:
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.
The fight today is more about representation without taxation under the graduated income tax:
- "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.
Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:
- "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
Consumption taxes replacing income taxes would DRAMATICALLY shift the tax burden from those that make higher incomes to those who make lower incomes.
You haven't bothered to read the legislation or find out about the NRST have you.
All legal residents will receive a FCA equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services. The FCA will be paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the monthly FCA will be determined by the government's Poverty Level for a particular family size, multiplied by the tax rate.
Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size.
The 2001 "FairTax" Family Consumption Allowance Figures |
|||
Family Size |
HHS Poverty Level |
Annual FCA |
Monthly FCA |
One |
$8,590 |
$1,976 |
$165 |
Two |
$17,180 |
$3,951 |
$329 |
Three |
$20,200 |
$4,646 |
$387 |
Four |
$23,220 |
$5,341 |
$445 |
Five |
$26,240 |
$6,035 |
$503 |
Six |
$29,260 |
$6,730 |
$561 |
Seven |
$32,280 |
$7,424 |
$619 |
Eight |
$35,300 |
$8,119 |
$677 |
1) Federal Register: February 16, 2001, Pages 10695-10697).
[ The monthly FCA for each adult is .23 * (HSS poverty level for a single person)/12 to assure no marriage penalty due to the manner in which the poverty level is dependant on family size. The monthly FCA for each child is .23 * (the incremental increase of HSS poverty level for a family with one child over no child) ] A. Geezer
A family of four, for example, could spend $23,220 per year free of tax because they will have received over the course of the year rebates totaling $5,341. $5,341 is the amount of sales tax paid on $23,220 in expenditures. A family spending double the "poverty level" or $46,440 per year will effectively pay tax on only half of their spending and, therefore, have an effective tax rate of 11 ½ percent or half the FairTax rate.
The beauty of the FairTax is that you can control how much you pay in taxes. If you happen to save, invest or spend a portion on used [previously taxed] items, you can get your effective tax rate below 9%.
[71] To illustrate the plan's progressive nature we can examine the tax burden that a family of four will have at various annual income levels (or in this case, annual spending levels).
Not only does every family receive a FCA based on family size, not income, but they will also receive 100% of their paycheck:
Fedup Smith makes $39K per year...once the FairTax is the law of the land he will receive an instant increase in pay of $200.00 per week. Since he has a family of four, he will receive a FCA of $445 per month, for a total of $1,305.00 additional income per month that he can do with as he sees fit
No change any repeal of the 16th Amendment
LOL, not enough anyway, read the article again.
gets a floor vote in either house anytime soon, much less receive 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the states to ratify.
That is why it is necessary to work for replacement of the income tax statutes first. Make the income tax obsolete, the appropriate amendment to PROHIBIT all income and payroll taxes will happen much sooner.
We are much closer than you may realize to the repeal of the statutes and the NRST.
Last session of congress there weres only 7 co-sponsors and a bill in the house.
Today there are the sponser & 43 co-sponsors with a bill in the house 2 sponsors for the sister bill introduced in the senate.
As well as support growing through out both houses of Congess,
and among challenger running with the NRST in their campaigns.
Time to put that stake in the heart of the income/payroll tax system and the IRS, and the National Retail Sales Tax bill HR25 is the way to do it.
Congress Critter's In the News
Senate
Herman Cain, position regards tax reform, May 9 2002:
House
Dennis Umphress, libertarian (California 16th District)
With more out there each day the election season advances.
No, but it would be a good start. We will never get the income tax repealed *without* repealing the 16th Amendment.
The Federal tax system is so entrenched that it will have to be dismantled piecemeal, and the cumulative mistakes which led to its creation, reversed incrementally. We can *start* by repealing the 16th Amendment.
Then, while the sodden, putrescent old crows (and bats) on the Supreme Crotch debate the implications of *that*, we can go about revamping the tax system one Socialist edifice at a time.
In the end, it should be possible (if necessary) to pass another Amendment, explicitly *disallowing* income taxes, so as to guard against any future formation of a Socialist tyranny of the sort to which we all now perform ritual sacrifice on April 15 (On your knees, scum!).
Patrick Henry: We contended with the British about representation. They offered us such a representation as Congress now does. They called it a virtual representation. If you look at that paper, you will find it so there. Is there but a virtual representation in the upper house? The states are represented, as states, by two senators each. This is virtual, not actual. They encounter you with Rhode Island and Delaware. This is not an actual representation.
And what kind of representation do we encounter today? Unelected bureaucrats who get paid at the end of the day whether they do their job or not. How many are there? Five million? At the birth of our nation, the debate concerned questions about two senators from small states having as much voice as two senators from large states.
I suspect that we'd have a second revolution if everyone had to pay that 2-cent tax, instead of having it deducted by their employer. I wonder what the colonists would have thought of a tax refund that so many look forward to today?
We don't have representation.
The states, immediately upon achieving their independence, all imposed taxes-- very substantial ones in some states; and as soon as the U.S> Constitution was ratified, the federal government started levying and collecting taxes.
Misdirection. The federal government didn't dare levy a direct tax on the income of average folk until the Founders, and their children, were long dead and in their graves.
As for the states, only taxes that were palatable to the Founders were levied. My state didn't dare lay an income tax until the 1960s.
The federal government didn't dare levy a direct tax on the income of average folk until the Founders
Interestingly Congress had considered a federal income tax during the war of 1812 and would very likely have enacted it had that war not ended when it did.
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htm
1815 Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Dallas contemplated the enactment of an income tax to raise up to $3 million dollars for the war effort. He modeled his idea after the income tax Britain adopted in 1799 to finance the Napoleonic Wars. Dallas assumed that such an income tax constituted an indirect tax, and would not require apportionment. The House Ways and Means Committee responded lukewarmly to the proposal, and the war ended before any income tax could be enacted.
Strickly speaking Congress was quite willing to do so, but only under conditions that could make it politically feasible, like the Civil War, when the first income tax acually did take effect and was infact extended several years beyond that war until the electorate turned against it.
Interesting little ditties in history, when one goes looking.
We will never get the income tax repealed *without* repealing the 16th Amendment.
And why not? The 16th does not mandate an income tax by any means. Income tax statutes have been repealed by Congress in the past under public pressure to do so, specifically the income tax of the Civil War.
The only thing keeping the income tax statutes in place to day is apathy of the voter, not anything more than that. With public interest growing in the NRST, so is support in Congress refer reply#9.
The Federal tax system is so entrenched that it will have to be dismantled piecemeal, and the cumulative mistakes which led to its creation, reversed incrementally. We can *start* by repealing the 16th Amendment.
Starting with the repeal of the 16th is incremental, ROTFLMAO.
When the income/payroll taxes are dimantled and shown to be obsolete, there will be plenty of pressure political will to repeal the 16th and prohibit income taxes. However, there will be no such move out of Congress without a proven replacement in place. NRST achieves that necessary step up to the plate.
Seems the amendment was a runaway political ploy intended to kill enactment of a proposed income tax. A ploy that backfired badly:
read: The Bailey Bill
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.