Posted on 08/29/2004 7:17:58 PM PDT by det dweller too
Income Taxes - The fool’s game
The political season is heating up again and the politicians are busy playing the fool’s game of appealing to our darker instincts. They call on us to tax the rich and everyone cheers, except a few that are immediately labeled as selfish and thereafter ignored. In the end, the politicians usually get their way by convincing the majority to raise income taxes on the rich.
The reason it is a fool’s game is the sad fact that the income tax operates as a hidden fixed cost on domestic business. If you put a large income tax load on the business owners, even if you deduct 100% of the income taxes from the workers, the price of the products they make still goes way up. In the past this was met with a yawn and a shrug as everyone paid the new price, but today there are alternatives. The businessman today that loses profitability because of higher taxes simply can turn to sources outside the US for products that are beyond the reach of our income tax laws. In this way, the businessman can support the tax change voted in by the majority while at the same time maintaining his profit margin by switching to imported products that undercut the pricing from domestic businesses. As the domestic businesses try to compete, they look for ways to cut costs. Since the tax costs cannot be avoided, the only area left to cut is the cost of their domestic labor. In the end it is the majority who voted on taxing the rich that end up losing their jobs, benefits, and wages.
The only effective way to quit this fool’s game is to stop hiding the cost of income taxes in our domestic products. Instead of income taxes, we should consider a simple excise tax on all products sold in this market, regardless of where they are made. Note that this is not a sales tax or value added tax, which can be abused by taxing the same product multiple times. Taxing a product once when it is brought to market takes the cost out of the product itself and puts it into the act of marketing the product here. Import and domestic products marketed here would be taxed at the same rate and exports would not be taxed at all. This will remove the hidden cost penalty that have been causing the loss of jobs in the US and immediately improve US global competitiveness.
F. Kelly
Canton, MI
The idea is that that each person has a right to the necessities of life (in this case, defined by poverty-line spending) without being subject to tax. Minors are the responsibilities of the parents, so the parents are given the minors' benefits.
Also, consider it pretty much an exact replacement for the personal exemptions and standard deduction of the income tax (which take into account the number of dependents).
"The idea is that that each person has a right to the necessities of life (in this case, defined by poverty-line spending) without being subject to tax. Minors are the responsibilities of the parents, so the parents are given the minors' benefits."
I really don't know where to begin with my disagreement with the presented "idea" or explanation. I'm assuming that you don't perscribe to it, just that you attempted to explain it. Yes, I know the "idea" all to well. It really comes down to "its for the chilruuuun" explanations and such. If "minors are the responsibilities of the parents" how can they have benefits owed to them by the government that the parents have a right to assume?
Keep in mind that I am seperating the issues between the states and the feds. The Federal Government's only constitutional role is to offer security through the military. If we can reach agreement on that, then with a larger family there is more to protect, therefore costing the Fed more money. I could make the case that the parents should be paying more in Federal taxes than a non-parent. In fact, they certainly would be paying more under an NRST with no "# of persons in the family" check being sent every month.
In lieu of a solution that I can offer, I will accept the NRST with the rebate. The only other solutions I have seen open the door to wide for political favors or they close the door the the NRST all together.
But minor dependent children are assumed to not be providing for themselves, but rather to be the responsibility of one or more parents and/or legal gaurdians. This explains why the child's benefit is paid to the head of the household (and not the child), even though it is the child's benefit. Children's benefits are smaller than adult's because their necessary expenditure is lower.
Who gets to determine what is a "basic necessity" of life? Who gets to determine what cost level of these "basic necessities" is fair?
By accepting that we "have a right to have the basics of life untaxed by the government -- that's every man, woman, and child" then we accept that the government has the right to tax us on everything else. By accepting your reasoning, then we accept that the government owns all money and only allows us to keep what we want (or gives it back) based on what the government decides is "basic necessity" and what is an appropriate amount.
Show me where the right you describe has been defined?
CSM, you always beat me to the punch ! This is the way to make EVERYONE realize what they are paying. Then ALL will open their eyes and get envolved !
Principled is right on too! He always reminds me that even the moochers pay taxes when the buy goods! I always let that imbedded thingy slip my mind.......I guess it isn't imbedded far enough into my psyche yet!
By accepting that we "have a right to have the basics of life untaxed by the government -- that's every man, woman, and child" then we accept that the government has the right to tax us on everything else.
Actually the government has the enumerated power to tax us on everything else, and that as well.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- 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;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Show me where the right you describe has been defined?
By carving it out through the essential limitation on the authority to lay and collect taxes by the exercise of the right to influence and choose representation that one may exert in the political process as a constituent/voter.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
- "The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the Government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."
And the key words are: "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"
The common defense is explicitly stated and agreed to by every American. Now, the "general welfare" statement is of the US, not of each citizen of the US. The entitlements are explicitely for the "general welfare" of specific groups of citizens to the detriment of other US citizens. Any entitlement that improves the general welfare of one citizen by harming the general welfare of another citizen can not be considered "providing" for the general welfare of the United States.
Mis-use of the words "general welfare" will be the key that Hillary holds and expects all Liberals to use to open the wallets of all the productive members of our society.
Any entitlement that improves the general welfare of one citizen by harming the general welfare of another citizen can not be considered "providing" for the general welfare of the United States.
The limit on that still resides in the hands of the electorate, exercising that "eternal vigilance" that is the price of attaining and keeping freedom.
The problem we deal with however is the disconnect between largess and the perception of its costs by large segments of the electorate.
The exercise of "eternal vigilance", is a bit limited with government imposed horse blinders on.
Walter Williams nails the essential:
"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?"
Don't perceive the cost, ... pigout
That's why I support the NRST, however, in the meantime I say we should pass legislation that requires all persons participating in any election be taxpayers. If a person does not pay federal taxes, then they should not be allowed to participate in federal elections. Same for all levels, state, local, etc. I would venture a guess that the budgets would be whipped into shape in no time if the moochers couldn't vote themselves pay raises!
I say we should pass legislation that requires all persons participating in any election be taxpayers.
I can agree with the sentiment, but a small impediment stands in the way, like getting 2/3rd of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with repeal what they did to that idea in the 60's:
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
Hmmmm, the foundation for a socialistic form of government has been formidably laid! It just goes to show the hard work ahead to get back to the foundation we were originally built upon.....
It just goes to show the hard work ahead to get back to the foundation we were originally built upon.....
I nominate that as understatement of the year.
NRST is just the first small step on a very long road ahead.
"By accepting your reasoning, then we accept that the government owns all money and only allows us to keep what we want (or gives it back) based on what the government decides is "basic necessity" and what is an appropriate amount."
Actually, the Federal Reserve owns all the money (not the government or us) and we are only allowed to keep what they will allow (if you hoard too much they will consider you a threat to the economy, etc.).
If the NRST passes, my expectations for(not fear of or joyous anticipation of) a 2nd revolution will be greatly diminished. If that first step can be taken, then a seed of hope will be planted for the destruction of the socialistic principles without violence.
If not, then I fear violence will be the only resolution.
It's yours to steal, but I didn't do the list so I can only take credit for stealing it too. This is from the PA FairTax volunteer website. www.pafairtax.org
While you are there, can you take a few minutes and answer the poll questions?
If not, then I fear violence will be the only resolution.
I've just read through this thread and see that most of your questions have been answered by the real experts -- kevkrom and ancient_geezer. I've also note that the questions are legitimate and an attempt to learn as opposed to highjacking the thread.
What you posted above is more true than many are willing to acknowledge. If we can get this enacted, we will will have made huge strides down the path to liberty.
Thanks for your help in that journey.
I just wanted to thank you all for your efforts and your willingness to enlighten those of us that need it.
BTW, if any of you know about any coordinated efforts in southeast MI regarding a push for HR25, then please freepmail me some contact information.
I've certainly heard a mostly tongue-in-cheek thoery that you should get 1 vote for each $1 net you pay in federal taxes. It makes a perverse sort of sense in that the people paying most for the government ought to have the most say in how it is run.
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.