B.S.!
Posted on 12/17/2004 4:38:48 AM PST by JOHN W K
ANSWERING A FAIR TAX QUESTION
During yesterday's show a caller asked what would happen to her 401K funds if the Fair Tax bill became law. No income taxes had ever been paid on that money residing in her 401K. If, by the time she starts drawing that money out, the income tax is history, will she have to pay some sort of penalty? One month ago I would have rattled off the answer. No. No penalty. No taxes. You take the money and run. Yesterday, however, I was a bit more cautious. I've spent many hours over the past weeks studying the history of the income tax, the history of withholding, and various schemes for tax reform including, of course, the Fair Tax. I wanted my answer to be dead-on accurate, so I deferred until I could dive into the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at boortz.com ...
"Couldn't they both have something to do with it?"
That depends on whether you believe that tax cuts spur the economy or not and whether you look at tax policy from a dynamic or static perspective. The point is that it is debatable whether the deficit would have been greater or less without President Bush's tax cuts. It isn't debatable whether or not slower economic growth has a major impact on federal revenues.
Where is that in the bill?
-- It's in the CATO Institute version of the plan.
"It is you who has consistently misrepresented the facts."
"Care to show an example?"
Sure. I'm pretty sure you were the one who posted that it really wouldn't do any good to eliminate the bias that our current tax system provides to foreign producers over and above our own producers because the fed would just change the money supply and negate any attempt to level the playing field in that manner. IOW, it is inevitable that our system would shift in such a way that foreign producers would always have an advantage over us. Presumably that would hold true for foreign markets, as well as our own.
That is so wacky as to be laughable. I honestly don't know if you actually believe that or not, but I sincerely doubt if any reasonable posters or lurkers on these threads do.
And no, I don't consider LewisLynn, Willie Green or balrog666 to be reasonable. They foam at the mouth just as much as you do.
Listen, the Government is not defining family. Here's why:
Every American adult gets x amount of money, regardless of what type of family they reside in.
Every American Child gets y amount of money, regardless of what type of family they are in.
Every American adult gets a prebate for spending up to $9,310 tax-free.
Every American child gets a prebate for spending up to $3,180 tax-free.
"It isn't debatable whether or not slower economic growth has a major impact on federal revenues."
Oops! Lost sight of who I was responding to. With YN, EVERYTHING having to do with taxes and the economy is debatable. Let's just say that the impact of slower economic growth on the federal budget is not generally questioned by reasonable people.
-- It's in the CATO Institute version of the plan.
Provisions to allow NRST financing in mortgage debt have also been included in the most recent version of the Fair Tax Act:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House) `CHAPTER 2--CREDITS; REFUNDS
|
Assures lending institutions are made whole in regards NRST with mortgage defaults, providing the protections needed by lenders for extending coverage of tax as well as the principal in a mortgage.
The NRST credit converts the default property back to a business use status eligible for sale or rental with collection of NRST.
You're mixing facts in order to cnfuse the newbies.
If take-home pay (THP) + the rebate (R) is 23% higher than before the tax shift and prices (P) stay exactly the same before imlementation of the FairTax (FT), then buying power (BP) is EXACTLY THE SAME.
If THP + R > P + FT, then Buying Power increases.
If THP + R < P + FT, then Buying Power decreases.
Get it???
-- Like all goods and services, USED homes will not be taxed. The Market Value of your home would be (assuming that your two homes are itendical) is $250,000 plus the FairTax (making it $324,675). You would make out like a bandit.
It's funny, because some arguments AGAINST the FairTax is that used home prices will go far too high and crowd out new construction.
Your anti freedom screed is so full of holes I hardly know where to start so how about this vicious lie:
In essence, the so called fair tax rations tax-free basic necessities of life, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each family!
How in the world anyone could call completely untaxing the poor, as the FairTax, and ONLY the FairTax, surly would do, a device for rationing anything is beyond me
ANSWER:
If the necessities of life were not taxed at all, then, and only then, would the poor not be taxed under the so called fair tax. But the fact is, the necessities of life are taxed and the poor are compelled to purchase the necessities of life to merely survive. They have no choice in purchasing the necessities of life. And if the accumulated tax imposed upon the necessities of life purchased by poor working people exceeds the monthly welfare check handed out by folks in government, which incidentally makes these poor souls dependant upon folks in government, those poor people will in fact be paying a tax on the necessities of life. In fact, and just as I correctly stated:
In essence, the so called fair tax rations tax-free basic necessities of life, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each family!
Sorry you disagree with me but the truth cannot be changed to what it is not. Do you object to simply going back to our Founding Father’s original tax plan?
Regards,
JWK
-- That's exactly what the FairTax does. Everybody pays a 23% tax on sales. If it goes up to 24%, everybody above the poverty line pays more.
Fair Tax (H.R.2525)
SEC. 502. REGISTRATION.
`(a) IN GENERAL- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle.
`SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX. `(a) LIABILITY FOR COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF THE TAX- Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).
`SEC. 509. RECORDS. `Any person liable to remit taxes pursuant to this subtitle shall keep records (including a record of all section 510 receipts provided, complete records of intermediate and export sales, including purchaser's intermediate and export sales certificates and tax number and the net of tax amount of purchase) sufficient to determine the amounts reported, collected, and remitted for a period of 6 years after the latter of the filing of the report for which the records formed the basis or when the report was due to be filed. Any purchaser who purchased taxable property or services but did not pay tax by reason of asserting an intermediate and export sales exemption shall keep records sufficient to determine whether said exemption was valid for a period of 7 years after the purchase of taxable property or services.
So, as correctly pointed out in EXPOSING THE FAIR TAX HOAX:
“In addition, the alleged FT, although it would do away with the current IRS and its forms, would resurrect similar tools of oppression in a morphed body, keeping enslaved half, if not more, of the nations' entire population, including small businessmen and women , individual tradesmen and entrepreneurs, and, even ordinary working people engaged in self employment, forcing the above to "register" with folks in government in order to pursue a livelihood [ see SEC. 502. REGISTRATION]. ___ In short, the FT proposal would require these poor souls to become a modern-day regiment of enlisted tax gathers for government, increasing the number of tax gathers throughout the United States to an all time high, and compelling them to maintain burdensome and inquisitorial records and reports under a penalty of perjury to satisfy the wants and fancies of tyrants in government___ all the above to be implemented under the pretext of the "fair tax" proposed reform.”
Regards,
JWK
B.S.!
please bump to YN for me.
Do you object to simply going back to our Founding Father’s original tax plan?
Not at all:
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."
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
- "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."
- "It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."
- "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."
- The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it. I speak of it now solely with a view to equality among the States. Those who have been accustomed to contemplate the circumstances which produce and constitute national wealth, must be satisfied that there is no common standard or barometer by which the degrees of it can be ascertained. Neither the value of lands, nor the numbers of the people, which have been successively proposed as the rule of State contributions, has any pretension to being a just representative.
- 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.
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
- "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
--Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9."Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states," "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
- "It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception, and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion."
PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433
- "Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."
The truth is, all consumers pay the tax on the basic necessities of life under the so called fair tax. Is he lying?
Please quote the words which you suggest are lies.
The truth is, all consumers pay the tax on the basic necessities of life under the so called fair tax. Is he lying?
The full fact is all individuals pay the full rate of the NRST on any purchase of new goods and services for personal use.
And all legal residents receive the FCA demogrant of the NRST rate times the HHS povertyline for size of household to cover tax on povertylevel expenditures.
The two taken together assures the NRST is provided to cover federal taxes upto the nominal level of expenditure represented by the HHS provetyline regardless of income, wealth or actual expenditure.
unfortunately in today's world when it has the words "single" versus "married" it is defining family because you have specify what "married" means.
Are you YN's alter ego?
Seems to me the legislation does in fact create a modern-day regiment of enlisted tax gatherers for the government :
Nahh, Gets rid of a bunch of federal tax collectors known as the IRS, and provides for the state governments to do what they already are doing in collecting state retail sales taxes.
Do you have something against the states doing what they are best suited to do, and expected to do by the founders?
Looks to me, this statute is a big step forward from anything existing in the Statutes of the United States today, especially as regards the constitutional application of federal tax law.
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
`SECTION 1. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
`CHAPTER 4--FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATIVE TAX ADMINISTRATION
|
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.