Posted on 02/03/2005 9:54:12 AM PST by EternalVigilance
CONGRESSMAN STEVE KING INTRODUCES RESOLUTION TO ELIMINATE IRS
WASHINGTON - As W-2s arrive in mailboxes this week, U.S. Congressman Steve King has introduced a resolution to repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to collect income taxes.
H.J. Res. 16 would eliminate the IRS and the means for the government to collect income taxes.
"The IRS is an out-of-date, trillion-dollar-a-year drag on our economy," said King. "Instead of continuing to band-aid our complicated, leaking tax system year after year, we can choose a permanent solution and finally rid Americans of the fat leech they feed their paychecks to."
King has been a long-time supporter of the FairTax, a national sales tax placed on goods and services, which would replace the income tax.
H.J. Res. 16 must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, and then sent to the states, where three-fourths must ratify the amendment.
For information on the FairTax, visit:
http://www.fairtax.org
U.S. Congressman Steve King
Iowa's Fifth Congressional District
1432 Longworth House Office Building · Washington, DC 20515
http://www.house.gov/steveking/
I know. I just wanted to add my voice to what I see like a step in the right direction. Get it our there. Hit it hard. Get the ball rolling. I don't have time right now to sit here and hammer it home to those who oppose it.
You've got that right!
Do you have a link to the post where I made such an assertion?
No, you don't.
I assert that when you make such a claim, you are mixing apples and oranges.
This is about HOW we tax, not HOW MUCH, or how much the Federal Government spends.
Until you get this clear in your mind, you will remain confused on this subject.
The conservative movement will never have credibility in the area of economics if they ever made that claim. Let's leave that to "Americans for Fair Taxation" and keep our distance from them.
The VAT and sales tax are known as "equivalent" taxes to economists.
By the way, don't get me wrong...the rest of your post is reasonable and adds to this discussion.
Not trying to dis you...
Yes, sir, I understand. In fact there are some VATs that would be the EXACT same from the consumer's point of view, which do not hide the tax (The credit-invoice VAT). I was corrected on this very point in another thread which is why I know. The main differnce is that you collect at every stage of production in a VAT, where a Sales Tax, is generally thought of as a RETAIL Sales Tax, and is collected as the final point of retail sale.
The credit-invoice VAT is the closest, as far as I understand, to a Retail Sales Tax. In fact, we could implement the FairTax as a credit-invoice VAT and still maintain almost all of the advantages. The primary difference would be in terms of compliance & enforecement, and the broadness of the tax base.
But you ignore the fact that the VAT falls short in the critical area of visibility.
Hidden taxation is the free-spending politicians' playground.
The difference between debating the so-called "FairTax" and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment is that the latter is not the least bit politically realistic. A Congressman who proposes such an idea IMHO is not going to be taken seriesly when proposals that have a chance are taken up. Or perhaps his introduction of the Bill is a gesture designed to throw a red meat appetizer to people. That's fine, but let's not kid ourselves about just how unrealistic a straight repeal of the Sixteenth really is. 2/3 of each House? C'mon.
The VAT also falls short in terms of efficiency.
If they are economically 'exactly the same', as you say, then why in the world would you want to complicate everything, adding huge compliance burdens to business?
The only possible reason for supporting that is if you WANT the tax load to be hidden from the American people.
Please supply some of theses economists statements. A VAT and NRST are totally different and not equivelent in effect.
I agree that the King Bill by itslef is DOA as you say. However, if the FairTax is able to be passed, the 16th amendment would be moot. I don't think that King is profering with any crazy notions that it will be passed on it's own merit. I think it is meant to compliment the FairTax Bill, which calls for the 16th's repeal, but does not have the authority to do it itself.
The difference of visibility is one of the very few distinctions. The effects on the economy are identical for a VAT and a sales tax at the same rate.
Actually the VAT is more efficient. Less opportunities for evasion.
You've conceded the visibility argument.
What about compliance costs?
Why would we want to burden business with a VAT, when the final tax collected is 'the same'?
Do your own research. You're capable of a Google search with the terms "VAT" "sales tax" "economically equivalent".
There are some forms of VAT that are just as transparent as the FairTax. Although compliance is arguably more complicated. Not compicated by the record keeping required,mind you, just complicated by the difference in the number of people who must comply.
There are other forms of VAT that cascade, as well as hide the taxes, but not all. FYI
Wrong.
The NRST is most definitely NOT a VAT.
Well, I see all the girlie men have arrived.
If your congressman is a Republican, then calling them and asking them to vote a certain way may have an impact.
If your congressman is a RAT, like mine is (Zoe Lofgren), then your phone call has no impact, as RATs are not independent thinkers. They vote how every other RAT votes. They vote how they're told to vote.
Most people who support this idea believe it will lower their taxes. If you realize that it won't that is good. But when the news is given that their taxes will likely go UP much of your support will evaporate.
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.