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"The IRS is an out-of-date, trillion-dollar-a-year drag on our economy," said King.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/
Yep, I made the mistake of contacting T. Baldwin once on this very same issue - I found out later she is a member of not just the Democratic party, but the Democratic Socialists Of America - The HARD Left... Her letter basically said - Yeah right, thanks for writing though - you are now on a list, if we come to full power you will be sent to a re-education camp. Have a nice day.
Is the VAT, or is it not, a needless complication?
Isn't simplicity a critical needed component of fundamental tax reform?
It certainly is to me.
To me, the VAT is downright French.
You do realize though that 'the way we tax', and 'how much we tax', are two different issues, correct?
In the interest of fair disclosure, I don't think the FairTax has much of a chance. Any very radical change in how taxes are collected means there will be some BIG WINNERS and BIG LOSERS. The latter will scream bloody murder! It's why radical change is tough to get through Congress -- and if it's your ox that gets gored, you won't think that's a bad thing.
It is designed to be revenue neutral over all, but it is also less progressive than our existing system. There may be some that experience an initial boost, and others that experience an initial loss. However, as Gabz pointed out on another thread:
"I have to control my spending now because I can't control my taxes. Under the FairTax, I control my taxes because I control my spending."
The long term effects vastly outweight any immediate detriments. I know many who expect to experience an immediate loss under the FairTax who support it because it will be better in the long run.
The vast majority of sales taxes are collected at the cash register by the major retailers, Walmart, Target, etc.
We don't need the federal government overseeing every product at every level of production.
Those potential impacts are crucial to me. And I believe such a tax would cripple the real estate markets which would be disaster.
Income taxes appear to be necessary to fight modern wars as well since I see no other mechanism to raise rapidly and effectively the hugh revenues they require. It is no accident that the first income taxes were imposed to fight wars: Britain against Napoleon and the US against the CSA.
You are showing your ignorance. Maybe you could enroll in an economics class at your local community college.
Have you ever filled out an MA-10000 form? The Feds already know all about what goes on at every level of production
Taxman Mega Bravo Zulu! to Rep. King.
He was elected to Congress on this issue, and he'll stay with it until the Fair Tax is a done deal!
You can take that to the bank!
I think the reasoning is for fear if the FairTax (or a VAT, or some other alternative to income tax) is passed, without repealig the 16th ammendment, there would be the possibility for the government to pass new progressive income tax in addition to what replaced the old one. So in a sense, they go hand in hand. A replacement for the current tax system, and a Joint Resolution to appeal the 16th so that it would require a super majority to ever enact a marxist income tax again.
Darned worth supporting.
Well, if you want to cover your butt, go right on ahead and fight for the status quo, then.
But if we fail in this fight, future generations will rightly curse us.
I hate the generation of politicians that saddled us with the this liberty and prosperity draining plank of the communist manifesto they instituted.
AbsoFReepinglutely!
Would a result of this be more substantive state's rights? The reason that I ask is with the current system, the Feds effectively blackmail states with federal funds. I'm thinking of the speed limit laws forced upon states with the threat of not getting highway funds. If this is the case, then I think it would be another positive outcome.
Of course, that leads me to the question that someone else raised on the 1,200+ thread the last few days. What would prevent the states from trying to blackmail the feds? Would CA try to blackmail the feds by holding back the tax payments? Think of attempts to block an ammendment to protect marriage between a man and a woman.
LOL! Yup! We all know each other!
Already there, and drawing interest, my friend! ;-)
Steve is a pit bull of the first order...
The NRST is definately not a VAT. They are "similar" and even "essentially the same" in some regards economically, but the two are not interchangeable terms when refering to tax plans.
A VAT is collected at every stage of production, and can be emplemented to allow cascading taxes, or not allow cascading taxes. It can be implemented to be completly visible to the consumer, completely invisible, or somewhere in between.
A sales tax (general term used for Retail Sales Tax) is collected at the retail level only, not at the previous levels of production.
Actually the VAT is more efficient. Less opportunities for evasion.
And many more opportunitie for fraud, as the invoice used to obtain a credit becomes a check written against the treasury. Guess what the market in bogus invoices to use as credits against VAT remittences is like in the EU.
As far as opportunities for evasion go, VATs are worse than for an retail sales tax, it is the small business and single proprietor that gets hit he hardest with the VAT in its startup costs and accounting regulations that are imposed to assure compliance in the complex structures of exemptions, zero rating and multiple rates that get thrown in by politicians as the play in the VAT infra-structure. What is happening in the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and everywhere else you can find the VAT is a continual expansion of underground barter and cash markets to avoid the VAT redtape and regulations that go with it.
The problem has become so acute the EU merely raises the threshold on the size of business required to register for the VAT and then the VAT rate to try to make up the loss, and still their evasion rises to ever higher levels appoachin 35% of the GDP of several nations in the EU.
There is nothing remotely efficient about the real world implementations of VAT, they are expensive for govenments to enforce and regulate, then cost ten times as much for businesses to accomodate the regulatory environment that comes part and parcel with VATs.
Your continued statements to the contrary notwithstanding.
Of course.
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.