Congressman Charles Rangel: Equal Taxation 'Not Fair'

CNS News ^ | 3-4-2005 | Jeff Johnson

[Pendragon_6]

(CNSNews.com) - New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel Friday responded to suggestions that the federal income tax be gradually replaced with some form of consumption tax, saying that equal taxation is unfair.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform Thursday that the current U.S. tax code is so complicated as to be a drain on the economy.

"A simpler tax code would reduce the considerable resources devoted to complying with current tax laws," Greenspan said, "and the freed-up resources could be used for more productive purposes."

Rangel responded that any tax of that nature, such as a national sales tax, would be an injustice.

"When you have a tax, where you pay the same tax whether you're wealthy or you're poor," Rangel said, "that's not fair."

[To Hell With Poverty]

Working for a wage is hardly slavery, dude. It's part of what's called self-determination, and it is the bane of liberals' existence.

Maybe we're in agreement if by "massa", you mean Big Government welfare and subsidies, and by "slaves" you mean the folks who depend on those instead of their own drive and ingenuity....

[JOE43270]

"Redistribution of wealth is the basis of SOCIALISM!!!!
There are no Democrats in our country. They are Socialists.
They say the exact same things that the openly Card Carrying Socialists of Europe say. When will they have the gonads to admit what they are.
The Democrats are nothing more than the American Socialist Party". You said it all and you are right on.

[humantech]

I own a retail store.( Worked hard for it. Provide employement and good jobs worth something to my employees)
I ask my clients about these things.
Guess what?
They all LIKE the idea.
Do I think it would hurt my sales? Nope.
Do I relish the idea that I should spend LESS time and resources figuring out my tax burden? Yes.
Do I agree stocks and bonds should be taxed? Yes- unless they are invested in through a private 401k retirement - why?
So that more people see the BENEFIT of investing their own money instead of relying on some government yahoo who they dont control or know doing it for them.
It doesnt punish people for spending money.
For every "poor" person that LOANS the government their income for a full year ( slightly more) , this will allow them to CHOOSE what to do with their money ALL the time-
And the people who arent paying ANY taxes now?
They will start contributing to the economy instead of draining.
This includes rich and poor.
This country is for all of us, and freedom to spend money as you choose should be for everyone.
My suggestion to you is that you ask real working people ( The largest portion of this country) what they think about the idea rather than conceptualizing the "evils to be perpetrated on the unfortunates" by the genuine attempt to make things better. Nuff said Tech

[humantech]

SO tax investments. Flat rate. OTHER than 401ks for retirement-
Tech

[To Hell With Poverty]

Sorry 'bout the double post, everybody....

[gakrak]

""When you have a tax, where you pay the same tax whether you're wealthy or you're poor," Rangel said, "that's not fair.""

That's definitely a socialist talking, I can feel his pain. LOL.

[gakrak]

It all depends on what the meaning of "fair" is! Amen.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"Many truly wealthy people pay absolutely no tax now....that's what I call unfair."

Ol' Charlie is probably one of them.

[squirt-gun]

I am an old dude, ex AF officer (KC-97 tankers) long retired.

My investments are all with USAA, an investment house for ex-military. They are literally all in tax free instruments and doing quite niceley.

While not wealthy, I am not taxed on a cent of income from these funds. Multiply me by many truly wealthy people and you may get the drift...N'est Pas?

[squirt-gun]

Re # 77...

To: squirt-gun Care to tell me exactly WHY you say that? Have you REALLY looked at it?

It would be helpful to note the specific post you are referring to as many of us post multiple times and may not be sure what specific statement you are questioning.

[Bigun]

OK! This is the one.

Re # 63...

The NRST seem to me a bad idea

[squirt-gun]

Re # 74 Actually, the best way to make "wealthy" people pay taxes is to go to a consumption tax, if thats your goal.

Well, that may be true. I am not after any specific group to be paying more or less taxes. Nonetheless, a consumption tax would facilitate the non-taxed wealthy to maintain the vast bulk of it, essentially all of it being untaxed, while paying just a pitance on their grocery bill items....not agood idea at all.

[squirt-gun]

Re # 91....

See # 92

[squirt-gun]

too fast...should be # 93

[Bigun]

Thank you for your service to your country.

We have somewhat similar backgrounds it seems.

I asked you if you had REALLY looked at the NRST as proposed in HR25/S25 and you have not answered.

Have you? http://www.fairtax.org

At least take the time to read the FAQ.

[VeniVidiVici]

I am not taxed on a cent of income from these funds

And why do you think USAA offers tax-free instruments? Because they want to be nice to their members? Why on earth do you think there are tax-free instruments to begin with?

[Bigun]

Or in other words:

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy.

Daniel Webster

[dhs12345]

Not if you believe in fuzzy math as Rangel does.

Many Americans are ignorant of this and will believe him. Most of them Democrats.

[Doohickey]

So, in your mind, there shouldn't be any rich people? Everyone has equal skills, earning potential, ambition and drive?