What can I say, I bow before your brilliance milady!!!
Pigdog, get lost!!! I found her first you wolf. That'll teach yah to take a 2 yr vacation on us.
Posted on 05/12/2005 12:25:08 AM PDT by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON - A presidential commission looking into how to make income taxes fairer and simpler heard pitches Wednesday from experts with ideas about revamping or replacing the current system.
ADVERTISEMENT
The commission examined plans to base taxes on spending rather than income, which could mean a national sales tax or a European-style value-added tax.
As for transforming the income tax, the commission heard proposals for comprehensive change and minor tinkering.
"Not one person who we encountered as we traveled the country told us that our current tax system was good for America and that we should leave it alone," said the commission's chairman, former GOP. Sen. Connie Mack of Florida.
After hearing complaints about tax laws, the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform used this meeting to consider ways to replace the system.
Michael Graetz, a Yale Law School professor, offered an outline of how to meld income taxes with a value-added tax. That tax, used widely in Europe, imposes a levy on the increased value of a product at each stage of production.
Under his plan, consumers would see a 13 percent to 14 percent value-added tax appear on their purchases.
Individuals earning less than $50,000 and families making under $100,000 no longer would pay income taxes under such a plan. Those still paying income taxes would get a simplified system and a top tax rate of 25 percent.
"I am very skeptical that you can fix the income tax," Graetz said.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has told the commission that he supports some combination of income and consumption taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. Others have warned about the dangers of a poorly designed hybrid.
A consumption tax could take the form of a national retail sales tax, a potential replacement for income, estate and payroll taxes. Americans for Fair Taxation offered a plan setting a 23 percent sales tax on purchases, with exemptions for the poor.
An alternate plan, offered by David Burton of the Free Enterprise Fund, would reduce the rate to 8.4 percent for individuals by also levying the tax on businesses.
In the event the current income tax was retained, experts made the case for ways to promote savings and to simplify credits and deductions.
That could mean letting businesses immediately expense their investments and expanding individuals' ability to save money tax free.
"Why go searching for some new, magic elixir with unknown results?" said Ernest Christian, director of the Center for Strategic Tax Reform. He said the value-added tax was an "exotic import" at odds with the U.S. tax experience.
Others endorsed keeping the incentives for homeownership and charitable giving that President Bush wants preserved, while reducing the many other deductions and credits now available.
The commission, which expects to make final recommendations this summer, discussed options for a flat tax that eliminates deductions and credits, reduces income tax rates and erases taxes on investment income.
"There's not a human being alive today who knows what's in the code," said Steve Forbes, a one-time presidential contender who favors the flat tax.
Commission members asked about how the country could shift to such a tax, wanting to make sure the government got the revenue it needed during that transition.
Former Sen. John Breaux (news, bio, voting record), D-La., the commission's vice chairman, asked whether people could accept a system that taxes wages but not investment income. Others raised questions about eliminating the current system's progressive tax rates.
Former Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, said it is a "big job" to convince voters that the poor and wealthy could benefit from a flat tax.
"What's fair is to treat everybody exactly the same as everybody else," he said.
Of course you've never been able to produce the actual survey, just some secondhand account of a politician on the campaign trail.
LOL, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel today, aren't you.
What can I say, I bow before your brilliance milady!!!
Pigdog, get lost!!! I found her first you wolf. That'll teach yah to take a 2 yr vacation on us.
Which brings up another disturbing point. Wouldn't the WTO fight the Fair Tax tooth and nail?
I hadda be off that long cause I'm so slow I can't kethum too good. You, though, well I've heard of dirty ol' men - but never ancient ones.
Once CG sees my hansome kisser on #147 of that other thread, you're toast! It was nice of that guy to post it for me.
All of her latest post is very good (and helpful) information. Once the pols tumble to these benes they'll be all over the FairTax in a positive way (except for the Democrats which is really odd since their constituents would greatly benefit - union rank and file, etc.).
Maybe they'll finally wise up and get behind the bill, we'll see.
I'm sure the WTO will fight anything tooth and nail that they view as against their self-interest. As it is, though, with our current tax system we are so busy shooting ourselves (our citizens, really) in BOTH feet that they're not too worried.
Fortunately neither the WTO nor the UN gets to make our tax laws despite their great desire to do so.
Maybe so but, according to our Supreme Court, they get to help interpret them.
Maybe that's one of the reasons for the Democrats resistance to W's nominees.
"The FairTax replaces the income tax and is not "on top" of it which you should have realized had you done even minimal reading on links provided many, many times on theese threads. I'd suggest you read the bill itself."
I realize that you are a strong supporter of the fairtax proposal and the accompanying current bill but, you need to realise some other facts about legislation to understand where my sceptical view comes from.
First, admittadly, I have done very little reading on related threads outside this one because I am new and fairly busy. Second, I may start sounding like my new found friend, 'Geezer but here goes anyway... legislation is not static. I have worked both privatly and professionally in my state's legislature for three years now and NO BILL stays the same through the committee process. I confessed earlier that I have not read a "fairtax" proposal or bill in over 5 years. I'm not hiding anything and; futhermore, reading it now will probably be futile because the 5th or 8th version will be closer to what we can expect after the brilliant leaders in D.C. get done doing all the things I am afraid of.
I am VERY politically active; I know how the system works; I know who the players are (mostly) and the egos involved; I KNOW that those egos will give up no power or control under this tax structure and will certainly try to sell us BOTH taxes together.
That's just the way it is... OH CRAP! now I DO sound like 'Geezer! HA ha!
Your other points are well stated and well taken. As I said before, it's mostly a good plan. I just prefer to discuss issue principles whenever possible. It is a strong principled support of something that keeps one from conceding core points unwittingly.
Also, "regressive" is not a bad word to me. I hear it and my ears perk up thinking something good is being discussed. He he ;p
to #324:
Agreed...
...(Blushing)...
Okay, you two knock off the on-line love fest. This isn't %&*%$.com. :-)
"Contrary to some notions offered in this and that quarter to the contrary, a constitution is not a contract."
Again, you're scaring me with this dogged allegence to circumstance. Despite the "reality" of our current situation, the constitution IS a contract. Sure, it's not so petty as a mortgage note but, the principle is exactly the same just with higher stakes "enforcement" clauses. And if you don't think it is a two way contract, check out the implied enforcement clause left to the people in the second amendment.
Please don't respond back by saying how the sheeple will never excersize the second amendment to it's intended length... Duh, I know that already. The point is that the clause is there, not whether we have the guts to use it. Exactly the same as my point that the "contract" is there regardless of the government's refusal to respect it (even from day one).
I'm talking truth and principle not percieved reality and circumstance. Why don't you get that? Has age set your perceptions in stone? Is there no room for you to admit that what is and has occured is wrong (including the wisky still tax)?
Actually, the truth is that I am as unbending as you or anyone on this fundimental issue of retained liberty of the people; and constitutional contract status. A broken contract is no less a contract just because it is ignored. It still is what it is.
The WTO can authorize retaliatory sactions for many reasons....they did so on the basis that the DISC, FSC and the ETI were "impermissible export subsidies"...they just happened to be tax related. Removing the Corporate Net Income Tax from the equation will remove but one arrow from the quiver.....they'll just have to think up a different rationale.
I think the bigger threat will come from the OECD. They're the ones pushing int'l tax harmonization and information sharing. Their model treaty is frightening...calls upon member nations to provide information even if they have no internal use for it. Would basically require us to keep the tracking and reporting systems in place, if the model treaty is used for any bilateral agreements.
Neither the WTO or the OECD can directly impact our tax law.....but they do work hand in glove, probably would cooperate, and the WTO has demonstrated a propensity to make life real uncomfortable by authorizing retaliatory tariffs.....until our elected officials buckled and changed the tax law.
To an extent, they're playing with fire. We removed the ETI provision, which accounted for just over 49 billion in 'subsidy' over the course of 10 years. The replacement provisions of HR 4520, granted subsidies of almost 108 billion....an increase of over 119%...ha, take that.
Ken Dam correctly noted that "there is nothing more fundamental to a nation's sovreignty than the way they raise revenue"...and to the extent that we can minimize the influence of unelected, unresponsive int'l bureaucrats, we'll be a whole lot better off....and they'd better becareful how far they push.....seems we're dishing it back at them in spades. FairTax would be the ultimate, in your face, kinda deal.
Your comments are both understood and appreciated. One of he first things normally encountered when trying to introduce people to the FairTax is to overcome the embedded feeling that "... it'll never happen ..." or that it can't happen.
I understand that you are not saying that but expressing the realistic concern of the mal-handling possibilities of our legislative system. Those possibilities are certainly there and one of the things that will surely happen is that when opponents (and that includes the K Street lobbying crowd in DC) realize that, yes, this bill may pass pretty much as is they will begin to try to alter it by those legislative means (make it a hybrid income/sales tax for example - or introduce myriad exemptions and/or excepions) in hopes of defeating it that way. That's to be expected.
The counter to that, of course, is to make it so crystal clear to your own Congrescritters that you want the FairTax bill as our tax law in its present form. Their Job #1 is to get re-elected and if they sense that broad support most will not be so foolish as to not support it (even if it is lukewarm support).
The FairTax bill has now been "out there" for several years and remains in basically the same language as it was initially. The legislative supporters of the FairTax would not support the efforts to gut the bill into, for example, the hybrid mentioned earlier. Were that done, the bill would lose all or almost all of its grassroots support - which IS extensive despite the naysayers that pop up here.
If you look on the recent Tax Panel's website at the Comments you will find that a good many of the Individual comments specifically name the FairTax by name or bill number - more so that support for another tax form. The AFFT has something on the upside of 600,000 members ... and building as people begin to look into it more deeply that just ingesting sound bytes.
I sympathize with your limited time, but please take a quick glance at HR25 as well as the FairTax website - they are both quick reads and very informative. Please take a few minutes to briefly check them.
The key to success in this is grassroots support and that keeps getting stronger and stronger. The reason for that is the bill itself and what is offers both us AND our country.
... and that's all the more reason for heavy and unbending grassroots support to be made known to Congress - that we KNOW we have the retained liberty you mentioned (good phrase) and we intend to make use of it to free ourselves from the income tax system and stop their incessant playing of the "Tiptoe Through the TaxCode Tinkering Tango".
We want no more of that tune but the pleasant music of tax honesty - the FairTax - which shows all what our government really costs and which EVERYONE - rich or poor - pays a share of.
Indeed it IS wrong (the tax system) and it's up to US to have it changed. Alan Keyes calls the present tax system a "slave tax" ... and he's right. It's time for more in this country to realize that and get off their duffs and onto the backs of their congressmen.
Please briefly check the FairTax bill itself. You'll like what you see, I think.
Wouldn't the WTO fight the Fair Tax tooth and nail?
Not much they can use to fight it with.
The FairTax is an Retail Sales Tax, an indirect tax under WTO rules, just as the VAT is.
As long as import products are treated equally in comparison with the tax treatment of domestic products and the tax is indirect, there is no problem with boarder adjustments to rebate taxes that are imposed on exporting businesses so long as the rebate does not take on the character of a subsidy (i.e. exceeds domestic indirect taxes paid by the exporting business.)
For a retail sales tax, there is no tax on exporting businesses to be rebated, (i.e. nothing to interpret as a subsidy.) Furthermore the FairTax legislation, HR25, specifically taxes imports and exports identically. No leverage on which WTO can be used to fight it.
EU & Trading partners can gripe all they wish, but the have no handle under WTO/GATT to grab hold of.
As Kenneth W. DAM, of the Department of Treasury states the issues:
http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/073002kdtest.pdf
"The WTO rules on prohibited export subsidies make a distinction between direct taxes, such as income taxes, and indirect taxes, such as value added taxes. Under the WTO agreements, direct taxes are not permitted to be border adjustable. Therefore, the U.S. income tax is not rebatable on export under these rules. In contrast, indirect taxes are permitted to be border adjustable under the WTO rules. Accordingly, the European value added taxes may be, and are, rebated at the border consistent with WTO rules.
This disparity in treatment between direct and indirect taxes dates back formally to a 1960 GATT working party and its informal origins date back even farther. Notwithstanding this long history, there is no compelling rationale for disparate treatment of direct and indirect taxes."
Thank-you. It is disturbing still. We have idiots in congress that don't want to confirm an ambassador who has been critical of the UN. Those same idiots would allow the WTO to run roughshod over us if it appeases European interests because, after all, those idiots like foie gras. The reason the subsidy was increased is because no one in the media understands or cares. If the WTO raises a stink about the fair tax (and it will) the appeasers will come out with both hands in their pants and cite all of the reasons it is bad for us in the "world community". Never mind that we fund the WTO anyway.
You underestimate the globally influenced congress of the US. Not to mention the media that would willingly abet any international move against US prosperity. The fact that there is a WTO that tries to, and sometimes does, set international tax policy should give us all pause anyway.
A broken contract is no less a contract just because it is ignored.
The terms of the Constitution grant the power to levy taxes to national government without restraint other than prohibiting a tax on exports and such political restraint as can be impressed upon the Congress by us, the constitutents upon which their taxes fall.
It still is what it is.
Sorry, to disappoint but reality rules, the Constitution is what it is and not what we would like it to be and process to change it exists in Article V when sufficient folks figure a change is called for.
Where the power to tax is concerned the Constitution is very clear. What you or I may hope or desire has little to do with the fundamental nature of the power granted to Congress to lay and collect taxes as far as political limits their constituents let them tax.
The standard was laid in the words of the Constitution 200 years ago, the courts held to text of the Constitution from the first USSC case in observing:
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. "
And it has been made clear you and I have little recourse to that other than the ballot, the jury, or in extremity and of least likely certainty of success the gun:
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."
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
And occasionally the court when we can meet the standard:
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
You underestimate the globally influenced congress of the US. Not to mention the media that would willingly abet any international move against US prosperity.
Not at all, I have no doubt they would like to. But even within the WTO, the standard has been set to back track on that standard, they end up slitting their thoats with their own VATs.
There only recourse it to fight a political battle to prevent the enactment of the FairTax or like NRST. But once enacted, they are dead in the water by virtue of their own WTO/GATT agreements.
The fact that there is a WTO that tries to, and sometimes does, set international tax policy should give us all pause anyway.
For sure, but that is just to state the obvious, WTO/GATT should never have been agreed to in the form it exists in the first place and needs some serious trimming in the next round of GATT negotiations or dispensed with altogether as the bad deal it is.
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.