Thanks for the clarifications on some of my “fairtax” assumptions way back around #80 or #90 something. I really have not picked up a copy of the bills (past or present) in over 5 years. I had most of my info from presentations, Q&A’s and radio interviews.
It is a good plan. I’ve always thought so. The two drawbacks in my mind are A) the Federal control freaks (they will always screw it up); and, B) the revelation that they intend to tax “labor based” services. I can never support that for the reasons stated previously. Nevertheless, it is the best thing on the table for the moment.
As you can see, I just love getting into the underlying principle of what is right and just or what is compatible with true liberty.
p.s. PigDog; that UK article on VAT from #97 cracked me up! I only hope we can make that man’s conception that we are more efficient, come true.
Sorry that I am taking so long to get back to this stuff. My day is gobbled up paying taxes, he he.
Anyhow, Mr. 'geezer, on some of your "constitutional/that's the way it is" posts from a while back:
Frankly, I find your knowledge of the constitution and the underlying documents impressive while at the same time finding your reading flat out scary. You are quoting me constitutional powers in the “permissive” interpretation, when anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the Constitution was written and proposed to be implemented by the “restrictive” interpretation (except the supreme courts of the last hundred years).
Despite foolish court precedents, the constitution is just a fancy way of describing the overriding CONTRACT between the ‘governing’ and the ‘governed’. Most importantly, the contract was indirectly offered by the governed. Therefore, it is outside of rational reason to suggest that the totally free and sovereign states/people would have offered anything more than a restricted set of powers to the new government that they were agreeing to. Powers not to be exceeded. Permissive readings like yours and wrongheaded court precedents do not change the fact that the constitution was meant to be a cage that government could be contained in rather than a permission slip to exercise every conceivable power that was not expressly forbidden.
If you like the permissive reading of contracts (everything is ok except the few written restrictions) then you won't mind if we write up a contract for me to take care of you in your old age. You can write it and it should give me the basic authority to use your money as needed, make you subservient to me as needed (for your own safety) and whatever restrictions you can think of. Now be certain to remember that you are totally free before we enter this contract and after we enter the contract... I... retain all the useful authorities and will be reading the contract in the "permissive" manner. If you do not specifically prohibit me from doing something with you/your money/your property/or your freedom... it will be allowed by our "permissive" contract. After all, I'm your new one man contracted government and I'm just here to help ;)
Of course no free man or state would enter into a contract on those terms. That is why I have trouble with some of your assertions on the powers of the government to lay and collect any manner of tax it sees fit and the idea that it also allows for liberal powers to us force against the people.
In fairness, I may have read your posts wrong so feel free to set me straight if you actually agree with my constitutional understanding.
