Instituting a flat tax benefits you

TOWNHALL.COM ^ | 05/28/2005 | DICK ARMEY

[ancient_geezer]

I am trying to understand this.
If I decide to work 80 hours instead of just 40 a week, I will be taxed twice as much as the lazy guy?

Aren't you already?

But I digress, you will actually pay more than twice as much, Flat Taxes, as they are actually proposed in real legislation, ain't really flat, quite the contrary:

Why Flat Tax Isn't A "True" Flat Tax
http://www.cac.psu.edu/ur/archives/BUSINESS/flattax.html
2-23-96
Charles R. Enis, Associate Professor of Accounting
Penn State's Smeal College of Business Administration

[Your Nightmare]

Certainly. I pay income taxes at the point of a gun. You do too. I don't buy anything at the point of a gun. Neither do you. Nor will we.

Really. If you buy something under the FairTax that you should have paid taxes on but didn't, they won't be knocking on your door? You FairTaxers believe in a fairy tales and daydreams.

[DugwayDuke]

"If your dealing with Vinny, you only have yourself to blame if you end up in of some prosecutor's net."

I've never even met Vinny and under the NRST I may actually have to prove that by keeping all those sales receipts to prove I paid the tax.

I appreciate the fact that you and many others sincerely believe that the NRST will be an improvement on our current tax system. I also believe that it will not be the 'taxutopia' you all think it will be.

For example, I'm well aware that the IRS would be disbanded under NRST but that is not the equivalent of eliminating those jobs. The government never fires any one.

The employees of the IRS will be given different jobs and the obvious one will be as inspectors ensuring that the NRST is followed. And, if you think that burden will fall only on businesses, then let me remind you that the original income tax was not to exeed 2%, fall only upon the richest two percent, was to be a short-lived response to an emergency, etc., etc.

[carenot]

The only flat tax would be to make everone pay so many dollars a year. Even the rich people.

We are all citizens, so why sould people that work harder than I do, pay more?

Are they just lucky?

[groanup]

You FairTaxers believe in a fairy tales and daydreams.

You really don't get it. When you earn money there is the long arm of the IRS, gun in hand if needed, standing right next to you demanding some of it. If you don't cough up you go to jail. Again at the point of a gun.

Now where again is that gun when you are deciding whether or not to spend money at the store?

[ancient_geezer]

I've never even met Vinny and under the NRST I may actually have to prove that by keeping all those sales receipts to prove I paid the tax.

Tell, me how would you have to prove it, since as a customer you are not required to keep records or receipts, only sellers are. As a customer you are not required to file a sales tax return, only the seller is. Only the seller is liable to audits to assure his compliance.

The point being the only way a customer can be drawn into an investigation is by negotiating with ole Vinny there to evade the NRST, and Vinny snitching on your dealings with him for leniant treatment or maybe he jess wants company. Any ole Vinny in variably provides law enforcement the sufficient cause for a warrant to go looking for the contraband goods, so I suggest stay clear of him and his nefarious schemes.

I appreciate the fact that you and many others sincerely believe that the NRST will be an improvement on our current tax system. I also believe that it will not be the 'taxutopia' you all think it will be.

Actually I don't see it as a "taxutopia" at all.

Quite the contrary, I expect people to complain to high heaven about the high tax rates and start pounding on Congress Critters to stiffle the growth of government.

The problem with the current system and most proposals I have seen, the tax systems tend to hide the cost of government from large swaths of the electorate, allowing the same ole rob Peter pay Paul mentality that continues to plauge politics and or form of government.

For example, I'm well aware that the IRS would be disbanded under NRST but that is not the equivalent of eliminating those jobs.

They can always send to do boarder patrol duty I would suppose, that would be right up an IRS agents alley especially seeing that the NRST is collected on goods brought into the U.S. for consumption as well. Just the incentive to get the illegal problem under control as well ;O)

The government never fires any one.

Looking back at numerous reductions in force in past years, and the results of the Air Controller's strikes during the Reagan Administration, there are many who would disagree with that canard.

The employees of the IRS will be given different jobs and the obvious one will be as inspectors ensuring that the NRST is followed.

I suppose the State retail sales tax agencies would be a good place for some IRS agents to look for jobs, at least those not sent out on boarder patrol with customs & INS. You are aware that retail businesses are required to collect, report and remit NRST and yes the states would be the primary folks to administer and enforce those requirments.

And, if you think that burden will fall only on businesses, then let me remind you that the original income tax was not to exeed 2%, fall only upon the richest two percent, was to be a short-lived response to an emergency, etc., etc.

I expect the full burden of the NRST to fall on the customer, you know me and whoever else buys goodies and services. Why would you think it would be otherwise?

The point being we as individuals pay the whole federal tax bill today one way or another through direct incom/payroll taxes taken from us, and indirectly through higher prices, lower wages and less return on our retirement and investment accounts.

Much better to have the cost fully in the open in view of every voters perceptions than to continue the shell game that government gets away with today with half the voting population not participating in the tax system or even when the do perrceiving a net gain from income tax system in the form of EITC and similar scams.

Time to remove the blinders my friend and change the paradigm altogether, or figure on going the way of Europe and its socialist systems. That to me is where he bottomline lays.

To remove perception of the tax burdens of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high and government grows ever larger because a majority of the electorate do not perceive proportionately the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.

Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If the perception of burden laid by government is interfered with or avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.

[DugwayDuke]

"Tell, me how would you have to prove it, since as a customer you are not required to keep records or receipts, only sellers are."

For starters, but remember how the income tax would never exceed 2%, only hit the richest two percent, and would be ended just as soon as 'The War to End all Wars' was over?

"The point being the only way a customer can be drawn into an investigation is by negotiating with ole Vinny there to evade the NRST..."

Actually, just the possession of property or goods could be sufficient. Think tax stamps like those found on cigarettes and liquor. The pressure to avoid the NRST will be directly proportional to the NRST rates. One way to ensure compliance would be the inspection of your property. I know you don't think it could happen, but one should always be on the look-out for unforeseen consequences.

"The problem with the current system and most proposals I have seen, the tax systems tend to hide the cost of government from large swaths of the electorate, allowing the same ole rob Peter pay Paul mentality that continues to plauge politics and or form of government."

Oh, I fully agree but I do not see the NRST as the best way to achieve this objective. I think it would be quicker and simpler to just do away with the concept of payroll witholding. Require every American to sit down once a month and figure their witholding and write a check to the treasury.

Far too many people do not think they pay taxes since they get a refund at tax time. This is despite the fact that for many, their refund is a small fraction of what they actually paid. Or, just ask your typical American what they make and they'll tell you their net income, not their gross.

This system would demonstrate to Average American that they do pay taxes and just exactly how much they do pay. I would hope that such a system would immediately lead to demands for decreased spending, particularly on income transfer programs, and it might even lead to a total income tax reform, maybe even your NRST.

"Much better to have the cost fully in the open in view of every voters perceptions than to continue the shell game that government gets away with today with half the voting population not participating in the tax system or even when the do perrceiving a net gain from income tax system in the form of EITC and similar scams."

I couldn't agree more, that's why I like doing away with payroll witholding. It gets us there without the risks of totally transforming the tax system with all the 'unintended consequences'.

You see, we share much of the same objectives.

[ancient_geezer]

For starters, but remember how the income tax would never exceed 2%, only hit the richest two percent, and would be ended just as soon as 'The War to End all Wars' was over?

Let me see if I understand you. An NRST collected by retailers tacking on 30% onto everyone's goodies, is somehow to be equated with a 2% tax that would only hit the richest two percent.

Sorry, the analogy fails right out of the gate.

Furthermore, the only place for the tax to get collected in normal circumstance is through that retailer, who in choosing to be in such business has agreed to collect said tax, and remit it in a timely fashion to the state sales tax administrators and for so doing receive a compensation for his efforts. Of course being a business licensed and paid to perform this service that business will be monitor and audited as is normal practice today. This is somehow supposed to change WHY?

Actually, just the possession of property or goods could be sufficient.

Actually no, as every one posseses property and goods in the normal course of their lives. Insufficient cause for a warrant. As there is only one basis for possession of goods and services to be sufficient for criminal investigation is where such property or goods are tied to ole Vinney out there.

Think tax stamps like those found on cigarettes and liquor. The pressure to avoid the NRST will be directly proportional to the NRST rates.

Actually not, as studies in Europe with even higher rates have shown. The primary force operative is not rate of the tax, the primary factor is the red tape on small businesses and perceptions of unfairness when one group is treated differently from others.

One way to ensure compliance would be the inspection of your property.

Inspection of my property means nothing unless tied to an evaded tax. Mere possession of property or goods is a normal occurence. The best way to ensure compliance is to focus on those who are charged with the responsibility to collect and remit the tax in the first place, the vender of the goods and services being sold. Fewer venders than there are customers by more than a factor of 10 to 1, thus much more effective for state governments to go after the guy selling as is required in the legislation and by logic. Concentration of resources into the real job that is collecting the tax, is what is at issue, not hasseling the voters.

. I know you don't think it could happen, but one should always be on the look-out for unforeseen consequences.

And one can dream up all kinds of nightmare scenarios of nil probability. Sorry you provide no basis in reason for your blanket knock down everone's door approach to collecting sales taxes in the face of much more efficient means to do so without p'ssing the electorate off. Doesn't fly.

Oh, I fully agree but I do not see the NRST as the best way to achieve this objective. I think it would be quicker and simpler to just do away with the concept of payroll witholding. Require every American to sit down once a month and figure their witholding and write a check to the treasury.

 

ROTFLMAO, half the voting population pays no income tax, and has no reason to even file a tax return much less write a check to the treasury. Many of them infact receive money from the treasury via the EITC.

 

The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
APRIL 5, 2001

• "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.

 

Far too many people do not think they pay taxes since they get a refund at tax time.

We've seen the enemy and he is us!!

Bush touts relief as tax day looms

Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.

That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, expecting someone else to foot the bill.

You see, we share much of the same objectives.

Except for one, they is no purpose to be served by maintaining a tax system that requires the individual to report his financial condition to government, other than it serves the power of government to do so.

The Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.

 

"As a matter of fact, what the income tax does — and this is the debate that I think we always try to get into in order to let you and him fight, see — and the people of this country are led down a path where the actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government."

. . .

"The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system."

"In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation."

- KEYES TRANSCRIPT (01/28/02)

 

Bottomline, the issue is a moral one not an economic one:

 

I discussed the importance of abolishing the income tax because of its tendency to form a habit of servility in the souls of a people that accepts it.

Servility of soul is bad not only in itself, it is also an open door through which will soon walk the abuses of ambitious government power.

Leaders who find themselves with governmental power over a servile people will be quick to conclude that such a people exist to serve them.

Alan Keyes 1999

[ancient_geezer]

The only flat tax would be to make everone pay so many dollars a year. Even the rich people.
We are all citizens, so why sould people that work harder than I do, pay more?
Are they just lucky?

Actually every citizen should only pay in proportion to the benefit they receive from this nations as measured by their consumption of goods and services, not by what they contribute to the nation in their productivity as measured by their income.

 

[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

• "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
  --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

 

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

• "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

 

That which was held to be true then has as much to recommend it today.

Federalist #12:

• "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."

• "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

Federalist #21:

• It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. ... Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.

[DugwayDuke]

"Let me see if I understand you. An NRST collected by retailers tacking on 30% onto everyone's goodies, is somehow to be equated with a 2% tax that would only hit the richest two percent."

I wasn't equating tax rates. I was pointing out that what starts out small and simple may not remain that way. The NRST, even if enacted as proposed, will change just as the original income tax changed. The solution is not to change the way of taxation but to reduce the size of government.

"ROTFLMAO, half the voting population pays no income tax, and has no reason to even file a tax return much less write a check to the treasury. Many of them infact receive money from the treasury via the EITC."

They all pay Social Security.

[ancient_geezer]

The solution is not to change the way of taxation but to reduce the size of government.

 

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

• "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

 

TAXES

 

100years of history under income taxes makes it clear that we will not get there (smaller government) from here (the income tax).

 

They all pay Social Security.

And believe it to be an employer shared contribution to a retirement fund.

a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage.
---Alan Keyes 199

[ancient_geezer]

P.S.

By the way, at that lowest "income" quintile, many do not even pay those Social Security taxes. On welfare, Social Security, living of municipal bond interest from a trust or whatever, no wage no social security tax to be paid.

The welfare state thrives with an income tax, within its exemption structure it fosters the means to grow and perpetuate the government's spending constituencies.

"It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
Walter Williams

[lewislynn]

If you and ll(puke) have your way we will not be able to create wealth,

It 's obvious by your constant snivelling, not only are you not capable of "creating wealth" you aren't capable of accumulating it either.

Thankfully there are a lot of proploe who don't sit around snivelling about how someone else is preventing them from not only "creating wealth" but they are also accumulating it.

Millionaire Ranks in US Hit New High

Gag and puke on that clown.

[slowhandluke]

tax with a limit of 10 percent maixmum

Beautiful dreamer ....

There isn't a single politician in either major party who'd be able to live with this limit.

More's the pity.

[slowhandluke]

The FairTax would not be a boon to retired people. One of the groups that would fight it the hardest would be the AARP.

This is a non-sequitur. The AARP, like any large beauracracy, fights for itself first. They make big money on insurance and retirement plans, and just don't want the competition.

Like most big beauracracy, they tend to draw liberal apparatchiks for employees. If anything were to be both a boon to the retired, and a detriment to the Democrats, the AARP would be on the side of the Democrats.

So, if one is to argue that something is not a boon to the retired, you need to use some other argument than what the AARP will do.

[Temple Owl]

ping

[Your Nightmare]

So, if one is to argue that something is not a boon to the retired, you need to use some other argument than what the AARP will do.

I did, you just decided to discuss a minor point of what I said.

[Your Nightmare]

You must really like this graph. From my count you've posted 5 times in the last 4 days!

Pathetic.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Just wait until non-compliance becomes a problem and the auditors start requiring proof that you've paid the NRST on every bit of property you have. There goes your 'right to privacy'.

You are completely full of it.

You have NOT even read the Fairtax, it ABOLISHES THE IRS. Taxes are collected by the States on the business end with the State sales tax.

A person cannot be accused of not paying a sales tax because it is the businesses that are responsible for collecting sales taxes, not private citizens.

So it is your above statement that is complete BS.

[slowhandluke]

Yup, I goofed, and wasn't reading the original post. My apologies.