Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
The federal government is still exercising undue authority on the state's, by telling them, you will have this law, you will collect for us, there's no way around it.
That is firmly against the principles of state's rights.
Sorry, it is at the State's option to do so, not their obligation, for which they receive a consideration acting as agent for the national government.
Once again, read the bill before spouting off:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) `SEC. 1. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.`(a) In General- Any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider the purposes of this subtitle (as set forth in subsection (b)) as the primary aid in statutory construction. `(b) Purposes- The purposes of this subtitle are as follows:
`(c) Secondary Aids to Statutory Construction- As a secondary aid in statutory construction, any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider--
`CHAPTER 4--FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATIVE TAX ADMINISTRATION `SEC. 401 AUTHORITY FOR STATES TO COLLECT TAX.
`SEC. 404. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION IN CERTAIN STATES.
|
You still have a federal government bureaucracy, my solution (which is somewhere on this thread, but I'll repeat)
The only federal functions should be the military and some base law enforcement
And forgotten a couple of others like regulate the money supply, administer the nation's debt, etc. and primary of all to accomplish the rest is to pay the nation's bills through taxation in a uniform manner wherever you are in the United States:
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Everything else goes to the states, they want a welfare state in their state boundary, lovely, they want to create a Libertarians paradise, so be it.
Including a power to collect taxes, even for the federal government if they so choose to do so.
Part II: What do you do if a governor decides, we're not complying with the sales tax.
You really should try reading the bill:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) `SEC. 401 AUTHORITY FOR STATES TO COLLECT TAX.
|
Are you really willing to send in federal troops to protect a national sales tax.
Are you really willing to not enforce the Supreme Law of the Land and not enfoce the Laws of the Union, and suppress insurrections in any such situation?
Constitution of the United States
Section 8 The Congress shall have Power
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
I would certainly hope that any law a governor or anyother official of state, national would be enforced. With the state's own law enforcement sworn to that duty, as would normally be the most that is needed, With militia if that is what is required.
Bottomline, State's governors are just as subject to the laws of the nation and the constitutions of their states as anyone else is.
Exactly and if the market will bear a 30% increase then why is not the price 30% Higher right now?
Do you think the stores competing against the Evil Wal-Mart Empire™ would not jump at a chance to undercut them by using any price advantage they could?
If you and Shadow's assertion are true why then do the price of electronics and computers continue to drop? 6 years ago a state of the art computer loaded with extras from Gateway cost me nearly 3 grand I can buy one with twice the memory and speed and features for half the price now.
Further your example of the Euro has no bearing in this situation. We are not changing currencies we are changing the tax structure. Nice of you to try the old Apples and Oranges trick.
"Are you really willing to not enforce the Supreme Law of the Land and not enfoce the Laws of the Union, and suppress insurrections in any such situation?"
Every ancestor of mine that fought in the unpleasantness of 1861-65 fought for the South, so no, I am going to say it is not the job of a state government to enforce an unpopular national law in that state. If Washington wants it enforced, they can send in their troops, and endure all the abuse, demagogery and everything else that goes along with it.
Nullification is a valid constitutional principle, and it's a shame Jackson and Lincoln made us get away from that.
It is not right that the federal government can go in and micromanage the affairs of a state.
There's also no guarantee that the state militia will comply. The state's have allowed the government to get away with abuses like these for more than 150 years but eventually, a breaking point is going to come.
And how popular do you think it would be for the federal government to come into say, the Southern or Western states and say, you're not doing what we want, so were in charge now. You could send in federal troops, but if they start pelting the troops with fruit, what do you do then. What if the Governor tells you, if I protect you with my law enforcement, I lose election so you're on your own sparky. What do you do then, put the state under martial law. You do that, then the governor is on national T.V playing the role of the victim, and soon you get sympathizers in other states.
Granted, this is all a hypothetical, but people are really getting sick and tired of federal courts saying, you've got to do this, do that, etc etc. And telling state governments that they are going to have to do the bidding of the national Treasury Department (presumably so people deflect their anger away from the DOT), you really think they are going to be thrilled to go along with something like that.
But, to reiterate, I do believe in nullification.
Part Duex
`(2) which enters into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary containing reasonable provisions governing the administration by such State of the taxes imposed by the subtitle and the remittance to the United States in a timely manner of taxes collected under this chapter.
There is one simple problem with that though, suppose the state legislature decides, we're going to put the issue to the vote of the people, in a referedum. And we're going to give them a choice between tax schedules to choose from (fed/state split)
And further, suppose that suddenly ads started popping up in said state, and they end up voting for the version that gives the Treasury Department 5%
What will Washington do then, if they try to bring the state in line, they'd be going against the will of the people.
Politics is all a matter of propaganda, whoever wins the propaganda war, and when it comes to issues of federal supremacy, the feds have never won a propaganda war in my state.
If you did it right now, you would stick out like a sore thumb, and get a lot of customer resistance. If you do it when there's a good excuse ("it's the evil NRST that did it") and when others around you are also doing it, it's much easier.
That's why the Euro example is NOT Apples and Oranges. "It's the evil EU Euro that did it", and most others jacked the price, too.
Every ancestor of mine that fought in the unpleasantness of 1861-65 fought for the South, so no, I am going to say it is not the job of a state government to enforce an unpopular national law in that state.
Get over it, that one was fought and lost.
What you have to say about it is of little import on such issues, what the Constitution has to say about it however is of great matter.
Nullification is a valid constitutional principle, and it's a shame Jackson and Lincoln made us get away from that.
Nullification is for jurys of one's peers in court proceedings, not government officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, and Laws of the Land.
It is not right that the federal government can go in and micromanage the affairs of a state.
Strange I don't see collecting a national tax as micromanaging anything. It is however a very definite authority of Congress to lay and collect taxes and make the laws necessary and proper to the execution of that authority.
There's also no guarantee that the state militia will comply. The state's have allowed the government to get away with abuses like these for more than 150 years but eventually, a breaking point is going to come.
Give you a clue, federal government doesn't use the militias of the state in default to correct such controversies.
And how popular do you think it would be for the federal government to come into say, the Southern or Western states and say, you're not doing what we want, so were in charge now.
Where there is an agreement by the state to act as an agent, with a full option to not do so? LOL. Get real.
Granted, this is all a hypothetical,
Indeed it is, and has little to do with the specific legislation of discussion. As the NRST agreement is bilateral with the state able to pull out anytime it wishes turning administration over to either a third party, or to the U.S. Treasury.
but people are really getting sick and tired of federal courts saying, you've got to do this, do that, etc etc.
I suppose that people violating laws would be sick and tired of the courts telling them they must abide by the law. So? We are talking here about clear authority under the Constitution not some pre-numbra or inferred magic right that never existed.
And telling state governments that they are going to have to do the bidding of the national Treasury Department
Nice hyperbole, but not on point as the states enter into voluntary agreements with the Treasury to administer a clearly constitutional national tax law. Sorry, just doesn't fly for the situation.
(presumably so people deflect their anger away from the DOT),
I would suggest you get rid of what ever it is you are smoking, fantasy is creeping in.
you really think they are going to be thrilled to go along with something like that.
State's option as to whether they, another state, or the U.S. Treasury administers the NRST in that state. Sorry thrilled or not people pay taxes, the choice is only in who administers the national tax system in the specific instance.
But, to reiterate, I do believe in nullification
So do I, in a court room by jury of peers.
There is one simple problem with that though, suppose the state legislature decides, we're going to put the issue to the vote of the people, in a referedum. And we're going to give them a choice between tax schedules to choose from (fed/state split)
Politics is all a matter of propaganda, whoever wins the propaganda war, and when it comes to issues of federal supremacy, the feds have never won a propaganda war in my state.
So just tell your state to cancel the federal income/paryoll tax system. Problem solved.
Nice fantasy, but empty.
What issue destroyed the Democratic Party in the South. State's Rights.
All a solution like this does is keep a bloated federal government, it keeps the judges that rule to increase federal power, it increases pork projects, etc.
I hate sales taxes right now, but I am willing to deal with it because I know my money goes to help my own people, my state, my city.
I am not crazy about having to pay a 25 percent surcharge on an item just so a majority of that money can go to people in a state that I will never live in, people in a state I may never visit.
Now granted, it is amazing irony that income taxes from New York and all those Northeastern states are used to subsidize social services here in the South, but I don't believe that is right either.
Why do we need a bloated government, why do we need a Department of Education, or a Department of Agriculture, or the million departments we have right now.
Today, as we speak, the federal government will pay farmers not to grow crops, but they pay them what they would have gotten had they grown crops, to me, that is absolutely ridiculous.
I will admit, it was ridiculous for the federal government to pay 3 mil to restore a historic train station.
Now, had it been state money spent on an in-state project, a different situation.
What is so wrong with the concept of reducing the federal government to just the military (and law enforcement), and letting each state kick in revenue, however it wants to get it, to pay for national defense.
Why is it that we should substitute one system of financing a bloated government with another system of financing a bloated government.
Why should I have to pay a surcharge on every item I buy, see that surcharge and seethe at it, just so we can fund a school lunch program in a blue state.
Instead of finding new ways to fund big government, we should be trying to eliminate big government all together.
My reply was to a small businessman. The question was about documentation for IRS compliance of a business. You are the one off the deep end on this seizing on every possible slight to put forward your snake oil. Why don't you just admit that business will need to submit documentation for the NRST? Why try to change the subject? It makes people think you are trying to pull a fast one.
I don't see it. Please cite the section in HR25 or quote it.
We tried that from 1776 to 1787. It was called "The Articles of Confederation." It was a spectacular failure. Congress had no way to force the states to pay (just like the NRST) and so some didn't.
To compare the situation under the Articles of Confederation to what would occur under the NRST is absurd.
The Federal Government of today has more than enough power to collect the sales tax from the several states.
Isn't one of the arguments on the NRST side that there is a "hidden income tax" that is included in the price of the Mercedes now? The retail price has to be higher to pay the income tax on all the people who produced the car. So the drug dealer is already paying the same hidden income tax on the Mercedes now as is the doctor. Right?
I believe it is misleading to claim that in spite of the fact that the same people will be working in the same offices doing almost the same jobs, but with a different name hanging on the building's entrance, that the old agency is not still in existence.
The Articles of Confederation didn't work at the time because of the frameset of the population at the time.
For starters, we didn't have much of a standing army.
Today, I don't think there really is a militia, in the Revolutionary sense, and the fact is, alot of places rely on the military for their economy.
Any state that refused to contribute, you close all public installations, it's that simple, because states will do anything to keep their respective military bases.
You could also make it requirement that, in order for someone to become President, their state has to be in compliance, set the same level for Congress. Because there will still be something for the feds to do, and no state will want to lose their influence.
In the end though, any solution for government finance is going to be a dressed up form of extortion.
How? But sending in the Marines, occupying the state houses, and arresting the Governor?
It certainly won't take a hundred thousand plus employees, with their thousands of volumes of rules and regulations.
And the new agency will not be collecting data daily on individual American citizens.
If you can't see the difference, and what a tonic to this nation cleaning out the IRS would be, you're either blind or are purposely closing your eyes to reality.
'Freedom calls', man, and she's on the NRST road...
Nope.
By threatening to withhold funds, the way they do right now.
How many States in recent decades have eschewed funds that were tied to legislation that required them to implement certain policies?
Snapped your seat belt shut lately?
Pretty good description of your posts I've been reading these last few minutes...
My proposal wouldn't collect data on American citizens daily either.
Of course, my proposal would restore the federal government to it's intended size, and that puts all the big government folks into a frenzy
And you would be surprised how many people it would take to collect revenue.
Collecting it in say, Kenedy County, Texas, that's one thing. But when you start to get into areas of concentrated population, and multitudes of commercial establishments, it becomes that much more difficult.
And in this whole grand scheme, you forgot one thing. There are going to be enterprises who if they figure out a way to get away with it, will start under-reporting to the tax people. If you don't officially record a sale, don't give a receipt or anything, then how will the government know this sale has occured.
And all this would do would be to allow the federal government to collect even more data on people, maybe not individuals, but certainly groups. They could know who buys what, etc.
And I don't even want to go into the economics of this, cause others have done this for me, but all I will say is this.
The United States runs on a consumer economy, when you raise prices, people will adjust their consumption habits, even if they do pay more. And because no one in this lifetime has ever dealt with a 25% sales tax, seeing one on a bill is going to make them livid, and immediately you will see thrift.
You would see more people planting vegetable gardens, and you would actually see an exodus out into rural areas, just so you can grow some food without having to pay an exorbitant tax on it.
As it stands now, this country is already in a bad financial way, almost everyone buys on credit (and I ain't talking mortgages, I'm talking credit cards)
At any given time, your average American has got several grand in credit card debt. The last thing we ought to be doing is increasing the amount that they will be charging to those damn things, because it was the credit industry that got us into the Great Depression.
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.