Posted on 08/03/2005 4:51:43 PM PDT by RobFromGa
"I’m disappointed in you!"
That is your right.
"Emphasizing things in such a manner as to give new meaning to the founder’s intentions, and doing so to intentionally pretend Hamilton is speaking about an across the board tax on all articles of consumption and services rendered, when in fact, such a tax cannot logically be applied to the quote in question."
That is a matter of interpretation, J K. It is my view that your proposal is impractical. Therefore, the FairTax comes closer than any proposal that I know of to fulfilling the Founders' intent. I seriously doubt that the Founders would have approved of the myriad of areas that our federal government has become financially involved in, but here we are. There is no magic bullet. The FairTax would move us far closer to the Founders' original intent, would greatly stimulate our economy. That is quite a positive step.
"Nor is there any instance of the kind of tax you support [an across the board tax on all articles of consumption and services rendered] to be found implemented by those who framed and ratified our Constitution!"
Neither is there any instance of an income tax being imposed. Which would you prefer?
JWK, should I assume that you are not going to respond to the questions that I raised about your proposal in #894?
(I think that was the number)
all this does is blurr my vision and give me a headache
Most likely, it won't. Cmputer models look good, but usually don't work as well in real life.
Heck, D. R., real life don't work as well as real life sometimes - doesn't prove much.
Exactly so! A current Congress cannot bind the hands of a future Congress, which means, that any wording in H.R. 25 concerning the repeal of a tax calculated from wages, salaries, inheritances, corporate profits, etc, even if adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President, is nothing more than a suggestion as a future Congress is free to re-establish such taxes, especially a small one percent tax on the profits of those evil corporations for a starter!.
The only stinking tax reform we need is:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
As Thomas Jefferson warns us:
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"___ Thomas Jefferson
You have been taken Charlie! You really need to learn to stop buying those bridges.
JWK
As I correctly indicated, surely there is a clear enough distinction between such foods as caviar and chicken eggs, between wine and milk, between silk and cotton underwear, between a Chevy Nova and BMW to truthfully say one is a luxury and the other a necessity and create a list of taxable items by a "judicious selection of objects proper for such taxation.", just as Hamilton informs us.
In case you haven't noticed though, Congress has been delegated the power to make the determination as to what constitutes a luxury and distinguished from a necessity., not you. So, I guess you don’t have to worry about determining what constitutes a luxury as opposed to a necessity.
JWK
"In case you haven't noticed though, Congress has been delegated the power to make the determination as to what constitutes a luxury and distinguished from a necessity., not you. So, I guess you don’t have to worry about determining what constitutes a luxury as opposed to a necessity."
I only have to worry about it if your proposal is enacted (as is also the case with congress). I will interpret your evasion of my specific questions to mean that you don't have any answers to these practical issues that have to be addressed before your plan is realistically considered. You keep insinuating that the distinction between a luxury and a necessity is clearcut and easy to distinguish, when my experience is just the opposite. The questions that I posted, BTW, are only illustrative, not exhaustive, as there are many other examples which could be cited.
Another major stumbling block, which we can't even get into because of your evasiveness, is the whole issue of revenue neutrality. Depending on how expansive a definition of "necessities" you adopt, the tax rate will have to be adjusted to make sure the proposal is revenue neutral. Of course, this gets REALLY complicated because of your position that different rates would apply to different articles of consumption.
Unless I can get some answers to specific questions, I am going to consider this proposal interesting to debate, but totally impractical and unworkable in the real world.
"judicious selection of objects proper for such taxation."
Interesting phrase. I would argue that taxing items for personal consumption (as opposed to business inputs), both goods and services, only new goods would qualify as a judicious selection. It also has the added benefit of being economically beneficial, as well as practical.
I think that you are correct, but I am having a hard time staying away from this train wreck. Trying to get a single real answer form any of the FairTax people is like a bad joke.
They could do an SNL skit on these guys, students in a class, no matter what question they ask the professor he pushes a button and spits out a canned answer that usually is only peripherally related to the question. Every tenth button push, the machine utters an obscenity or calls the questioner a name.
"Unless I can get some answers to specific questions, I am going to consider this proposal interesting to debate, but totally impractical and unworkable in the real world."
"I think that you are correct, but I am having a hard time staying away from this train wreck. Trying to get a single real answer form any of the FairTax people is like a bad joke.
They could do an SNL skit on these guys, students in a class, no matter what question they ask the professor he pushes a button and spits out a canned answer that usually is only peripherally related to the question. Every tenth button push, the machine utters an obscenity or calls the questioner a name."
I think you got lost in my exchanges with JK, who supports a consumption tax, but thinks that selecting "necessities" and levying different tax rates on "luxuries" is a better and more constitutioanally sound way to go.
I am a strong FairTax supporter who believes that, while not perfect, it is vastly superior to the current system and far superior to any of the alternatives proposed so far.
You are frustrated because of your view that your questions have not been adequately addressed. Fair enough. You have also offered one of the better defenses of the current system that I have heard. It is interesting that FR is the only forum where I have even encountered people who will attempt to defend the current system. YN won't even attempt it on FR, although that is clearly what he is fighting for.
Nonetheless, I would like for you to answer a question that I have posed on a couple of recent threads and have not getten any response to. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
During the first phase of the President's Commission on Tax Reform's investigation, they attempted to survey the current system and to thereby assess its adequacy and determine to what extent it met the needs and expectations of the American people. The panel issued its interim report in mid-April, I believe. The title of that report was "America Needs a Better Tax System". The report was the result of weeks of public hearings, solicited testimony, and comments from the general public. That report can only be considered a scathing indictment of the current system.
My question to you is this - how could that report have missed the mark so badly? Did the panel misread the sentiments of the American people? If so, why, was their information gathering process flawed? Or is it the case that we really have a wonderful tax system and the ungrateful American public just does not properly appreciate?
http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/index.shtml
“The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
as opposed to the socialist friendly, big government friendly, H.R. 25 tax reform proposal which proposes to put every American Family on the government dole under its family consumption allowance, giving Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy a very valuable tool which he and his socialist disciples in Congress will promise to increase during election time to buy millions of votes to remain in power, just as these socialists now do with the minimum wage, social security payments, aid to families with dependant children, Pell Grants, and you name it from the shopping list of government give-away- programs created by Congress___ the only difference with H.R. 25 is, its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check!
Were we not warned by Hamilton that A POWER OVER A MAN”s SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.?
For an outline of the Founding Father’s complete tax plan which would be brought back if the above words were added to our Constitution and includes a method to balance the budget and also makes members of Congress accountable for their wasteful spending CLICK HERE and scroll down to
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee
Also, to see what real conservatives in America are promoting with regard to raising a federal revenue,CLICK HERE
JWK
As Thomas Jefferson warned us
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
Oh how I wish I have listened to your sage advice over 1000 posts ago, this FairTax is a complete mess.
Marking this item since this has now been shown to be a misrepresentation.
I took your advice.
Maybe Linder really doesn't understand the FairTax plan?
I'm being literal. You said I should investigate and I did. I didn't mean to make you cranky.
and to your second question, I was going back looking for a previous example I had done, and came across your post.
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.