"I have always preferred the truth in such discussions, something which you ought to try!"
"Truth is, pigdog, the Founding Father’s tax plan worked very welll "
Oh, I see ... we'll have to look into that but I note that, to you, everyone seems to be lying if they don't agree with you. I see that you say:
You also lie about ... You also lie when you ...""You are lying when you say ...
In addition, you make the absolutely odd statement:
"... you really do fear a return to our founding father’s original tax plan ..."
In a word, NO!! Not hardly. In fact I merely asked you to show us a bill you have before congress expressing your "tax plan" in some detail and showing us some economic studies that demonstrate it is revenue neutral as well as meets the ofher few criteria that the Presedent has put forth. Since you seem unable to do that, we'll consider this to be the self-effacing piffle it really is.
Nor was I "lying" about your "plan". The experiences you cite all come from the pre-War-Between-The-States days of this country's history with your most recently cited date being 1861. In fact the U. S. started the first income tax by law in 1863 so it is quite apparent that your wonderful "plan" wasn't all it was cracked up to be and it certainly never came alive after the war even though the income tax was eventually removed and then re-started in 1909 (corporate) and 1913 (individual). Is that, do you suppose, because your favored tax plan was doing such a bang-up job?
In the early days of the country the states and the federal government were always short of funds (sound familiar?) despite your idealized "plan" and the charging of individual states with population-representative taxes is - as I said - far more of a burden of poorer states than richer ones. This is one of the things that helped bring about the War-Between-The-States; the richer Northern states were felt by the Southern states to be getting far too much in the way of trade, voting power and favorable treatment in Congress, etc. all stemming from these Northern states having a greater (richer) industrial and trade base. Adding fuel to this sort of animosity is not something to be casually dismissed - even today.
But FEAR the return of something so obviously impractical??? Not at all. Let's see your bill and economic studies and explanation of how the President's other criteria are met. And I am certainly not lying.
In a word, NO!! Not hardly. In fact I merely asked you to show us a bill you have before congress expressing your "tax plan" in some detail and showing us some economic studies that demonstrate it is revenue neutral as well as meets the ofher few criteria that the Presedent has put forth. Since you seem unable to do that, we'll consider this to be the self-effacing piffle it really is.
Show you a bill? Perhaps you should read our Constitution!
Still telling fibs? My plan? What I support pal, is not my plan, but the founding fathers original tax plan and its various checks and balances which were designed to control Congress' actions, and also provides an intended method to extinguish deficits in a manner making every member of Congress immediately accountable to their state legislature for their spending habits while in Congress Assembled.
As I correctly stated above in post 427
“Neither the Forbes flat tax nor the alleged Fair Tax promoted by radio talk show host Neal Boortz, or a value added tax does anything to control the wasteful spending and borrowing practices of Congress; does anything to encourage Congress to start following sound fiscal and economic policies beneficial to America’s businesses, industries and labor; nor do any of the above proposals compel Congress to extinguish annual deficits in a manner in which members of Congress would be quickly held accountable by their State Governor and Legislature for their reckless spending and borrowing habits!
Sad thing is, in this respect, the Forbes flat tax, just as the Boortz promoted [H.R. 25] and the value added tax plan, are nothing but cleverly concocted plans allowing Congress to skin the goose which lays the golden eggs and continue in its unaccountable profligate borrowing and spending habits which is the worm at the root of the tree. All the above proposals are variations of a single plan to support existing big government and the countless political plum jobs on Capitol Hill, many of which have six figure salaries and redistribute money taxed away from hard working Americans for functions not authorized by the enumerated powers granted to Congress by our Constitution.”
pigdog,
Your plan is intentionally designed to support existing big government via its revenue neutral feature, and does nothing to control the reckless spending and borrowing practices of Congress. Only a socialist and those who favor big government would support your government friendly tax plan, and be against our founding father‘s plan.
“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence
As I said, I have always preferred the truth in such discussions, something which you ought to try!
JWK
ACRS
The only stinking tax reform we need is for the American People to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution which brings us back to our founding fathers plan:
“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“ .