Posted on 11/10/2005 3:18:48 AM PST by Man50D
You're spouting nonsense and misinformation. Read #96 again.
BTW there's no such thing as a "pre-index payment" nor do I know where you ever got that notion other than dream it up up out of whole cloth. Even the terminology is odd.
Nor is there any "confiscation of property" - any more than there is with the income tax ... the FairTax is revenue neutral, remember.
You're the one who quoted the "10%" tax rate dipstick and that is as I stated $7,500 AGI. And the 0% on about $25,000 under the FairTax is about zero also as I stated.
I have filed 1040s for many years as well as other types of returns required by the different entities I own and/or participate in so stop your childish pretense of superiority. You don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry, dude (or dudette as the case may be), eliminate means eliminate. You can look it up in almost any dictionary.
Gone is gone and never the twain shall meet ... and it is embedded as part and parcel of the FairTax bill whether you like it or not.
With an operable tax bill, the 16th will be relatively easy to repeal as it serves no purpose - an anachronism - just like the repeal amendment. "Only a fool or someone who actually wants both taxes would do it otherwise."
Apparently, you don't even understand that money is ones property.
Based on that alone, one can not possibly have a dialog with such an uninformed person.
Sorry dupe (or dupette as the case may be) it doesn't eliminate a damn thing. It's not possible for a law to amend the Constitution. You can look it up in any copy of the Constitution you can find.
You might need a remedial high school constitution course.
But nice try. I used to think you guys were ignorant, but I'm starting to lean toward you guys wanting both taxes. Just more big government advocates looking to expand their favorite thugocracy.
If you purposely do it backwards, what other conclusion?
Sounds like you are being intentionally obtuse.
Pigdog didn't say HR25 would eliminate the 16th. He said it eliminates the IRS. Which it does. It requires the IRS be stripped of funding. It requires all income tax records be destroyed.
Also, the 16th doesn't REQUIRE an income tax. It only allows for one. If you require that the 16th be repealed BEFORE implementing a new tax system, then what will fund the government during the gap ? Or do you mean the repeal must happen simultaneously ?
Finally, remember that it doesn't take HR25 or anything else to allow for a National Retail Sales Tax. Congress could implement one any time they felt like it. In addition to the Income Tax. After all, is there really any difference between the current excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol ? They are just targeted Sales Taxes.
You seem fixated on the fear of ending up with both income and sales taxes. We have both already. The FairTax is a movement to eliminate the first and rely only on the second.
It only sounds that way to people who are clueless to the actual exchange.
Pigdog didn't say HR25 would eliminate the 16th.
Of course not, it would mean he conceded my point. BTW, I never claimed he did, so you make a strawman.
I'll adress your other incorrect staments later. I must depart now. Ta ta.
Can you show where the 16th Amendment REQUIRES any of those things ? If not, then why would eliminating them be unconstitutional ?
You said:
"Sorry dupe (or dupette as the case may be) it doesn't eliminate a damn thing. It's not possible for a law to amend the Constitution. You can look it up in any copy of the Constitution you can find."
So what were you referring to with "eliminate" ? It sure sounded as though you were referring to the 16th Amendment and attributing that claim to Pigdog. I can't find anywhere that Pigdog claimed HR25 would "amend the Constitution."
I always thought it was a medium of exchange (or even specie) rather than a property since money has no title of ownership nor do you have the exclusive right to possess it,
What sort of property do you consider it to be? I think it may be more correct to say that it is something you may (or may not) possess since, for example, when someone has a lot of money you say "he possesses riches".
Because you use one term to describe it hardly means that everyone else is wrong, uninformned, and inferior. It just means you use a different term to describe something. There are lots of words and descritpions that can be used, Finial.
It seems that Kellis91789 is a closer reader of what has been said than are you.
He's right; I never did say (or imply) that the FairTax bill repealed the 16 to amend the Constitution - which is what was in your post #104 when you said "... not possible for a law to amend the Constitution ..." with the clear meaning you were talking about the fact you were positing that I somehow stated the FairTax bill amended the Constitution.
I did not.
What was really being communicated to you if you but understood is that it is neither necessary OR desireable to repeal the 16th first since absolutely eliminating the income tax etc. prevents it from coming right back into being. Hard to believe you can't/don't want to understand that.
Thinking it can be repealed first merely leaves those (such as Charlie Rangel) who wish us to have both at the same time and are actively to bring that about (which you apparently don't realize - or do realize it and approve) a lot more leeway to work toward having both. From the tone and tenor of your posts on the matter I have to think that you are one of these hoping to have both taxes at once.
None of the FairTax supporters hope for that - just the opposite, in fact.
False, but nice try. I posited no such thing.
that it is neither necessary OR desireable to repeal the 16th first since absolutely eliminating the income tax etc. prevents it from coming right back into being.
False, but nice try. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. Hard to believe you can't/don't want to understand that.
Clearly, you want both taxes. It is the only way to interpret your insistence that a constitutional amendment not be made first. Either you want both or you are logically impaired, which is it?
No, not at all. It is all quite constitutional and nothing REQUIRES the 16th to be repealed first. In fact it would be virtually impossible to do so.
Having the FairTax as an operating tax law, though, would keep us from having both an income tax and a sales at the same time while the 16th is being repealed. In fact nothing right now keeps us fom having both at the same time and there has been at least one bill introduced to do just that.
There have been almost 100 years now during which the 16th could have been repealed, That should make it patently obvious to even the most die hard Status Quo Lover that the 16th won't be repealed until a completely different tax bill - one not relying on income tax - is in operation. That, of course, is exactly what the SQLers hope for ... that it won't be repealed but keep right on with more of the same old, same old.
"False, but nice try. I posited no such thing."
Really???? Then you'd better admonish your keyboard since your #104 said:
"... it doesn't eliminate a damn thing. It's not possible for a law to amend the Constitution .... "
... which clearly means you believe I said that the bill was intended to repeal the 16th. There can be no other meaning that I can see. But the bill DOES eliminate the things I said it did. Read the bill yourself and see,
If you intended some other meaning then why the reference to the amending of the Constitution??? Also, how is it you would propose to restore the income tax code, the income tax, the IRS (and funding thereof) as well as reconstituting the destroyed income tax records??
Tell us your plan how this many be accomplished and why, within the alomst 100 years we have had the income tax, that this repeal has never been done despite many attempts??? How is it that you propse it will somehow happen on your watch???
"Clearly, you want both taxes. "
False as hell as you could easily tell by asking any FairTax supporter or by reading the FairTax website where it says clearly that the objective is to repeal the 16th:
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#42
I fail to see how even the most dense individual could fail to comprehend such a plain statement as well as the wording in the bill itself calling for he repeal. If you are indeed that dense and foolish you are one of the ideal candidates for guys like Charlie Rangel to give us both taxes at once. You are quite wrong. Why is it do you suppose that the 16th repeal has never happened in a century and will suddenly, magically, happen now???
The answer is - it won't until a tax law is in place that does not depend on an income based tax and that is shown by the last 100 years' experience which have not brought it about. There's no reason to believe this will suddenly so happen because Protagoras says it will.
which clearly means you believe I said that the bill was intended to repeal the 16th.
Ummm, no actually, it means that you seem to. No wonder you can't grasp simple concepts, you stumble on the obvious.
"Dense" is probably too light a word for you. But let's not haggle about semantics.
And so you think Rangel (who'd like both taxes) is better off having the income tax in operation as a base to add whatever sales tax he dreams up onto? Keep in mind that with the FairTax he'd have to completely build the income tax back up from the ground up - including its funding and the tax code itself - and somehow find all of those income tax records that had been burned.
So you have the temerity to call ME "... the dumbest guy on the site ..."? You haven't even read the bill quite obviously. It sounds like you're on Charlie's side to help him get us both taxes at once. Even Dick Armey, when active in politics, recognize that one way to try to slow down the push for the FairTax was to insist the 16th had to be repealed first.
That's merely a delaying tactic.
Nice try Mortimer
There are no "... tricks and obfuscation ...". Just read the bill. It is quite obvious it eliminates our current income tax system in a very forceful manner.
You merely can't read apparently. The 16th would have nothing to "hang its hat on" - nothing to operate with. The income tax would be gonzo and the 16th would merely be an anachronism like the prohibition amendment and just as easily repealed.
Your unfounded guess that I'm a liberal Democrat plant or even a Democrat plant or even a plant on this site is both quite wrong and quite laughable. You sound more like that that I. Claiming the 16th must be repealed first is merely an anti-FairTax delaying tactic, nothing more.
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.