Posted on 04/14/2006 2:42:07 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
of good news is that support is growing for complete replacement of the tax code with a national consumption tax. More and more taxpayers are demanding action from their representatives in Congress, and their representatives are listening.
Just one year ago, there were 33 sponsors and co-sponsors of HR 25, The FairTax Act, in the U.S. House. Now there are 53 supporters, and new co-sponsors are joining every month. In the Senate, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) was the lone sponsor of the FairTax Act, S 25, one year ago. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX) now join Senator Chambliss as co-sponsors. The word is spreading about the overwhelming benefits to our economy and our wallets when we replace the nine-million-word tax code mess with the fair and simple FairTax.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Calling an unequal tax "Fair" calls into question the motives of those who would be so dishonest.
Calling a capitation tax fair makes me wonder at your motives and honesty of your agenda.
Any tax that requires government to demand a payment without regard to capacity is tatamount to slavery, a tax on liberty and the right to life and existance.
If anyone cares, a sales tax would tax much of the underground economy which has a lot of illegals in it along with a lot of citizens getting govt. aid over the table, while secretly working under the table.
It's obvious from your posts that you haven't read the FairTax bill, have little understanding of this subject, and that you have nothing postive to add. Have a nice day.
You're right, it would tax the underground economy.
The current income tax system gives the economic advantage to the cheater and the crook.
There is a certain brutal honesty in a master / slave relationship. Disguising the relationship by hiding behind clever schemes, may make people feel good, but that is about it. Fail to pay taxes, that is work for the Master, and it's off to the hot house for you. Just ask Richard Hatch, the survivor guy.
You can save money in your left pocket by only spending from your right. Brilliant! What is needed is a brutal reduction in the amount sent to Washington. Anything less is just a silly game.
Have a nice weekend!
The first step is to get it out on the open where the voters can see it. The sales tax is the only way to do that.
Unfortunately, your de facto defense of the status quo makes impossible the very thing you rail against.
What in the heck are you talking about?
Paying a Federal Sales Tax or a Federal Income Tax, is still paying a huge tax to the Federal government. It really does not mater what pocket the tax is paid from.
I would rather see a system where one group of citizens is not played off against another, and a smaller amount is sent to the Federal Government.
The Federal Government is never going to cost less than the amount it is subsidized for.
I took a lot of heat for being against the "do not call" program of the Federal government. People claimed I worked for the telemarketers. I don't. I can just hang up the phone with out the help of the Federal Government. I am serious about wanting a smaller government. The so called "Fair Tax" was supposed to be revenue neutral as I understand it. This is why I don't like it. It is just a thing about rearranging deck chairs, on sinking ships, that I find silly.
I think equal citizens should get an equal tax bill, if the system is to be overhauled, why not aim for equality?
There is a certain brutal honesty in a master / slave relationship.
Yep, you obey master and he takes care of you. Any good farmer knows to take good care of their live stock.
Not interested in your concept of fair nor good government taking this to be what constitutes your concepts of government by consent of the governed.
This nation is not based on slavery, rather it was based on individual liberty with rule of law, not arbitrary fiat of a master.
Fail to pay taxes, that is work for the Master, and it's off to the hot house for you. Just ask Richard Hatch, the survivor guy.
A proprietor failing to remit a collected consumption tax and said proprietor is off to jail as well. Your point fails for lack of basis.
The choice in paying consumption tax lay in the consumer's choice in how and when one engages in commerce as a consumer. It does not require however a master riding herd over every individual, as an income tax or capitation tax systems do.
Ah. Now I understand why you are so confused. You don't know the difference between a spending and a revenue bill.
I think equal citizens should get an equal tax bill, if the system is to be overhauled, why not aim for equality?
Because equality is not a reasonable measure of fairness. For example, equal amount is not equivalent to equal burden among instances of variable capacity by any stretch of the imagination.
Now everyone outside the guard is totally equal in a gulag. I suspect you hold that to be a prime example of fair as well.
Fairness is taxing everyone equally, then folks are free to earn as much as they want with out government leaches stealing a percentage of anything.
Everybody paid almost the same amount when our current tax code was enacted October 3, 1913. The tax ranged from merely 1% on the first $20,000 of taxable income and was only 7% on incomes above $500,000. In the beginning, hardly anyone had to file a tax return because the tax did not apply to the vast majority of America's working citizens. For example, in 1939, 26 years after the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, only 5% of the population, counting both taxpayers and their dependents, was required to file returns. Today, more than 80% of the population is under the income tax. Creating a similar tax code will result in the same oppressive mess we have today.
Imbedded in the philosophy of the law is the destructive principle, so that once it is in effect the economic and political consequences are inevitable. The principle of the income tax is the denial of private property.
There is nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment, there is nothing in the principle of the income tax, which puts a limit on the amount the State may demand, and hence the implication is clear that the individual's absolute right of private property is denied.
The theory of republican government, that its powers are derived from the will of the people, is no safeguard against this denial of private property. Assuming that the Sixteenth Amendment at the time of its enactment did express the will of the people, every one of them, the substance and effect of income taxation was to destroy the will of any subsequent generation for modification or revocation.
It is unlike any other law. For the denial of the right of private property is in essence the denial of the right of the individual to himself. He is no longer a free person if he is not free to keep and enjoy the products of his labors. --"
Excerpted from From Solomons Yoke to the Income Tax by Frank Chodorov
The sooner we throw this income tax mess onto the ash heap of history, where it so properly belongs, the sooner we can start becoming a FREE country once again!
So now you reduced to picking a couple of paragraphs out of an "editorial" and writing your own headline for it? You are a real bottom feeder.
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.