Posted on 07/27/2006 8:20:43 AM PDT by xzins
Look, I've researched this issue and nothing you've said makes any sense. You're saying politics is for profit and that's just not true.
I've seen and heard of organizations that are not for profit that take positions on issues of public importance.
And this tax equity deal is pure nonsense. It has nothing whatsoevere to do with this subject.
None of that is even possible with the FairTax.
We'd have to blame congresscritters from back then.
It should be an issue of freedonm and under the FairTax it is exactly that.
Do you have any idea what the FairTax is??? If not you're shorting yourself.
Funny, the First Amendment does not differentiate between political and non-political speech. So now you are the arbiter of what is First Amendment Speech and what is not? Hmmm - guess you're not the First Amendment absolutist you claim to be. Have a nice day.
As I as I do not hold to the concept of taxing any incomes or contributions in either case regardless of their purpose that is rather a null issue.
In point of fact I would not tax the purchase of a commercial by a business nor do I believe the constitution requires such.
However, a proper tax on articles of consumption imposed on the consumer is entirely another issue all together.
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue."
I refer you back to my first post on this thread: #26
Have a nice day yourself
Yet again, you have it backwards. It's not that politics is for profit. It just doesn't qualify for tax-exempt activity.
That means that charities, churches, etc. will benefit greatly (and they have no IRS looking over their shoulder, either).
"... Doing away with this totalitarian agency is politically difficult and maybe impossible ..."
Not at all. All that is required is to pass the FairTax bill (HR25). It eliminates the income, payroll, gift, and estate taxes as well as the appropriate portions of the tax code, eliminates the IRS (and defunds it for good measure), requires the destruction of the income tax records, and calls for the repeal of he 16th amendment.
The solution to these tax conundrums is much closer at hand than you even know.
WAKE UP!! It's time for the FairTax!!!
The thing is what the IRS is doing isn't what the founding fathers had in mind.
Read the the first admendment. It doesn't say anything about churches can't address issues of public importance.
Like it being said or not, the IRS is wrong on this and that's all there is to it.
Under the FairTax that's the case. All of the "exempt" and "deduct" nonsense is merely an artifact of having an income tax - nothing more.
You need to do some research into the FairTax. It will do all a so-called flat tax does and then some. A flat tax for example does not eliminate income taxation; the FairTax does ... and much more.
Is he married, have any kids, and what CBO quintile does his gross income (includes all forms of income) fall into:
Q1 = $14,800 Q2 = $34,100 Q3 = $51,900 Q4 = $77,300 Q5 = $184,500
With this approximate information we can give you a very close assessment of how his purchasing power will increase or decrease under the FairTax compared to the income tax - and it's almost always an increase. This allows each person to get a good reading of the effect of the FairTax on a particular income situation. The quintiles shown are from the COB effective tax rate structure for 2003 - the most current one.
Sorry, but the First Amendment does not differentiate between types of speech. So not only are you finding prenumbras in the First Amendment (by giving one form of speech more protection than the other against taxation), you are also buying into the liberal concept of overextending the Commerce Clause.
Yes, I noticed that ... see my #291.
Isn't Ken Ham facing jail time for claiming that he didn't have to pay any taxes because he was a church and all he had belonged to God?
It actually is more about taxes and government's control of those living under its tax system by using that tax system. And that should not be allowed at all (period) - and with the FairTax it isn't.
You might read #122 by the guy who devised the payroll withholding scheme for FDR to see how widely it is/was know that income tax laws are for control of the populace.
That's one reason why the FairTax is preferable.
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.