Dear pigdog,
"It is a logical fallacy since if unconstitutional there would be no income tax law and therefore no tax revenue."
Well, it's theoretically possible that it would be some other sort of fallacy, but it doesn't fall into the category of formal logical fallacies.
However, we've gone around this tree before. A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment could easily be written to provide for a date in the not-too-distant future when the authority to tax income would expire, providing the time needed to move from one system to another.
There is no reason that such an amendment couldn't say:
"This amendment will become effective two years from its adoption to the Constitution, during which time, the federal government may continue to impose and collect income taxes."
Or whatever is determined to be the right language.
"It's by far better to eliminate the income tax and its appurtenances and require its records destruction and THEN move on the eliminate the 16th and/or the constitutional prevention of income taxation in an orderly fashion and without chaos."
Nope. That's demonstrably false. If the NRST is passed, the 16th Amendment will not be repealed. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?
sitetest
A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment could easily be written to provide for a date in the not-too-distant future when the authority to tax income would expire, providing the time needed to move from one system to another.
Such is already on the tracks where are is the grassroots support to make it happen? Just as importantly where is the Congressional support for it to happen.
H.J.RES.14
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.j.res.00014:
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
We have had proposals for such amendments to the constitution nearly continuously since the ratification of the 16th amendment and the first income tax enacted under it. It is interesting that no support to see the deed done arises in Congress as long as the income tax system has been in place.
I submit, you will not see the prohibition of the taxation of income until such time as the system itself is rendered obsolete by going to taxation of consumption as the viable alternative in place.
Nearly a century of experience under the income tax system bears evidence to that conclusion.
You have here a catch 22 situation, until the statutory infrastructure of the income/payroll tax is totally replaced by an alternative viable system of taxation you will not see the prohibition of the income tax.
The FairTax NRST is the first necessary step to the eventual prohibition of income taxes altogether. The other route of waiting for proposal and ratification of an amendment to prohibit income taxes is clearly no more than a pipe dream as history totally confirms.
"If the NRST is passed, the 16th Amendment will not be repealed. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?"
That's not too hard to understand ... because the cow (income tax) will have been put out to pasture and serves no useful purpose but merely takes up space on our pastureland (our legislative space). It will have become an anachronism like the Prohibition amendment before it and should be made into shoe leather or sold to the next country that thinks it needs one. No point of letting if feast on our pastureland since it can't even be milked anymore.
I also never said it was a FORMAL logical fallacy, but merely a logical fallacy. There are certainly fallacies other than formal ones.
"A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment could easily be written to provide for a date in the not-too-distant future when the authority to tax income would expire, providing the time needed to move from one system to another. "
Actually we haven't been around this particular tree before since you've now expanded the repeal activity to include things that belong in other sorts of bills as well such as revenue bills (tax bills), spending bills, etc. Each time you add such things it make it even more improbable than ever that such a so-called "repeal bill" could succeed. There would simply be too many points of debate and conflicting opinion to get it through 38 states in only 7 years - if it could even get out of Congress ... which I rather doubt. Keep in mind there is already a lot of overt support for the FairTax in Congress and more is certainly coming.
So as I've said I think the proper (and fastest) way is to pass the FairTax bill while perhaps concurrently passing the repeal bill. Keeping them separate greatly simplifies things and makes it far more likely the repeal will happen. Trying to combine too many things into what should be a repeal bill will virtually guarantee its failure. But I think that's your objective from past threads.
Take a look at most repeal bills and you'll see that they strive, rightfully, to be quite simple. Including too many issues complicates things and is self-defeating.