Yeah, with all that extra Free Money rolling in, everyone'll have enough for boats, snowmobiles, plasma tvs, and start saving an investing to boot. The FairTax will mean More Christmas for everyone.
Posted on 09/20/2006 10:32:34 AM PDT by tpaine
Top Ten Civil Liberties Abuses of the Income Tax
by Chris Edwards
Any tax system creates a threat to individual liberty because "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," as Chief Justice John Marshall observed.
But the federal income tax and its enforcement harm civil liberties much more than necessary to raise needed funds for the government. Certainly, the IRS performs poorly and too easily abuses the rights of citizens. But ultimately Congress is to blame for creating an excessively complex and high-rate tax system.
New laws to increase taxpayer protections and replacement of the income tax with a simpler, flatter consumption-based tax could greatly reduce the following 10 areas of civil liberties abuse.
1. "Vertical" Inequality. Although equality under the law is a bedrock American principle, the income tax treats citizens unequally.
2. "Horizontal" Inequality. Even people with similar incomes are treated unequally by the many exemptions, deductions, credits, and other intricacies of the income tax.
3. Complexity, Ambiguity, and Uncertainty. Certainty in the law is a bulwark against arbitrary and abusive government. But there is no certainty under the income tax because it rests on an inherently difficult-to-measure tax base, uses no consistent definition of "income" or other concepts, and is a labyrinth of narrow and limited provisions created by politicians intent on social engineering. Individuals are baffled by the complex rules on capital gains, pension and savings plans, and a growing list of targeted incentives. Those complexities would be eliminated under a flat consumption-based tax system.
4. Huge Size and Instability of Tax Law. Citizens are required to know the nation's laws and comply with them. Yet federal tax rules are massive in scope and constantly changing. Tax laws, regulations, and related documentation span 45,662 pages.
5. Lack of Financial Privacy. The broad-based income tax necessitates a large invasion of financial privacy that a low-rate consumption-based tax could avoid. The IRS regularly gains access to a myriad of personal records, such as mortgage records, credit card data, phone records, banking and investment records, real property transaction data, and personal correspondence. This broad IRS authority to obtain records without court supervision has been referred to by the Supreme Court as "a power of inquisition."
6. Denial of Due Process. The Fifth Amendment right to due process is ignored in many respects by the federal income tax regime. Due process requires that government provide accused citizens a clear notice of a claim against them and allow the accused a hearing before executing enforcement action.
7. Shifting of the Burden of Proof. For non-criminal tax cases -- the vast majority of cases -- the tax code reverses the centuries-old common law principle that the burden of proof rests with the accuser. Except in some narrow circumstances, the IRS does not have to prove the correctness of its determinations. When the IRS makes erroneous assessments, as it often does, citizens carry the burden to prove that they are wrong.
8. No Trial by Jury in Tax Court. Despite Sixth and Seventh Amendment guarantees of trial by jury, the federal tax system carefully sidesteps such protections. To contest an IRS tax calculation prior to assessment, one must file a petition in the U.S. Tax Court. But since this is an administrative court, not an Article III court, no jury trial is required.
9. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. In most situations, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that, before the government can search private property and seize records, it must demonstrate to a court that there is "probable cause" to believe that lawless conduct exists. However, the IRS's summons authority under tax code section 7602 allows it to obtain records of every description from any person without showing probable cause and without a court order.
10. Forced Self-Incrimination. The requirement to file tax returns sworn to under penalty of perjury operates to invalidate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Citizens face a legal dilemma. On the one hand, refusing to file a return would expose a citizen to prosecution for failure to file. On the other hand, disclosing information sought in tax returns constitutes a waiver of Fifth Amendment protections. The IRS can and does release that information to federal, state, and local agencies for both tax and non-tax law enforcement purposes
It seems you're the one with the odd understanding of the posting guidelines.
"... The FairTax is not under serious consideration by anyone ..."
With all the misinformation and incorrect information you continually put forth about the FairTax, that's no doubt what you'd like to believe. Trouble is - you're wrong as will be seen before too long.
And it's YOUR numbers that are phony, not those of the FairTax economists.
You are entitled to your misguided belief that the average taxpayer will see his Federal Tax bill cut by more than 50% under the FairTax. And you would be as wrong now as you were when you first said it, and the dozens of times you've defended it since.
Anyone who have common economic and/or business sense, would see that this is an impossibility, and disregard anything else that someone (pigdog) making such a claim says.
That's phunny. According to SQL's you only post spam, lies and nonsense. I guess my definition of that is different from theirs. Bang-up post. Well done.
"It is not irrational. The FairTax would create an entirely new government entitlement program-- the prebate. It would immediately be larger than Social Security or Medicare, and it would require the FedGov to increase the amount of revenue collected as compared to today by a very large amount. "
Oh, but it IS irrational - as is this post of yours. The prebate - as has been pointed out continually to you - is not an entitlement; it is a rebate which is "... a return of a part of a payment ...". An entitlement is a different word with quite a different meaning. The fact you continue to ignore this fact is, indeed, irrational.
Nor is the prebate anything like the size you pretend - with no basis in fact (also irrational on your part) - since it amounts in the FairTax to $429 billion (not $600 billion as you continually misstate) and that is even setting aside the fact that the government spends $725 billion now on tax loopholes and tax exemptions. And the entire "cost" of the $429 billion is covered in the 23% revenue neutral rate.
And it is very clear to most who understand economics that the FairTax will greatly boost the economic activity of this country and not "blow it up" (which is merely another of you over used scare phrases and not true in any event).
And since the prebate is NOT a return of anything, and since you don't need to pay any taxes to get it, your definitions, like those of the FairTax hucksters are an attempt to play word games.
The socialist prebate, that puts everyone on the dole, is the first thing that the politicians would start tinkering with once they realized that even a 40-50% tax rate wasn't gonna collect enough revenue. The second thing would be to bring back the income tax on the "rich".
Making things up again? I haven't used that number at all, it relies on a way too low FairTax rate (23% ti), since the "prebate" entitlement is equal to the FairTax that would theoretically be collected on poverty level goods and services, then a much larger FairTax rate makes the prebate cost grow in a linear fashion with the rate. If the rate is actually 50% higher, then the prebate program cost would be 50% higher.
"Actually, I have a recent letter from John Linder in which he tells me that the opposite might be true"
Since you previously proudly posted how you did such wonderful work as getting a letter from a Congressman (many of have stacks of them, you see), it certainly does not surprise me - or anyone else I'd venture.
It also means nothing since he's merely stating "possibilities" and since, keep in mind, your good buddy Boortz already had much the same data in one or more of his books. Linder saying what MIGHT happen also means it might NOT happen but perhaps you've never stopped to consider that.
But I've no doubt that everyone will profit from such a meaningless letter and will greatly admire your "skill" in obtaining it. Especially so if you tell us all what it means - which you are wont to do.
I'm just pointing out that the promoters of the bill and the House sponsor, and the FairTax.org website are very vague on what they expect will happen to wages, they are not taking the position of 100% of current gross pay.
Because they know that taking that position causes all the other consequences to happen to prices, inflation, and the cost of governement, and the FairTax rate going through the roof.
So, they don't say what they expect to happen to wages. Linder states that he expects the government salaries to stay the same if private industry does, and to drop if private industry does that. He has no idea of what will happen. Of course the FairTax couldn't possibly move forward without answering a simple question like what will happen to government pay, but Linder's not gonna answer it.
"... The bottom line is that if wages go up about 20-25%, prices will also go up about the same ..."
That's completely wrong as it is takehome pay that will go up, not wages. Wages remain the same under the FairTax. And that, in and of itself, merely means taxpayers will have more money that they control to either spend or save ... and a goodly number will no doubt start saving/investing it as many cannot now do so under the income tax.
Your so-called "bottom line" has a huge hole in it - called honesty. It's certainly good of you to let us know what Boortz did (or did not) say to the President since those of us who weren't present wouldn't know ... oh, wait!! You weren't present either, were you??? Or do you, perhaps, have the Oval Office bugged????
And YOU might profit from finding out the meaning of "ad hominem" instead of throwwing it about to try to impress the Mods.
Perhaps Boortz talked about it on the air?
And by "wages", I was talking about "takehome wages", thanks for clarifying...
Do you still stand by your many statements that the average taxpayers Federal tax bill be be reduced by more than 50% under the Fairtax?
"... your misguided belief that the average taxpayer will see his Federal Tax bill cut by more than 50% under the FairTax ..."
Please post the actual post where I've said this, else all will know it's a lie.
I know exactly what it means, and every time you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument, then you are making a personal ad hominem attack. This includes attempts to ridicule with funny or disparaging nicknames, or making guesses about the motives of a poster with nothing to back it up.
pigdog post 427:
Even at the present 23% ti rate, the average (middle CBO quintile; married, 2 kids) taxpayer who has an effective income tax rate of 12.5% ($6488 in income tax paid) will have an effective FairTax rate of 7.82% ($3,128 in FairTax paid). So, you see, the actual tax rate paid (the effective rate) is much, much lower that those repeatedly put forth by opponents.
pigdog post 432:
The effective tax rate for the mid quintile guy married with 2 kids will be about 7.82% (tax paid $3,128) under the FairTax while it was 12.5% ($6,488) under the income tax ... can you tell us which is better for the taxpayer???
If you'd carefully read the FairTax bill, you'd notice the prebate is a rebate as is called that more than once in the bill.
And in fact the prebate is a return of some of the FairTaxes paid. But perhaps you'd like to argue that no one will purchase anything taxable under the FairTax. Would you like to argue that???
Your comrade in arms William Gale (not the use of "comrade" which I'm sure you will) has even blurted out in one of his "learned studies" that the FairTax rate would have to be "94%". Can't you do better than that??? Maybe 99.87%??? Surely if YOU say it, all will believe.
Only you think it makes sense that the average guy sees his taxes go from $6488 to $3128 and thinks that your numbers can possibly add up.
post 443 To: RobFromGa
From: pigdog
"Only you think it makes sense that the average guy sees his taxes go from $6488 to $3128"
And only you think that it doesn't! It's been pointed out repeatedly to you by many posters that the FairTax lowers taxes for most taxpayers - this is merely an example of it.
Sorry. Incorrect word usage, ten yard penalty. First and 20.
And in fact the prebate is a return of some of the FairTaxes paid.
Sorry, assuming facts not in evidence, half the distance to the goal. First and 26.
Your comrade in arms William Gale
Incomplete ad hominem attack, and a fumble on the play. Recovered by me, in the end zone, touchdown.
Did you figure out today's answer to the Pigdog Average Taxpayer Challenge yet?
Yeah, with all that extra Free Money rolling in, everyone'll have enough for boats, snowmobiles, plasma tvs, and start saving an investing to boot. The FairTax will mean More Christmas for everyone.
"Making things up again? I haven't used that number at all,"
Nope, making nothing up. You've cited extensively from the infamous Tax Panel Report and it is there that the claim was made about the $600 billion totalling up to be a huge "entitlement" (both the Panels words and yours) all the while ignoring the very obvious fact that the prebate was not "spending" in any normal sense of the word but a refund of tax money to taxpayers and that any "cost" (funds really) was already encompassed by the 23% revenue neutral rate.
Are you perhaps trying to compete with Mr. Gale in quoting the highest FairTax rate with no evidence? His quote with no evidence was "94%". You've got a ways to go.
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.