Posted on 02/08/2003 5:56:38 PM PST by Bigun
White House Floats Idea of Dropping Income Tax Overhaul By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — President Bush, having already set off a firestorm over his proposals to cut taxes and revamp retirement accounts, suggested today that the time might be near to drop the income tax as a whole and replace it with some form of consumption tax...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.Section 7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax
Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.Section 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
As the those courts are required to do under the Constitution.
Constitution for the United States of America:
You yourself acknowledged that tariffs are incapable of pulling in more than a certain amount of revenue. That lack of free goodies.
your tariff has just assured the appearence of a gravy train for the entire nation.
Again, a statement based entirely on theory, not on experience. Once again, I'll recap our experience: First there were tariffs. Government was limited, people weren't asking for handouts, and there generally was no ideology that one of the essential functions of government was to be people's sugar daddy. Then came the income tax, which was originally applied only to the top earners. This was concurrent with an increasing desire on the part of the public for goodies from the government. Finally, the income tax was extended to the point where the vast majority of people were finally paying Friedman's much touted "nominal amount" (actually, most people would consider it quite a bit more than "nominal"). And did this at long last result in a reversal of that socialistic trend? Quite the opposite indeed - and how! So theory is only as good as the experience that goes along with it.
You yourself acknowledged that tariffs are incapable of pulling in more than a certain amount of revenue. That lack of free goodies.
I see goodies without a payment of taxes, is not perceived as free goodies?
Once again, I'll recap our experience: First there were tariffs. Government was limited, people weren't asking for handouts,
LOL, government has always handed out feebies to constituencies. Different times, different freebies different constituents is all.
Defense, percieved to not be paid for by all citizens,
National debt, percieved to not be paid for by all citizens,
general government, percieved to not be paid for by all citizens,
are freebies to those who are not involved in the payments required to be paid with taxes by the Constitution.
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Then came the income tax, which was originally applied only to the top earners. This was concurrent with an increasing desire on the part of the public for goodies from the government.
The income tax was sold on the premise of only the rich will pay, your tariff is based on the premise that only those who purchase import goods at a price higher than domestic goods will pay.
The desire has gone away some how?
Finally, the income tax was extended to the point where the vast majority of people were finally paying Friedman's much touted "nominal amount" (actually, most people would consider it quite a bit more than "nominal").
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rate (Percent of gross income) Income Category 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Projected
1999Lowest Quintile -0.6 -0.8 -0.2 -0.5 -0.2 -1.3 -1.9 -2.9 -3.4 -5.6 -6.8 Second Quintile 3.6 3.9 4.6 3.5 3.9 3.2 3.3 2.7 1.8 1.8 0.9 Middle Quintile 7.1 7.5 8.3 6.8 6.8 6.1 6.5 6.3 5.9 6.1 5.4
"Strongly prefer tax roll back if it
means more money for programs"
And did this at long last result in a reversal of that socialistic trend? Quite the opposite indeed - and how!
60% are not paying the freight. Same old game all the way through, nothing changed.
So theory is only as good as the experience that goes along with it.
Mistated and invalid premises lead to mistated and invalid conclusions.
You're playing a semantic game and you know it. What I'm referring to are the social-welfare benefits that have become a staple of our current income-tax-addicted government. Such would not be possible if government only depended on revenue from tariffs. Are we in agreement on this?
Such would not be possible if government only depended on revenue from tariffs. Are we in agreement on this?
First of all the premise that government would be bound to a tariff only is a fiction you have concocted. There is no mechanism in your proposition to bind government to that sole source of revenue nor to even limit spending to the level of revenues available from a tariff. You forget the ultimate answer to all shortages of revenues, the inflation tax.
The constitution provides the authority to tax in several modes. Tariffs are only one such mode and tariffs under modern industrial society cannot be implemented to the degree that they will preceptibly reach the broad base of the electorate and fund even the most minimal functions of a viable national government.
Congressional representatives will assure the demand for largess by their constitutencies will be met until such time as there is a proportionate cost felt by a broad majority of all citizens.
Government will never be held to account nor limited by those who benefit from largess as long a there is an effective majority believing they are getting more than they pay for. A tariff alone creates an automatic avenue for avoidence of the cost, (i.e. turning to untaxed domestic goods and services).
Where there is a voting majority who receive without a commensurate burden, the tendency towards social largess will continue buying incumbency for career politicians willing to provide largess to the public.
Your tariff will do nothing to discourage that simple and historically recognised tendency of all politicians in representative governments to provide largess in response to the majority to maintain their incumbency nor the tendency of individuals to aquire the maximum benefit for the least cost to themselves.
To put it in the bluntest and most basic terms you are selling nothing more than populist snake oil.
All the case law you state is well and good. The Constitution is specific in the ability of the government to impose taxes. There is no constitutional authority to impose an income tax. Supreme court rulings have stated that the congress cannot define income. There is no law, and we all know the courts are corrupt and the lawyers and judges have a vested interest in keeping this system of corruption going.
In order to convince me, show me where in the tax code any regulation that states that I am liable.That is all I ask!
By the way I am enjoying this. It is an educational experience.
Just show me where in the tax code that I am liable for an income tax
Keep your 20 bucks. You have already seen it in the Melton case in my replies above.
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that there is no law requiring them to pay taxes
Whether you accept the answer or not is your problem not mine.
I don't have to convince you or even care whether I do or not. You just have to convince the Courts.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law making him liable for a tax on income.KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that no law makes any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no defined meaningUnited States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxesUnited States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him to file income tax returns.Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the income tax is a taking.Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable income.The Constitution is specific in the ability of the government to impose taxes. There is no constitutional authority to impose an income tax.
An income tax is an indirect tax of the nature of an excise or duty thus is authorised under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and always has been.
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
James Madison, Federalist #45:
- "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
- The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.
- "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."
- Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)
- An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states," "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND." House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
- "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
Consideration received for labor or product is commerce, a contract subject to duty or excise.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Supreme court rulings have stated that the congress cannot define income.
That is why Congress does not put "its" own definition for income in the statutes, as a consequence historical definintion of income applies. Congress only defines terms when it wants a specific or its own meaning applied. Statutes are not dictionaries nor are they required to have a definition for every word used in them, common dicitionaries are quite adequate to the task of informing one of such definitions.
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar.
The same Supreme Court has ruled clearly that "income" has been defined within through the common meaning of the term at the time of the first income tax which is the definition to be applied.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill.
And that definition of income has remained constant across 147 years:
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary © 2000
Main Entry: in·come
Pronunciation: 'in-"k&m also 'in-k&m or 'i[ng]-k&m
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a coming in : , <fluctuations in the nutrient income of a body of water>
2 : a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time <has an income of $20,000 a year>JAMES v. UNITED STATES, 366 U.S. 213 (1961)
- The starting point in all cases dealing with the question of the scope of what is included in "gross income" begins with the basic premise that the purpose of Congress was "to use the full measure of its taxing power." Helvering [366 U.S. 213, 219] v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334 . And the Court has given a liberal construction to the broad phraseology of the "gross income" definition statutes in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted. Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28, 49 ; Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U.S. 84, 87 -91. The language of 22 (a) of the 1939 Code, "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever," and the more simplified language of 61 (a) of the 1954 Code, "all income from whatever source derived," have been held to encompass all "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 . A gain "constitutes taxable income when its recipient has such control over it that, as a practical matter, he derives readily realizable economic value from it." Rutkin v. United States,343 U.S. 130 at p. 137.
As has been shown in prior reply.
There is no law, and we all know the courts are corrupt and the lawyers and judges have a vested interest in keeping this system of corruption going.
Mere whistling passed the graveyard.
Notice, in both evaluations exactly the same result will be obtained from the Courts.
Furthermore:
1) Federal judges are appointed for life, and good behaviour. The pay cannot be taken away from them.
2) Federal judges have ruled their pay is subject to income tax, though at any time they could rule otherwise if they so desired and believed otherwise.
3) It would be in the personal and financial interest for the courts to rule that the income tax is unconstitutional and illegal. In so doing the law would be void, the IRS which is authorised under that law would ceased to exist or have power over the people or the courts.
4) Judges are ruling against there own personal interest in support the income tax against you in the courtroom. For if it did not apply to you, it cannot apply to them.
Something is lacking in your analysis and it is called reason and credibility. It does not pass the test of Occum's razor, nor the laugh test.
In order to convince me, show me where in the tax code any regulation that states that I am liable.That is all I ask!
Ask away the courts have already provided your answer. I don't care a whit whether or not I convinince you, that's the Court's job and they have an interesting argument known as fines and jail time.
By the way I am enjoying this. It is an educational experience.
Then you should enjoy reading these:
Let's talk about that for a second. You're proposal is for such a tax as you've described here, and you make the assumption that this will result in people deciding to think a little harder about allowing government to spend wildly, since they will have to bear more of the burden. Well, maybe they'll react that way - or, maybe government will make up the difference by devaluing the currency, or maybe people will demand that the wealthy start forking over a good portion of their income once again, because they don't like paying so much in taxes.
In short, the same charges you level against my proposal can be leveled against yours, if they are to be believed at all.
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income
My position in all this has nothing to do with whether or not you believe an income tax applies to you, I figure the courts will educate you on that if you fail to pay a tax the DOJ decides is worth their effort to go after.
I prefer to end the issue altogether and repeal income and payroll taxes of all kinds. Putting an end to their use in this nation. I am against the income tax for moral reasons, your legal hairsplitting is totally beside the point.
"As a matter of fact, what the income tax does — and this is the debate that I think we always try to get into in order to let you and him fight, see — and the people of this country are led down a path where the actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government."
. . .
"The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system."
"In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation."
- KEYES TRANSCRIPT (01/28/02)
It is long past time to end the Income Tax once and for all and get rid of the intrusive anal exam of family finances by government. Support the enactment of the bills before congress that would actually achieve that.
John Linder (R Georgia) offers a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free tax system to replace it:
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
What boosh-wah. The natural tendency of prices in a society with higher technology, streamlining and automation should always be downward. But prices and the cost of labor are going through the roof thanks to too much government and taxation.
In short, the same charges you level against my proposal can be leveled against yours, if they are to be believed at all.
You may speculate all you wish, level any charges you can dream up. That doesn't make you statement valid, nor exhonerate the real problems I have pointed out in regards the tariff only system that you advocate.
Sorry, your spin doesn't hold water, its full of holes, snake oil of the first order just a case of looking for that which gives you a personal out from taxation.
Don't tax you,
don't tax me,
let's just tax that man behind the tree.In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-Voltaire (1764)
That's your tariff only system and the snake oil you propose, using the same old populist arguments that have been around since the beginning of government and people trying to short change responsibily since the days of Cain and Abel.
What boosh-wah.
Ahh I see, you figure defense against modern military capability costs the same as defending the nation when there were only gunships and troops that had to take months to cross an ocean instead of minutes at the nose of a missles.
But prices and the cost of labor are going through the roof thanks to too much government and taxation.
So reduce government and taxation will go down, All I have ever argued is the means to do that is to assure everyone participates proportionately in the tax system.
The income tax is not the vehicle to achieve that:
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
Replacing the Income/payroll tax system with an NRST can change that dynamic, which is why I advocate the NRST making the burden visible to the whole electorate instead of only the few hit the hardest under an income tax.
The current level of federal taxation is around 24% of gross consumption expenditure.
15% ..... rate if Social Security and Medicare were eliminated
14% .......... rate if Nat'l Endowment for the Arts were eliminated
11.9%........ rate if Dept. of Education were eliminated
10% .......... rate if welfare were eliminated
9.8%.......... rate if foreign aid were eliminated
etc
So lets at least look at the funding those functions clearly authorized under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, in current dollars:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html#Spending
- $285 Billion --- Defense
- $ 49 Billion ---- Veterens Services
- $ 31 Billion ---- Administration of Justice
- $ 16 Billion ---- General Government
- $199 Billion ---- Interest on the Debt
=========================
$580 Billion ---- Total
Replacing present tax law with HR25, the retail sales tax rate would be 23% on all new goods and services as a sales tax at the retail register. No hidden tax, no economic imbalances, no exceptions, exemptions everyone participates.
Such a tax acts in a natural manner to encourage the elimination of excess government functions through visibility of burden among all constituencies of the electorate.
The total federal government budget would move from $2,000 billions towards something less than $580 billions. The across the board federal tax rate on new goods and services would decline from 23% down to less than 6.7%.
As the tax rate on sales decreases the economic burden on retail items, the sales volumes and growth in the economy would be tremendous allowing even further reductions in tax rates below that 6.7% theoretical level.
But prices and the cost of labor are going through the roof thanks to too much government and taxation.
When have I ever argued otherwise:
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The full impact of the federal tax system(taxes in gross wage/salaries & other compensation + business income/payroll taxes) added onto the base(taxfree) price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone.
All wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipts to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure).
Federal tax revenues collected as % of current family expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
If we add in the cost of federal tax compliance, planning, litigation & enforcement, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income/payroll tax system, product prices are increased by more than 55% over taxfree prices.
Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By economist James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $1,000 billion additional dollars are added on onto consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
The percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+1000)/1900 = 54.95% economic burden added on to base retail(i.e. taxfree) prices.
Too bad that citizens don't get a receipt detailing those "hidden sales taxes" buried in their consumption purchases. If they ever did, some of those 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, thinking someone else foots the bill, might be tempted to change their mind.
I've done considerably more than speculate; I've provided you with historical experience. You, on the other hand, are speculating that people are going to react to your tax proposal in a particular way. But you have no way of knowing that they will - and if what you're saying about my idea is true, then it's likely that people will not respond the way you wish them to.
What makes you think that if the NRST is passed, people won't get sick of paying that much money, and start demanding that government find alternative sources to support the level of government that they're comfortable with, without having to pay any more than they already are? You said yourself that the Constitution authorizes many forms of taxation. What gives you the impression that people will voluntarily renounce those forms that give them the most benefit with the least burden to themselves?
Perhaps I have just overlooked or not used the proper keyword to find a bill so we can see the legislative language of your proposal. I haven't found one yet, and looks like you don't have any critters interested in supporting your magic fix to put government on that starvation diet you have dreamed up.
Without even one Congress Critter introducing even a bill for so much as a showpiece, just how do you figure on getting your tariff only government?
Even such times as tariffs were of significance in the nation they we generally targeted to protection more than they were for revenue generation and that at the expense of sectors of the economy that could not function without imports (e.g. southern agriculture at the time of Andrew Jackson), as we can in the modern industrial economy that we have today.
So please do back up your assertion with a citation we can investigate, that there is was ever a time of overwhealming availability of domestic goods and services where federal government was supported by tariffs on foreign imports alone.
I've provided you with historical experience.
But you have no way of knowing that they will -
Human nature and self interest says they will. Simple law of supply and demand. If the price is apparent and not avoidable for the majority of folks, folks will limit their appetites in response the cost laid upon them.
and if what you're saying about my idea is true,
Minority of products are foreign imports with a tarrif >>> Price up.
Majority of products are domesitc with no tax >>> Price down.
Majority of folks avoid the tax, no perceived cost for largess on the majority who avoid the foreign imports.
then it's likely that people will not respond the way you wish them to.
And my puppy dog won't wolf down the chocolate bar on my desk when I turn my back on her.
What makes you think that if the NRST is passed, people won't get sick of paying that much money,
I'm relying on it.
and start demanding that government find alternative sources to support the level of government that they're comfortable with, without having to pay any more than they already are?
don't tax you,
don't tax me,
tax that guy with the import behind the tree.
Who is already taxed with an NRST.
Then tax you with you cup of tea.
1) One selective tax levy will not allow a perceptible drop the tax rate of a broadbased NRST.
2) Business will not willingly go for the complexity of a selective tax laid upon them once they are free of the current system and have experienced the freedom and advantages of the NRST,
3) The person levied with an additional tax is not likely to be too happy about the situation.
3) Either house can block legislation with failure of majority, The senate can block legislation to change the tax system by a minority of 41 votes, and a president can veto it.
You said yourself that the Constitution authorizes many forms of taxation. What gives you the impression that people will voluntarily renounce those forms that give them the most benefit with the least burden to themselves?
It is up to the people as always isn't it? That is why you have nil support for a tariff only tax system.
Never know until its tried, Then NRST has written legislation to support, dissatisfaction with the current income/payroll tax system and the advantages of the NRST to argue for it without upsetting the current applecart of bennies. I rely on changing the perceptions of people as regard the cost of government to induce change in government if that is what they desire to do.
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Where is your legislation, what do you rely on to effect your changes?
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.