White House Floats Idea of Dropping Income Tax (altogether)

Your response essentially can be summed into your following statement:

I don't expect my government to do a whole lot for me. But I do expect it to defend the country from foreign control.

That is what the Commerce Clause as it applies to foreign trade is for, and the enumerated powers of government to make treaties and conduct war with foreign nations.

"[D]efend the country from foreign control" certainly, but that is a far cry from controlling the choices of American Citizens through taxation. Regulate the access of foreign interests, and trade with other nations directly and visibly. A tariff does neither, a tariff is an impostion on American citizens and a control over the citizen not a control over access of foreign governments.

Looks like you and I will just have to agree to disagree in methods where this area of the exercise of the powers of national government are concerned.

The government will not do away with FICA and Medicaid.

Not if you don't work to get rid of them, or work to enact legislation that would get rid of those taxes:

The states will still have an income tax if they do now.

That's a problem between you and your state, when the National Income tax system is gone, more leverage for you to remove such from your state. Most states do piggyback on the national income tax law you know. They will have to address that issue on repeal of the national income tax. Perfect time to encourage them to implement a state tax that is compatable with the NRST. A necessary step when the collect the NRST for the national government anyway.

And you and I both know that the corporations will not lower prices just because they got a price break.

You may believe that, I certainly don't noting the competitive nature of the markets and companies more than willing to slit each other's throats for maket share.

I bet you they won't raise wages either.

Who said anything about raising wages. You get a particular gross wage with taxes witheld now. Under the NRST you get that wage without any witholding. Nothing to withold, a sales tax is collected when you spend your dollar not when you get it.

All that the little guys will get will be higher prices for basic necessities.

You can be paranoid it you wish, you certainly have not provided any support for that assertion.

Besides under the Linder bill you would receive a pre-payment for taxes on the basic level necessity as defined by the HSS poverty level (the cost of a fixed basket of goods & services adjusted for inflation)

All legal residents will receive a FCA equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services. The FCA will be paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the monthly FCA will be determined by the government's Poverty Level for a particular family size, multiplied by the tax rate.

Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size.

The 2001 "FairTax" Family Consumption Allowance Figures
Family Size	HHS Poverty Level	Annual FCA	Monthly FCA
One	$8,590	$1,976	$165
Two	$17,180	$3,951	$329
Three	$20,200	$4,646	$387
Four	$23,220	$5,341	$445
Five	$26,240	$6,035	$503
Six	$29,260	$6,730	$561
Seven	$32,280	$7,424	$619
Eight	$35,300	$8,119	$677

1) Federal Register: February 16, 2001, Pages 10695-10697).

[ The monthly FCA for each adult is .23 * (HSS poverty level for a single person)/12 to assure no marriage penalty due to the manner in which the poverty level is dependant on family size. The monthly FCA for each child is .23 * (the incremental increase of HSS poverty level for a family with one child over no child) ] A. Geezer

A family of four, for example, could spend $23,220 per year free of tax because they will have received over the course of the year rebates totaling $5,341. $5,341 is the amount of sales tax paid on $23,220 in expenditures. A family spending double the "poverty level" or $46,440 per year will effectively pay tax on only half of their spending and, therefore, have an effective tax rate of 11 ½ percent or half the FairTax rate.

The beauty of the FairTax is that you can control how much you pay in taxes. If you happen to save, invest or spend a portion on used [previously taxed] items, you can get your effective tax rate much lower than rate collect at the retail register.

[71] To illustrate the plan's progressive nature we can examine the tax burden that a family of four will have at various annual income levels (or in this case, annual spending levels).

Those who say there will be more jobs and higher pay forget that inflation coupled with the VAT will erode any gains that may happen.

What VAT?, A vat is a collection of taxes from businesses at all levels and is hidden from view.

A Retail Sales Tax, is collected from the customer at time of purchace and he receives a full receipt detailing the tax he has to pay.

The NRST is a single stage, single rate, single time RETAIL SALES TAX the customer pays on purchase. Not a VAT which a tax on every business for them to pass along with compliance costs to their customers hidden in price.

the only way to get rid of the income tax in a constitutional, honest and fair way is to reduce the size of the government drastically. We need to bring our troops home. ALL of them. We need to stop sending billions abroad. We need to hack and slash government agencies to the bare constitutional minimum.

You get rid of a income tax by repealing it. You get rid of spending by repealing government programs.

The Constitutional way to get things done is by enacting the legislation that achieves the specific goal.

Where is your legislation to achieve this miracle of yours. It ain't happening for one very good reason. Most folks don't figure they are paying the bill:

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?

This giant beast of a federal government doesn't need a change of food. It needs to go on a drastic diet. Eliminate the income tax. Make it un-needed.

It isn't needed, and just adds to the cost of everything as it is. An NRST reduces the cost of complying with tax law, as well as getting rid of the intrusive nature of your beast.

Only way that implementing a diet for your beast is going to happen is through replacing the means by which taxes are collected so that everyone participates proportionately and visibly in the tax system. Everyone must have a stake in the burden as well as the largess.

But do not raise prices for everyone just so some millionaires can get richer.

Populist rhetoric makes nice sound bites doesn't it?

Well, if that's the way the Supremes have ruled, that's the way they ruled. I don't drink at their bar, so I probably don't have much influence over them. But it seems kind of odd to me that they'd have so much solicitude for "state sovereignty" when states are clearly subordinate to the federal government, and where the latter is given an explicit power (taxation).

And as for the bit about the Articles of Confederation and federal vs. national administration, I can certainly see why we needed to move beyond taxing states as entities, but that doesn't mean there was any need to prohibit ourselves from doing so, if we found that that would be a more efficient way of doing things. The main problem with the Confederation was that the state governments knew that Congress had no other option than to deal with them directly, and so that gave them an incentive for blackmail. If Congress has other options as it does now, then that incentive is almost completely gone. The incentive then might be in the opposite direction, as the state governments may find that their constituents would appreciate having to only deal with one system of taxation rather than two.

Looks like you and I will just have to agree to disagree in methods where this area of the exercise of the powers of national government are concerned.

Well, I guess this has gone on long enough. It's been a good education, though.

. But it seems kind of odd to me that they'd have so much solicitude for "state sovereignty" when states are clearly subordinate to the federal government, and where the latter is given an explicit power (taxation).

No solicitude, the way the Constitution is written with states having their own powers, the national government its set of powers and Concurrent power to tax by the intent of Constitution's authors.

Whether you believe it or not the Courts are bound by the Constitution and do actually try to adhere to the intents of the founders and words of the constitution as they were meant when the Constitution became law of the land. They really do refer to the writings of the founders to establish intent as well as mere letter of law in their determinations.

"Unless an intention to the contary is indicated, words used in a constitution will generally be interpreted in there natural or popular, as distinguished from a technical meaning."
16 Corpus Juris Secundom "Constitution" Sec. 24; (Cites ommited)
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That `all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
Thomas Jefferson: Opinion, February 15, 1791
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson: letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322

Hamilton, Federalist #34:

``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.

I can certainly see why we needed to move beyond taxing states as entities, but that doesn't mean there was any need to prohibit ourselves from doing so, if we found that that would be a more efficient way of doing things.

History shows the attempt to force taxes upon state government to be less than useful, and down right injurous.

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government: if we consult reason, and be ruled by its dictates, we shall find its justification there: if we review the experience we have had or contemplate the history of nations, here we find ample reasons to prove its expediency. There is little reason to depend for necessary supplies on a body which is fully possed of the power of witholding them. If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

OTOH, there is nothing to prohibit the national government from requesting state involvment as an agent, as is done in Linder's proposal for an NRST [H.R.25 ]. It's left up to the individual state's choice as to whether or not they wish it administer the national tax with compensation or leave it to a national agency to do it.

The main problem with the Confederation was that the state governments knew that Congress had no other option than to deal with them directly, and so that gave them an incentive for blackmail. If Congress has other options as it does now, then that incentive is almost completely gone.

The option must be at the election of the state, and not imposed from a "FEDERAL" entity; Otherwise we cease to guarantee the Republic form of government in violation of the Constitution, and become just one big overpowering central authority, that the founders were clearly against.

The incentive then might be in the opposite direction, as the state governments may find that their constituents would appreciate having to only deal with one system of taxation rather than two.

Precisely:

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

The administration is done at the option of the state. One tax, one administeration for the people to deal with when the state agrees that should be the way for them to go to the benefit of their citizens.

23%........... Current effective total federal tax rate with respect to consumption expenditure

14.91% ..... 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 look at what maximum rate it would take to fund 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

Institute an across the board, Flat rate, single stage National Retail Sales Tax, which taxes all imports and domestic products with the same rate.

Replacing present all current federal tax law with a retail sales tax would be 23% on new goods and services paid and receipted at the retail register. No hidden tax, no exceptions, no 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 the $580 billion calculated.

The across the board federal tax rate on new goods and services would decline towards less than 6.7%.

As 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 less than 6.7% theoretic level.

That is what I perceive as the ultimate achievements possible under a National Retail Sales Tax structured in the manner of the revenue bill H.R.25. Simple common sense applied to the principal of TANSTAAFEL,( no free lunch, everyone participates in paying there way in proportion to the benefit the extract from their consumption.) encourages the natural change in attitudes required of the electorate as regards the burden of government largess in their lives.

Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

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

Hmmmmmm....... It's do able, with time and effort, once the blinders are removed from the electorate.

If all of your cuts were implemented, there would be no need to have a national retail sales tax. Our current income tax system, much reduced, would suffice.