Tax the Poor.(A MUST Read!)

FOX News ^ | 4-10-2003 | By Radley Balko

[vannrox]

Last fall, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial entitled "The Non-Taxpaying Class." The editorial, which dubbed those too poor to pay taxes "lucky duckies," won the Journal widespread ridicule from big-hearted egalitarians throughout the world of media and punditry.

[vannrox]

I found this to be a most thought provoking read.

[Support Free Republic]

Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[ScholarWarrior]

I like flat taxes. Head taxes.

A professor I once had was an advisor to Pinochet. He said they used to have head taxes in certain parts of Latin America. If you didn't pay, they would cut your head off.

I think we could get by with $1000 per head per year. That's about $300bn. Most of it goes to defense.

[FITZ]

We need to tax welfare benefits so these people learn where government money comes from and aren't so quick to vote for every tax increase there is. In some parts of the country, the welfare class is outnumbering the working people and there are serious problems ahead if something isn't done to reverse things.

[A. Pole]

On the other hand, the bottom 50 percent of income earners make 13 percent of the money, but shoulder just 3.9 percent of the tax burden.

Hmm, I have a few questions. Is the payroll tax, sales tax, property tax (possibly included in the rent) included in this tax burden? If it is not what whould be actual number otherwise?

Now, about "income earners" - are there other sources of money that "earning income"? What about profits or capital gain? How the relations of tax burden would look if other items were included?

Those 50% who "make 13 percent of the money, but shoulder just 3.9 percent" MUST spend most of their money on necessities. Necessities can be seen as analogy to the costs for the corporation. If we count the whole earned income as a profit it is not right. The real long term base for taxation can be surplus income/profit, otherwise the tax becomes the tool of destruction. So if we calculate what percentage of surplus income/profits that lower 50% make we might have a different picture.

[Zon]

Replacing the graduated/progressive income tax with a consumption tax such as the NRST would set off a chain reaction of benefits.

1. Boom the economy because productivity is not taxed; no tax on profits or hidden taxes/fees.

2. IRS threats and coercion eliminated and replaced with, "if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the item."

3. 20% to 30% decrease in retail prices that facilitates spending and partially offsets the retail tax. Which will also...

a. Make U.S. made products more competitive when sold within the USA against foreign imports.

b. Make U.S. made products more competitive in the World market.

4. People will know how much leviathan government is really costing them, resulting in...

5. Shrinking government to it's constitutional function to protect synonymous private-property rights and individual rights from domestic and foreign criminals while upholding the sanctity of private contracts.

6. Creates jobs in the USA.

7. Freedom in United States leads to other countries doing similar or risk its citizens fleeing to United States to increase productivity here while enjoying the fruits/prosperity of their labor.

More information at Americans for Fair Tax on the fairtax.org Web site.

* * *

What do you get in return for your tax dollars?

Issue 101

How is it that people and society in general have prospered and increased their well being for decades yet the politicians and bureaucrats say we must have another 3,000 laws and regulations each year on top of the 100,000+ laws already on the books... That without them people and society face "disaster". People and society have done quite well without next year's 3,000 new federal laws and regulations. Why all of a sudden can people and society not continue to do quite well without them? The fact is, they'd be better off without 99% of them.

So who really benefits from 3,000 new laws and regulations each year? -- not to mention state laws and regulations. Politicians and bureaucrats. They create boogieman problems and with a complicit media towing their boogieman problems cast a net of false fear and unwarranted despair in people.

Quite literally, they create problems where none exist. They're sick in that they chose to frighten people and foist false despair on them and do that to collect their unearned paychecks. Their job security is predicated on deceiving as many people as possible.

Fully integrated honesty is key. That we have the government we have that has gone so far off course from the government the founders created is a product of irrationality and dishonesty. Changing the laws via the "system" is almost completely useless. Politicians create dozens of unconstitutional laws before even considering repealing just one unconstitutional law. That is not a system -- it's a quagmire of deception, irrationality, fraud and abuse.

Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. How can so many people thinking they're right be so wrong?

Wake up! Politics is not the solution -- politics is the problem.

Who are the producers?
Who are the parasites?
Praise the value producers --
Ostracizing the parasitical value destroyers.

[dalereed]

We need a Supreme Court that adhears to the Constitution!

If ever achieving that, we need a public intrest law firm or an individual/group of indivuals with enough money to sue to eliminate all government programs that are unconstitutional.

The list starts with Social Security and Medicare and and welfare and would include at least 100 others.

[riri]

I think we could get by with $1000 per head per year. That's about $300bn. Most of it goes to defense.

I agree.

[A. Pole]

We need to tax welfare benefits so these people learn where government money comes from and aren't so quick to vote for every tax increase there is. In some parts of the country, the welfare class is outnumbering the working people and there are serious problems ahead if something isn't done to reverse things.

Welfare reform was done already and the benefits are very limited (in amount, in asset tests, in time lenght). See the example of - Massachusetts implementation (the state which is rather liberal).

Welfare recepients are not powerful voting block.

[ScholarWarrior]

I agree. We must learn the lessons of Rome.

[RockyMtnMan]

I've been wondering when I would start seeing Tax related threads. The war has taken the heat off the issue of unfair taxation.

We can't let our domestic policies be overshadowed by our foreign policies or the enconomy will eventually preclude the latter from succeeding.

[ScholarWarrior]

The recipients of government largesse, which include those who do not pay taxes as well as those employed by the government are a far larger class than welfare recipients.

Tyranny of the majority is a very serious problem.

[FITZ]

They are here. In fact in this part of the country, only 32% of the people bother having private health insurance, the rest expect it to be given to them by the taxpayers. By welfare I mean all the welfare programs ---SSI, TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, Head Start. NAFTA displaced worker's, etc. There hasn't been any major government cutting of welfare programs, only much shifting around. I'm living in a state that is facing a very high state budget deficit and much of it is for increasing welfare costs.

[TopQuark]

"? What about profits or capital gain?

They are part of income.

The problem is a bit trickier. What you are talking about is disposable income (after "necessities"). Even if you were to tax "after bread and water," who said that investment is not a necessity (that is, you've got to take into account inter-temporal consumption and spending). Simple considerations here are too simple.

[hripka]

My major concern with instituting a National Retail Sales Tax would be the transition process. I can just imagine the gov't starting the NRST, while the income tax is still in existence. Then, wonder of wonders, a CRISIS is discovered and, well now, we just can't get rid of the income tax just yet!

Then you are stuck with an income tax AND a sales tax!

Please tell me how this scenario won't happen.

[peeve23]

But to those making over $100,000, such benefits are tax deductions. Since those making under $10,000 don't pay federal income taxes (save for the payroll tax, which I'll get to), such benefits amount to handouts.

This is a ridiculous statement. The point of the deductions is that the powers that be are recognizing (1) the tax rate is too high (2) that deductions enable the government to acquire power by directing specific types of spending (3) the complex code feeds an entire industry of tax specialists and civil servants.

[peeve23]

I love the idea of the NRST. It's my favorite alternative.

The major issue is this (for me), and I wonder if you have an answer for it.

It will require an enormous amount of power to implement the NRST. There are so many lawyers, accountants, civil servants, businesses, etc. that exist purely to service the current system that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent such a change.

What is the plan to overcome their powerful, very rich opposition?

[cidrasm]

The numbers look very much like the numbers the IRS put out in 2000 which has some statistics regarding income levels vs. tax payments.

IIRC, these numbers only reference federal income tax and the income numbers are based on Adjusted Gross Income

[Dave Olson]

You're exactly right. And what's more, even if the income tax disappeared, my fear is that it would not be permanent. There will be people who will demand, in the name of "fairness", that progressivity must be returned to the tax system and re-introduce a progressive income tax to be added on top of the national sales tax.

[Zon]

What is the plan to overcome their powerful, very rich opposition?

Self-exposure traps -- show their true colors. They set themselves up to believe in their own illusions. The UN, France and several Democrats are examples.