Posted on 02/03/2002 3:17:46 AM PST by doosee
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
For this reason alone, it should be instituted.
I am so fed up with our current tax system that I would gladly take the retail tax or even a flat income tax. With the retail tax, food and medical items should be exempted from all tax.
But in the long run it works out the same. If I have to go 16% if I tax all but food and medical, or if I tax 10% without food and medical, then it all balances at the end of the accounting sheet.
My only fear would be those exclusions would then be used my unscrupulous folks to claim ALL their purchases were somehow food or medical.
At the end of the day, though, I'd rather have an sales tax and be rid of the income tax no matter the decision on food and medical.
I disagree, though I understand the sentiment. I believe that if we were to move to a retail tax, nothing could be exempted for fear of the number of exemptions increasing over the years. A whole breed of lobbyist would be created, dedicated to showing congressmen why a certain product should be exempt.
I think his pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military,pro-business, pro-security actions dispute what you think. He is leaning liberal on education but I can live with his long term goals on that area. Maybe he and the advisors think the time is not right, but I still would like to see a full effort to radically change the tax mess we live with.
---max
These people, as well as most of the trial lawyers, produce absolutely zero work product which can be quantified in our annual GDP. That fact alone proves how they are lowering everyone else's standard of living by their parasitic efforts to take money from people who get up and go to work to earn their income honestly.
It might be ---but what about large families who must buy more things including food? They could easily end up paying much more tax than a childless couple with a very high income and huge bank accounts.
The war on terrorism acts to increse the power of government (the state).
Your proposed war on taxes would act to decrease the power of government (the state).
It is axiomatic that "the state" tends to act in such a way as to increase its own power
Thus, it is doubtful that such a war will ever take place.
The two agencies arguably the most responsible for 9-11, the DOT (which controls the FAA) and the CIA, are both headed by Clinton appointees that Bush saw fit to keep. As for the pro-military stuff, I'm not impressed. He'll lavish the defense contractors and the generals with fancy new toys and perpetual overseas "campaigns" or "operations."
If Bush would enforce immigration laws and support the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, the war on terrorism could be won for well within the existing budget.
His support for public education is, arguably, the worst part of his presidency. The DOE is the unconstitutional department directly responsible for dumbing down Americans into state-worshipping sheep, bleating for more milk from the public teat.
A M E N! ! !
It's all about F R E E D O M!!!!
The military will soon be assigned to lock down the national borders. This was reported widely in the past week. One guy can only do so much. Clinton had 8 years to stack the deck with cronies. Don't expect all ills to be healed overnight. Otherwise, your comments are fair.
There are several aspects to this War if it is to be successful. It has to be based on a compliance to the constitution. We have to get the message across, first and foremost, that the current system violates basic rights on both the spending and revenue raising side.
Tenth amendment limits on Federal action and spending: Roughly 2/3 of current spending is in areas that Feds may not be involved in. If that spending goes away, there will not be any excuse at all for the current rate of confiscation.
Fifth amendment violations in the administration of the current tax system: Invalid requirements on filing and seizure of property without due process (withholding and enforcement seizures).
Doubtful validity of 16 amendment: If this amendment proves to have been fraudently ratified, then what is left for the Feds to tax must be apportioned, i.e. only a per head tax that is collected by the states for the Feds and a few excise taxes.
If H.R.2525 (one of the NRST bills currently under consideration before congress) becomes the law of the land NO ONE will pay the tax on A N Y of their spending up up to poverty level. If there are six in the family or fifteen or just two!
G R E A T article here!
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.