Posted on 05/12/2005 7:46:54 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
Members of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform on May 11 expressed concerns over the FairTax national retail sales tax, a plan that has emerged as an alternative with a major grass-roots push.
Panel chair Connie Mack, vice chair John B. Breaux, and other members worried the plan would be difficult to enforce, would be regressive, and would require a high rate in order to take in enough money to fund the government.
Breaux raised concerns that the proposed 23 percent (tax-inclusive) rate would not be sufficient to raise the revenue necessary to fund the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would take as much as a 57 percent (tax-exclusive) rate to be revenue-neutral. Further, Breaux said he thought exemptions that would be carved out to make the sales tax progressive would also complicate it.
Mack, who raised concerns similar to his fellow panelists', said he was "intrigued" by the plan. "But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?" he asked.
Americans for Fair Taxation Executive Director Tom Wright emphasized that the plan emerged after "thorough academic research" and "thorough polling" The strong grass-roots push has resulted in some of the group's 600,000 members appearing at each of the panel's hearings and has inspired a large comment-writing campaign to the panel in support of the plan.
Sales tax advocates were among the 20 witnesses who gathered before the panel for a full day of testimony on tax reform proposals. Although the group has held several other hearings in Washington and around the country, the May 11 meeting was its first hearing on specific reform plans since Bush appointed the panel in January. The panel has been charged with identifying tax reform proposals that are progressive, encourage charitable giving and home purchases, and are revenue-neutral. The proposals are due by July 31.
Among the tax replacement and reform plans presented to the panel were the value added tax, consumption-based tax, and the flat tax, as well as proposals that would use the current income tax as the foundation.
Witnesses generally claimed that theirs was the fairest, simplest, most flexible, most transparent revenue-neutral proposal that would improve economic growth and savings while meeting the president's criteria of encouraging charitable giving and home buying. Witnesses presenting consumption-based plans praised their overhaul as taking millions of low-income taxpayers off the rolls, being easy to transition to on a worldwide basis, and including safeguards to prevent new loopholes that would result in increased complexity down the road.
Tax reform panel members, who agree the current tax system needs to be fixed, grilled witnesses without revealing whether they will ultimately endorse a consumption- or income-based tax or a different mixture of the two.
U.S. Supreme Court
EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 Sup. Ct. 912, under the Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 509, 553, c. 349, 27), it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by article 1, 2, cl. 3, and section 9, cl. 4, of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:
'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among [252 U.S. 189, 206] the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 , 112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 , 173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432.
So, the 16th Amendment removed the "necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income." It granted Congress the abililty to tax income "without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration" which didn't previously exist.
There are plenty of other rulings that say the same thing if you ever get out of 1916.
Seems I recall you're the one who (not so long ago) was arguing for a Nightmare VAT/Flat tax which existed only in your mind in theory and which you refused to delineate in any detail. That qualifies you on both of the above counts.Huh? Another FairTax nut job.
Obviously my Unbeliever and Infidel status provoked you to call me a "troll" which is an easy absurdity to see through for anyone who would take it seriously.
That was no hypocrisy at all.
LOL, whatever YN. It is a distinction without a difference.
For bottomline, all that is required is to tax activity or exchanges of services and/or goods to convert you direct tax into an excise. A transaction tax on the transfer of funds would be sufficient to meet the requirement, either side or bothsides paying the tax.
Sorry the Pollock decision was a dead issue before it was even written and the Courts were well on their way to totally reversing any effect it had before the 16th was ever proposed.
However, if you wish to believe the 16th actually has some substanbive significance as to whether you can be taxed on value transfered as rents, dividends or intrest or not, you are free to believe whatever your little heart desires may. It's a moot issue. Some folks need a security blanket, and other's don't I guess.
I never argued that such a tax scheme would not have lower compliance costs. That is not my worry but the unintended conswquences of imposing a 30% tax given that there is a psychology of the consumer to deal with. But the crushing effect on Big Ticket items is the killer.
Go ahead and proclaim the Virtue of Ignorance all you want but until FT proposers can deal with even basic economic theory in a credible way it will not be a serious effort to those who reject Ignorance.
And the Auto Mechanics will continue to do my repairs.
Part of the appeal to some FTers is the increased flow of power and resources to the states. Any employment lost at the Federal level will be picked up at the state level. It is surprising that the Democrat machines haven't gotten behind this scheme. Boss Daley could use some more plums as incentives to the Machine.
LOL, whatever YN. It is a distinction without a difference.Thus the need to amend the Constitution! LOL!!!
You do not grasp the point of the argument and your belligerence toward actually studying the subject will prevent you from grasping it. Business revenues and Personal income from business profits are different things whether you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "it ain't true" continously.
My understanding of the "model" allows me to see through the inchoate quality of the FT. And it allows me to correctly interprete economic and financial events.
I never called you "Unbeliever", nor "Infidel", so quit putting words in my mouth.
Where did the '30%' percent come from? You anti-fairtax people have been saying Fairtax would be '23%' percent.
Our friend simply cannot grasp where that money to pay his income tax comes from. The difference between Profit and Revenues seems to be beyond him.
The same correlation can also be drawn between those who hate Free Trade and those who do not understand those same principles. And Central Banking as well.
There was quite a bit there. However, none of it makes what I said false. Many reasons were discussed in Congress for the change.
Not even close, read it again.
See last post.
I don't spend much time researching this topic and cannot give you a report supporting my views. There is no reason one cannot reject them since they have no more basis than should be given one who has a sound grounding in modern economic theory. Some do not care about theory being ignorant of it.
Since you obviously believe that an income tax is a "cost" tell me what is it that is costing? What are we paying for with an income tax? What is it that can at times cost NOTHING?
And what did you tell your computer that "cost" provided you? It came out of your capital but was not a cost of anything.
It is such lack of precision that causes problems I have trying to avoid being too technical and it muddies things up at times.
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.