Some people, who sell "Pay No INcome Tax" kits for $49 will be out of a racket. Others (who currently evade taxes) will actually have to begin paying taxes. Oddly, it's those folks who say that enforcement will be a problem.... LOL.
Of course those people are more interested in themselves that the Country.
Some people, who sell "Pay No INcome Tax" kits for $49 will be out of a racket.
You pinged me for this?....What's your point?
Are you suggesting I sell a "Pay No Income Tax kit"?...I have no idea what a "Pay No Income Tax kit" is let alone how much one costs...did someone screw you on one?...You bought one didn't you.
Principled wrote:Only 23 posts before the first fair tax supporter starts spewing half truths and misinformation. Amazing.
Others (who currently evade taxes) will actually have to begin paying taxes.
First, everybody pays taxes under the current system. You can't have it both ways. If ~30% (or more) of the price of goods is "hidden taxes" then anyone who buys those goods is paying taxes. You can't evade those taxes unless you live in a cave and hunt your own food or gather your own nuts and berries. If you buy stuff, you pay taxes.
Second, there are some who evade taxes by trading in "black markets" and doing various illegal activities. Others who underreport or fail to report their income at all and evade taxation that way. These illegal activities will continue to be untaxed by the fair tax. For example, drug dealers who don't report their income and pay income taxes on their income from the sale of illegal drugs probably won't start reporting their sales and collecting/paying the NRST.
And the handyman or flea market dealer who gives discounts for cash payments with no receipts so that he doesn't have a paper trail and can avoid reporting the income will probably also avoid reporting the sale the same way and not pay any NRST on his activities.
Transactions that go untaxed due to tax avoidance or tax evasion under the current system will also be untaxed for the same reason under the NRST.
pigdog wrote:Actually, there was some form of income tax or tax on wages and salaries from the civil war up into the early 1900's. And taxes on wages and salaries were not deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
Well, actually before 1913 the idea of an income tax was prety much thought to be unconstitutional BUT ...
In the 1890's, Congress tried to expand the income tax and tax income from rents, dividends and from the gains from buying and selling stocks and real property. Since those taxes were on the proceeds of real property transactions (stocks represent ownership in real property), the courts held those to be "direct taxes" and subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. Since those income taxes on income derived from property transactions weren't apportioned to the states based on populations, the taxes were ruled unconstitutional. The 16th amendment was specifically to address that issue.
So, just repealing the 16th amendment would make taxes on capital gains from real estate and stocks unconstitutional. But it would not make excise taxes on wages or salaries unconstitutional.
This is an area where a lot of "tax protesters" get in trouble. Some try to argue that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified (an argument that the courts won't ever directly address). The courts generally point out that the particular income that these people are trying to avoid taxes on isn't derived from the rent or sale of real property, and so the income tax that is due is an excise tax and not a "direct tax" and the excise tax would be legal even if the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified.
This is why simply repealing the 16th amendment won't render all of the income taxes we have today unconstitutional. Income taxes that are excise taxes (for example, taxes on wages or salaries) would still be constitutional, even if the 16th amendment were repealed.
pigdog wrote:Actually, the "revenue neutrality" requirement is a rule of the House of Representatives. That rule can be changed by action in the House (and only in the House). It's not a law, and even if it were an actual law, it could be changed by a simple majority of both houses of Congress. If you can't muster the votes to change that rule, you'll never convince me that you'll get the 2/3rds of each house needed to amend the constitution to do away with the income tax.
Any tax bill that becomes law will have to be revenue neutral
The problem is that we are taxed too much and the federal government spends too much on things it shouldn't be involved in. And the so called "fair tax" does nothing to change that. There will actually be a big windfall to the government (and a major expansion of government power) when the so called "fair tax" becomes law.
pigdog wrote:Most taxpayers already see on every paycheck just how much they are paying in income taxes and FICA taxes.
Any "revolt" will come once ALL taxpayers will be able to see on each and every receipt just how much their government is costing.
If you want to spark a revolt, do away with withholding and make people write the checks to pay their taxes.
pigdog wrote:Here's some figures for you (from IPI Policy Report - # 168, Simplifying Federal Taxes: The Advantages of Consumption-Based Taxation which attributes them to a May 30, 2001 Wall Street Journal article).
Can you imaging the existing tax sysem (or even the wunnerful, undefined Nightmare Tax) after 20 30 more years of political manipulation ... which is much easier under those tax systems than under the FairTax which has only a single visible-to-all rate?
Now, here's a question you should ask (or answer for me if you already know the answer). How many of these changes did each "sponsor" of the "Fair Tax" bill vote for? How many did each "sponsor" of the "Fair Tax" bill vote against?
There have been 1,916 changes to the tax code in the past five years, and 7,000 changes since 1986.
You are very naive if you think that the system set up by the fair tax proposal won't be manipulated and changed by lobbyists and social engineers in the congress. What's it going to look like after almost 2000 changes in just the first 5 years? What about after 15 years and 7000 changes? Do you want to have to hire an accounting firm to calculate your bill every time you buy groceries?
How exactly will it be more difficult to change the tax code under the fair tax? Will it require a super-majority to enact changes? Will there be referendums for the voters to be able to veto changes? Or will it be the status quo, with Washington lobbyists trying to influence Congress critters for special treatment for their patrons?