Posted on 04/14/2006 2:42:07 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
of good news is that support is growing for complete replacement of the tax code with a national consumption tax. More and more taxpayers are demanding action from their representatives in Congress, and their representatives are listening.
Just one year ago, there were 33 sponsors and co-sponsors of HR 25, The FairTax Act, in the U.S. House. Now there are 53 supporters, and new co-sponsors are joining every month. In the Senate, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) was the lone sponsor of the FairTax Act, S 25, one year ago. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX) now join Senator Chambliss as co-sponsors. The word is spreading about the overwhelming benefits to our economy and our wallets when we replace the nine-million-word tax code mess with the fair and simple FairTax.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Well, in a way. It is not like a citizenship tax, or a poll tax (ruled illegal by the Supremes) or a 'No taxation without representation' tax. Our Democrat citizens would not stand for that!
But 'One man, one vote' was the rallying cry at out nation's onset; Now one man must pay a lot more to be a citizen than some layabout on welfare. We had a revolution about that here in our country and we seem to value the one man one vote idea but in fact it is not so.
The Fair Tax thing tries to split the baby by getting away from that nasty IRS and apportioning the tax by how much you spend vs. how much you make. The present system is much like the Fair Tax plan but one, the IRS way, has criminal sanctions for enforcement and the other allows you to have a voice in how much you pay. So yes, you could theoretically pay the same as MS Bill but his wife would probably have him paying quite a bit more. So both sides get something.
If a man can't afford to buy groceries this month, and next month when will he have enough money to buy groceries? Even though he is given the expected NRST on the groceries, this is money he would have paid but can't. Other people paying the tax will provide enough revenue to give that to him.
The basic fact is he gets money he didn't have before, and didn't earn in the form of a payment in a medium of exchange. He might spend the money on booze.
Well Geezer, you are quite persuasive. And if we have to have a tax, I will gladly side with you on the consumption tax as being the most fair.
But if we tax on the front side, then a flat tax on every citizen is the way to go, like a driver license. I cannot swallow that I work smarter or harder and therefore have to pay more to be an American.
This is an extraordinary claim. It's the notion that Congress will raise the tax through various methods and reasoning available to it, then outraged citizens will force them to lower it back again. Or rumor will circulate the tax will be raised and outraged citizens will keep them from doing it.
Here is the guiding principle, I think. People get used to things. They have a "normalizing" mechanism. Shortly after an event change, it becomes "normal". Politicians have been using that principle for years.
You may believe it. I don't.
So, your obstructionism amounts to de facto support for the status quo, ie, the communist-inspired leviathan known as the Federal Income Tax.
While I'm concerned about the amount of money taken from people's pockets, I'm more concerned with the amount of money going to the governments.
Socialist programs require vast amounts of substance to remain viable. Right now social security, the base program for our socialist structure, is starving to death. I want it to starve to death.
Face it, Will. --- The USA is committed to some form of 'social security/medicare', and the way we fund it now is not working. -- The FairTax scheme is as good a start towards true reform in that area as is possible.
The US may be committed, I agree, but I really don't want to help it.
You are 'helping' it now, by cooperating with the withholding system. Do you want that system to continue?
The NRST will fund it, and it's perpherial programs, into perpetuity.
Like it or not, some sort of 'social welfare' programs are a political reality. We may as well find a Constitutional way to fund them.
The problem with some form of social/security/medicare is that, with human nature, it grows. It has certainly grown in this country to what we have now. It's reasonable to assume that that kind of central distribution of wealth will grow from any social payment seed. I believe we will either have a socialist country or we won't. If what Frederic Bastiat said in "The Law" is true.
Look, - no one here likes "social welfare". But we simply have to face the fact that if we want to live in a free republic, we also have to figure out some Constitutional way to fund safety net type welfare programs, if for no other reason than to keep the streets clean. Can you see my reasoning?
The viability of the NRST is itself dependent on socialist principles, the prebate, which is simply another form of redistribution of wealth. And the NRST depends on it.
I think a 'prebate' of taxes is Constitutional, as long as every citizen is equally reimbursed. -- If it takes $1500 a month in purchases [taxed at 30%] to nominally exist, a $450 prebate per person would be 'fair'..
All the arguments of "fair" rest on it.
Of course they do. -- Because it would be 'fair' to exempt basic living expenses from taxation.. The prebate scheme accomplishes that goal with its innate simplicity.
Every argument of unfairness of the NRST impacting low income and elderly is resisted by citing that provision.
The 'prebate' idea, implemented properly, could conceivably replace all of the current fed, state, & local welfare mess.. -- With enormous savings & reductions in government.
If a man can't afford to buy groceries this month, and next month when will he have enough money to buy groceries? Even though he is given the expected NRST on the groceries, this is money he would have paid but can't. Other people paying the tax will provide enough revenue to give that to him.
The basic fact is he gets money he didn't have before, and didn't earn in the form of a payment in a medium of exchange. He might spend the money on booze.
Yep, the 'prebate' would become a defacto welfare payment. -- So what? One way or another, we don't let people in America starve on the streets. -- Will you admit that?
While I'm not convinced that the NRST, when codified, will actually take less money from each citizen, I am convinced that more money will be funneled to the feds; this has been a high profile argument in favor of the NRST.
Sure, the fed gov would gain in perceived political power from the monthly prebate payment. But that type of power [controlling people through taxation] is easily countered in a system free from IRS goons.
What could the fed tax men do, insist that we consume more goods?
It doesn't take 'faith' to know that a retail sales tax is more visible than the income tax, or that a tax bill is not the same thing as a spending bill.
Focus, man.
Of course. People apply for a welfare program and they eat. Then more find out you can apply for a welfare program and you eat, then more, then they have children who learn of the cornucopia, more programs are added, existing ones increased.
This is the way it goes. There is only one way to stop it, not disperse government funds to any individual or corporation for any reason whatsoever unless on contract to provide goods and services.
To go back now, there will probably some people starving on the streets, except those with true disabilities that were not assisted by their families or churches. Could you handle that, if it meant removing the systems in place?
Which is the exact point I was making in post 92 of this thread!
We KNOW, without any question, the destructive effects of the current communist inspired income tax system but yet William wants to stay with that rather than return to a system more in keeping with what our founders envisioned so that the socialism we are currently funding somehow doesn't get funded. It defies logic!
The difference is more subtle. If his taxes come off the income end, and the abuse of the tax gets to the confiscatory point, he can keep his money and fight. With an employee, it's more complicated, but he can.
If the tax is on the consumption end, to fight back, he must not eat, travel, keep a roof over his head, keep warm and acquire property. And this is what he must do no matter how hard he wants to fight.
His options are limited.
I'all made no such claim about the number of cosponsors. Had I done so I would have said 52 in the House.
You were the one making erroneous claims about the Library of Congress and then trying to duck out of your error by pretending you meant (somehow - which you didn't say) Congress when you realized you were caught up short.
You never admit your errors - as I continue to point out (and which you of course try to weasel out of). Why not just be honest and forthright, Nightie??? Can you not do that (guess it cramps your style too much, eh)?
The prebate "gives" nothing. It is a refund of taxes paid - from money earned by the taxpayer BTW - not a handout or entitlement or welfare. Really about the same as your own April 15 tax refund of too great an amount withheld from the money YOU earned (that's not welfare eeither). Anyone receiving the prebate pays the full tax rate on whatever taxable things he buys - just like everyone else.
And, no everything that keeps you alive on this earth does not have to be purchased.
Whether he earns anything or not.
There are NO limits on the income tax William. It is, in it's effect, an assault on the most fundamental of rights, that of private property! HOW can anyone fight when he has NO resources with which TO fight. A consumption tax would leave him at least some option, SOME resources with which to fight!
Not true, Willie Tee. Under the FairTax there are far more options available to the taxpayer than at present where his only option is to break the law.
With the FairTax he can alter his consumption and spread it out obver a longer time perios plus even purchase some mix of untaxed things. He can do none of that now. None - his income is confiscated up front and he can do nothing about it legally that is meaningful - and even then he is considered guilty in the eyes of the law until he proves his innocence.
You seem as though you've had no noticeable encounters with the IRS. There are many on these threads who have.
It is wealth redistribution.
Take a look sometime, MoJo, at the average amount of money spent by "the poor" based upon their income levels. They mostly spend more than they earn.
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.