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 ...
The FairTax is the only path to economic freedom and prosperity for our children and grandchildren.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION....
I think somebody fairly important said that....
It doesn't stand a chance of passing.
One man, one vote, one tax.
A Federal Sales tax is just another tax.
We need to reduce the size of the government, not shift taxes around, in some sort of scheme to get the other guy to pay.
Fairness is taxing everyone equally, then folks are free to earn as much as they want with out government leaches stealing a percentage of anything.
The Federalist
#21
(excerpt)
There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.
PUBLIUS
(Alexander Hamilton)
The income tax is a hidden tax.
The NRST, or FairTax, brings it ALL out in the open.
Which is EXACTLY what the FairTax does, and why it is called the FairTax...
They aren't listening and they don't care. Until a tax revolt happens it will continue forever.
Come again? The sales tax is a continuous percentage burden one can never be freed of. Big whoop. Just add it to the income tax, that will not not go away.
Charging equal citizens an equal tax is the fair thing to do. This requires a smaller government. This means no trips to the Moon or to Mars. This means if the government wants to raise taxes the have to raise them for everyone, and no marxist divide and conquer tactics using class envy, etc...
Proof that you haven't read the FairTax bill.
The FairTax bill dismantles the IRS and ends the income tax in all of its forms.
The income tax, in any form, is the epitome of 'marxist divide and conquer tactics'.
If you don't support the continuation of the income tax, and you don't support the NRST to replace it, just what do you support?
Just who is this Hamilton fellow, and can we get him involved in government somehow?
The reality is when it comes to DC politicians, their talk is worth squat. Comes down to it, government control over the people will always trump what is reasonable and fair taxation.
If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
The key is, and always will be, the electorate pushing tax reform. Congress does not act on its own to make changes in the tax system.
The reality is their interests are vested in the current tax system and changing it will not happen without the American people showing them that their continued participation in Congress is dependent upon ending the income tax system.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
Right. the Commie Neil Abercrombie and the "One armed bandit" Dan Inouye? I'm sure they'll get right on it.
The only Fair Tax is to tax every citizen the same amount.
How is a captitation tax fair? The founders of this country certainly didn't see it that way. Quite the contrary. It is hard to distinguish which they held in more contempt, the capitation tax such as you hold to be so fair,
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
- "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
--Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
Or income taxes such as we have today.
"If direct taxes upon the wages of labour have not always occasioned a proportionable rise in those wages, it is because they have generally occasioned a considerable fall in the demand for labour. The declension of industry, the decrease of employment for the poor, the diminuation of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, have generally been the effect of such taxes....
Absurd and destructive as such taxes are, however, they take place in many countries."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
Bottomline, the fairness of a tax was perceived in terms of its capacity for abusiveness and oppression of the individual. The mode of taxation, more than even amount, was the basis of their views on taxation choosing consumption taxes as the least abusive of the individual and least threatening to individual liberty.
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people.
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue."
When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."
If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.
This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Not when those who get their paycheck from the IRS/Government have their say. When someone says they are going to get rid of the IRS, check if they also have any bargains on bridges.
If someones amounts of votes vary with how much they spend, then you may argue that their tax bill should vary with how much they spend.
Calling an unequal tax "Fair" calls into question the motives of those who would be so dishonest.
:-)
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.