And they pay tax on every taxable item they buy.

Squirm yourself ... they don't pay now for the most part.

161 posted on 05/13/2006 7:12:24 PM PDT by pigdog

To: ancient_geezer

JOHN W K wrote:

Instead of being so obstinate A.G., why don’t you work to correct the obvious defects in H.R. 25?

A.G. responds:

HR25 is not a constitutional amendment nor is it intended to be, it is the legislation necessary to remove a major impediment to the ultimate prohibition of taxation of incomes by constitutional amendment.

ANSWER

Oh, so you are removing a major impediment with H.R. 25 by placing every American Household on the public dole with its family consumption allowance which would create a new massive voting constituency, dependant upon government for a monthly government check.

Now you’re getting hilarious A.G. Did you ever consider sending a video to the comedy channel?

Just joking A.G. I think you mean well. Unfortunately, you are blinded by your own intensity.

Regards,

JWK

162 posted on 05/13/2006 7:14:41 PM PDT by JOHN W K

More of your garbage statements Robbie. That's simply tripe and you know it.

Most people who have read the bill, the book, or spent time on the website realize yu merely have an inflated ego wrapped in misstatements surrounded by misinterpretations not backed by facts at all and supported by a bunch of Status Quo Loving onagers.

163 posted on 05/13/2006 7:15:55 PM PDT by pigdog

That's the point, mojoron. No fed IT & ST together or we'd have it now.

164 posted on 05/13/2006 7:17:16 PM PDT by pigdog

Good day to you JWK.

165 posted on 05/13/2006 7:18:29 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)

You expect wrong, Robbie - and it hasn't happened in almost 100 years and won't now because you "predict" it.

166 posted on 05/13/2006 7:21:10 PM PDT by pigdog

I've looked at a lot of the boards Robbie and I don't see what you claim but I do see a lot of your misinformation handiwork on several of them.

The same nonsense you started here. Your vanity knows no bounds as you almost always are sure to let readers know how wonderfully smart you are by outwitting Boortz, Jorgenson, etc. Of course you never are honest enough to say that you basically favor the existing tax system. You're no doubt sorry you let that slip here.

167 posted on 05/13/2006 7:24:51 PM PDT by pigdog

That's fact, not a red herring and it's exactly pertinent to the subject at hand.

168 posted on 05/13/2006 7:26:05 PM PDT by pigdog

Because he is a puffball.

I am amazed at how nice he is all of a sudden to his callers because now he needs them to prop up this book. Time was when I enjoyed hearing him tear into criminals and crime but now it is just one day long advertisement for his tax idea.

169 posted on 05/13/2006 7:26:48 PM PDT by A knight without armor

You just proved the point for ancient_geezer and don't realize it.

170 posted on 05/13/2006 7:28:20 PM PDT by pigdog

One needn't have a degree in FairTax to see that it's a truly beneficial tax system in comparison the the income-based ones that have been the mode for almost 100 years now.

Even those with a degree, have at times managed to see that much:

National sales tax

Dec 22, 2004
by Walter E. Williams

Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) has authored H.R. 25 "To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States." Before we look at whether a national sales tax is a good idea, how about a little Economics 101 just to convince you that government spending, not government taxation, is the true measure of governmental impact on our lives?

Keeping the numbers small, suppose the annual value of what Americans produce, our gross domestic product, is $100. If government spends $40 of it, of necessity the government must force us to spend $40 less. There are several ways this can be done. Government could tax us $40. Government could borrow, thereby driving up interest rates and reducing private spending. Government could simply print money, which would cause inflation and reduce our purchasing power. Finally, government could employ some combination of the three.

The bottom line is that if government spends $40 of our GDP, we can't spend that same $40. There's no question that tax reform is needed, but tax reform is secondary to a much larger issue -- federal spending. From 1787 to 1920, except during war, federal spending was a mere 3 percent of GDP, compared to today's 20 percent. If the federal government takes only 3 percent of the GDP, just about any tax system is relatively non-oppressive. However, if government were to take 50 percent, 60 percent or 70 percent of the GDP, you tell me what tax system would be non-oppressive.

There's no question that some forms of taxation are worse than others. In addition to its economic disincentive effects and intrusions on personal privacy, our income tax has huge compliance costs estimated to be between $250 billion and $500 billion each year.

Abolition of the IRS and the income tax code it enforces, replaced by a national sales, would create greater economic incentives, enhance personal privacy, and lower tax compliance cost by an estimated 90 percent. There'd also be greater faith and allegiance to our founders' constitutional vision, expressed in Article I, Section 9, which says, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The founders feared the abuse and the government power inherent in an income tax. Another benefit of a national sales tax is that being taxed 23 percent to 30 percent with every purchase we become more aware of the cost of government. Income taxes and corporate taxes conceal that cost.

Before we accept a national sales tax, there are two minimal requirements. First, there must be a repeal of the 16th Amendment so Congress can't hit us with both an income and sales tax. Second, there must be a constitutional amendment fixing the national sales tax at a certain percentage that can only be increased by a three-fourths vote of the House of Representatives.

People have advocated a national sales tax or a flat income tax for years, and I don't want to rain on their parade. But here's my prediction: Congress will never enact a sales tax or a flat tax. Why? The two most powerful congressional committees are the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. Both dispense tax favors to different Americans that come at the expense of other Americans. With a sales or flat tax, their Santa Claus roles, not to mention campaign contributions, would be diminished. On top of that, they'd have restricted opportunities for social engineering through fiddling around with the tax code.

My personal preference is a constitutional amendment limiting federal spending to a fixed percentage, say 10 percent, of the GDP. You say, "Williams, why 10 percent?" My answer is that if 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it ought to be good enough for the U.S. Congress.

Since 1980, Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.

171 posted on 05/13/2006 7:30:13 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)

You certainly should be able to recognize weasel wording Johnnicakes, since that's almost exclusively what you use in addition to your broad brush misinformation efforets.

You're hardly qualified to comment on what HR25 does and does not do since you're not read the bill and limit your "knowledge" of it to picking at a few words of supporters of the bill and a paucity of out of context quotes from the bill.

The fact that you hype the destruction of the country by means of being involved in the Tax Protestor movement does not speak well for your qualifications, Johnnicakes. Tax evaders are lawbreakers so you're not ia a strong ethical position to lecture others with your failed tax plan from G. Washington's time.

172 posted on 05/13/2006 7:34:48 PM PDT by pigdog

You're merely fooling yourself Johnnicakes. Since you've not read the bill you have no idea how far afield you are from reality.

Please continue to ingratiate yourself with the SQL crown - perhaps you can sell them some of the left-over tax evasion kits that you no doubt have on hand. Many of themn would probably fall for the scam.

173 posted on 05/13/2006 7:37:45 PM PDT by pigdog

Those state taxes are very selective taxes rife with exemptions and not the broad-based tax such as the FairTax.

Bzzzzt. California taxes the sale of used items.

Quick, what's the "fair" tax talking point sheet say about that?

174 posted on 05/13/2006 7:39:05 PM PDT by Mojave

Your so-called original tax reform plan worked so well Johnnicakes that it brought us the first income tax in 1863.

As most who study American history know, apportionment to the states disn't work well at all (and still won't even if it were legal).

175 posted on 05/13/2006 7:39:53 PM PDT by pigdog

Hate to tell you this, but California is a state so your question is meaningless (as are most of them).

176 posted on 05/13/2006 7:41:06 PM PDT by pigdog

And they pay tax on every taxable item they buy.

Tautology time.

And they get the monthly entitlement check regardless of how few, if any, taxable items they buy.

Squirm harder!

177 posted on 05/13/2006 7:41:34 PM PDT by Mojave

No fed IT & ST together or we'd have it now.

There's never been a "fed ST" at all. You're an embarrassment to your cult.

178 posted on 05/13/2006 7:43:50 PM PDT by Mojave

1. Those state taxes are very selective taxes rife with exemptions and not the broad-based tax such as the FairTax.

2. Hate to tell you this, but California is a state

The hysteria is setting in.

179 posted on 05/13/2006 7:45:44 PM PDT by Mojave

To: pigdog; Mojave

Squirm yourself ... they don't pay now for the most part.
So now, out of the other side of your mouth, you're saying there are no embedded taxes in everything they buy.

180 posted on 05/13/2006 7:50:58 PM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lies. (no it's not a mistake)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794