Skip to comments.Fair Tax Rally To Be On Hannity And Colmes>
Posted on 05/11/2006 5:46:17 PM PDT by Man50D
FairTax Rally and a special invitation to you
You are invited as special guests and participants to the Neal Boortz FairTax Rally to be held May 24th at the Gwinnett Convention Center outside Atlanta. Not only will this rally feature Congressman John Linder, WSB talk show host Neal Boortz, and FOX News star and conservative commentator Sean Hannity, but also FairTax.org leaders will be on hand, as well as FairTax activist and leader Herman Cain.
The goal of this rally, which will be broadcast nationally on Sean Hannity's FOX program, Hannity & Colmes, is to "kick up" the heat on national leaders to get the FairTax legislation moving. Join us for the this free rally and enjoy history in the making with fellow FairTaxers.
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Start time: 7:30 p.m.
Who: Neal Boortz
What: Free FairTax Rally
Where: Gwinnett Convention Center 6400 Sugarloaf Parkway Duluth, Georgia 30097
Directions to Gwinnett Center: http://www.gwinnettcenter.com/pages/header/h_maps.html
Why: Neal Boortz is sick and tired of the IRS! He wants the IRS abolished and replaced with the FairTax!
Joining Neal Boortz at the rally:
Georgia Congressman John Linder
FairTax.org leaders Consumer advocate Clark Howard Special musical guests Banks & Shane
There is no charge for this event and tickets are not required.
Please R.S.V.P. for your chance at front row seats to http://bigwinner.cxri.net/Contest.asp?r=10004&s=10732.
Visit Americans For Fair Taxation, www.FairTax.org, to find out more about the FairTax.
Stay at home un-wed moms who do not work for a living, for example, would receive the allowance but would not be contributing into the common treasury when spending that welfare check.
How many of the above do you know? I know quite a few. There is a housing project nearby and a lot of those kids go to school with my kids and, when they were little, my kids hung out with them. They went to the movies together, to Dairy Queen, MacDonalds, mucho etcetera. Guess what piggy poo? Those folks spent money at the movies, at Mickie Dees, at the Mall, at the car dealership.
H.R. 25 is socialist friendly plan which would create the largest entitlement in Americas history! The family consumption entitlement is project to cost approximately $600 billion per year and would make Hillary Health Care look like chicken feed!
And what is the cost of the prescription drug benefit, NOW? Over 600 billion. What is the cost of medicare now? What is the cost of SS now? What are the contingent liabilities of the last two? Well I'll give you a hint. Your little 600 billion is a drop in the bucket compare to 30 trillion, PIGGY POO! So don't give me that.
The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform stated the following in its conclusion with regard to your beloved family consumption entitlement:
Mentioning the name of the least effective, weakest and most un-meaningful presidential tax panel in the last 50 years is not the way to debate here. I suggest you bring up a better source.
Why do you want to redistribute money from the common treasury to people who do not work for a living and to criminals who steal other peoples hard earned money?
I don't. I want to end that right now. The fair tax goes a long way toward that end. The current system is rife with redistribution. Why do you want to perpetuate the bad and ignore change? Job security maybe? Just asking.
Now since you yell a lot and call people "pal" and all of that third grade playground idiom, please tell me why I should take you seriously as of this moment. Your arguments are tepid and your rhetoric is juvenile. Please improve on both.
You really want to be on this guy's team?
Still making things up pal? You really are funny! Carry on.
That's it? That's all you have to say in response to my post? I submit that your (lack of) response speaks volumes about the veracity of your argument. Since your argument has been thoroughly destroyed here it is wise that you point your nose toward the sky and walk away in a huff.
Is that a tail I see between those legs?
BTW, those sentences are just the sort of thing some freepers will use as a tagline and give the utterer credit in a garish show of victory. Those are called scalps. You wouldn't want to be remembered that way would you?
The larger amount coreectly, the smaller one dishonestly.
Another blatant lie. The entitlement payment goes to the recipient without regard to the amount, if any, he paid in taxes.
Please explain how you think that I am in any way, shape or form politically "left"? Hint: The FairTax is NOT a conservative idea-- the PREBATE alone is a socialist monstrosity.
Everyone buys at the retail level, if only for necessities. Maybe they cover their allowance, maybe they don't. How are you going to make that a perfect hit? You can't. But in the income tax fraud my money is being handed out like candy. EITC and the ponzi scheme of SS are first two items that come to mind.
All the Squirrels seem to welcome all the help they can get ... and they certainly need it ... but you'd think they'd be wise enough to realize that the thick film of slime Johnnicakes has will rub off on them. Perhaps not though since they're pretty much a one trick pony - save the income tax by attacking the FairTax.
No, mojoron, they are both honest numbers referring to the same dollar amount as tax; one tax-inclusive and one tax-exclusive.
You'd have known that if you'd done some research as I suggested. As it is, you merely appear foolish.
That'sretty simple Robbie. Just look at your attempts to retain the income-based tax system. That alone makes you awfully far left.
The FairTax is actually a very conservative plan in that it boosts the economy, taxes people fairly who now pay no tax, and gives a tax refund in the form of the prebate to reduce taxes paid by all (and not just the poor). It's a refund of tax paid while the present giveaways under the income tax are nothing but socialist entitlements - which you struggle to retain.
Perhaps you should change your screenname to Karl.
One dishonest "bait" rate (23%) and then the "switch" rate (30%). To start.
But the entitlement check goes out regardless.
I can only provide you with the wisdom behind our founding fathers plan. I cannot compel you to carefully consider their wisdom with relation to H.R. 25 and a number of glaring defects contained in H.R. 25 which set the stage for predictable and undesirable consequences. I say predictable because human nature is quit predictable in a vast number of given situations.
In Federalist No. 21 Hamilton warns us about faction and the necessity to remove its causes and applies this thinking to taxation, and specifically to taxes on consumption. The case is made that:
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.
In summary, the intention was to select specific articles of consumption and place a specific amount of tax on each specific article selected. The intention was also to not tax necessities.
The wisdom of limiting Congress power to taxing specifically chosen articles of luxury, is this. If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business and industry are oppressive and impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury, just as Hamilton explains above___ it prevents an extension of the revenue and encourages Congress to adopt sound economic policies beneficial to Americas businesses, industries and labor!
For a recent confirmation of Hamilton`s thinking see: Fed luxury tax 1990 in which Congress imposed an outrageous 10 percent luxury tax on boats in l990.
Had the tax only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance or outcry. But, the bottom line is, when Congress is forced to tax each specific article, the market place determines the limit of taxation on each article chosen. In addition, under the founders method of taxing consumption faction is reduced to small insignificant groups who may have a particular interests in a particular article chosen for taxation.
But H.R. 25, which ignores the wisdom of our founders thinking, and would lay an across the board tax which includes taxing necessities, creates a faction never before known in America which would extend from coast to coast and border to border, reaching every household in America with its family consumption allowance___ an afterthought gimmick intended to correct an obvious fault in an across the board tax.
If H.R. 25 is adopted, I can just picture Kennedy on the Senate Floor rallying to increase the family consumption allowance to offset the alleged oppressive nature of H.R. 25.
Here is an possible example of what he may say :
How dare our friends, on the other side of this isle, who have managed to adopted H.R. 25 now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that childs room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon other necessities of life under H.R. 25!
If you think a large and powerful elderly voting constituency has been created with the social security fraud, H.R. 25 extends the socialist tentacles to every household in America and our socialist friends in Congress will not hesitate to promise to increase that allowance to by votes and remain in power!
The unavoidable truth is, the family consumption allowance under H.R. 25 [ and this is not my only objection to such a thoughtless idea] would create a new and massive voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check which our socialist friends in Congress will not hesitate to promise to increase to buy votes and remain in power. Why create such a factious voting bloc when all that is needed is to follow the proven method of our Founders plan?
Hopefully Sean Hannity will not give his support to H.R. 25 until he at least compares H.R. 25 to our founding fathers original tax plan, and does so over the air.
JWK___ a proud supporter of our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX REFORM PLAN
Sorry, mojoron - no "bait" and no "switch". The percentages both refer to the same amount of dollars.
Some people are too ignorant to grasp that, though.
Your interpretation of what Hamilton said in F21 is certainly YOUR interpretation. Nothing in the text indicates an interpretation of that sort ... in fact it does just the opposite.
And, hey, Johnnicakes, weren't you the one trying to stifle the funds flowing to government - and now you're complaining the FairTax does that. That's just a tad inconsistent, eh???
The "judicious selection of objects" nowhere specifies that this selection should be done by the government. In fact the entire paper cries out for just the type of individual freedon and freedom of choice that you are against with your SUPPOSED tax play where the government gets to play footsie with the states sticking it to the citizens of those states as it sees fit.
That's one thing that helped bring on the Way Between the States AND the demise of your wonderful "tax plan" (which really becomes just a recipe for anarchy) since it was replaced by our first income tax.
The '90s "boat tax" has absolutely nothing in common with the FairTax in principle or in practice and your trying to equate the two merely shows your desperation to attack the FairTax since you, like others, sense it's gaining support ... and it is.
You'd better stick with peddling your Tax Protester "get out of income tax jail free" scheme - while you can since those go away under the FairTax. If you dream that Teddy will try to rais the FairTax rate, remember that he's raising the rate on you, me, Bill Gates, Nancy Pelosi, and himself ... got the picture (probably not!!!)???
And there's no " new and massive voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check" as you've told about a zillion times since it would be all taxpayers getting a refund of some of their taxes paid. You can't seem to handle that, can you??? BTW, Hannity already supports the FairTax.
Neal Boortz makes that very claim over, and over, and over, and does so based upon a number of erroneous assumptions, a major one which he feeds his audience quite religiously imagine the savings to business and industry when the costly and time consuming record keeping under income taxation is ended by H.R. 25. But this happens to be wishful thinking at best, and at worst, an outright lie if made by one schooled in constitutional law.
If H.R. 25 were adopted, and its language followed to the letter, and even if the 16th Amendment were repealed as promised, not only would the misery of present taxation remain very much alive [the costly and time consuming record keeping for paying taxes calculated from income], but an additional rule book would be created under H.R. 25 leaving the American people and businesses with two rule books to follow___ the one created under H.R. 25 and the rule book for paying taxes calculated from income. Let me give you the particulars.
There is nothing in H.R. 25 to prohibit Congress from laying excise taxes. Excise taxes can be laid upon a wide variety of things such as the privilege of being a corporation and can be laid upon countless other privileges created by government, and can be laid upon certain occupations, callings, events, etc.
When such a tax is laid and the amount of tax to be paid is calculated from income, it is not laid upon income [an income tax as such], but rather, it is laid upon the privilege of being a corporation, or is laid upon a certain occupation, or event, and the amount of tax to be paid is calculated from profits, gains, salaries, and other income realized under the privilege, occupation, event, etc. See: FLINT vs. STONE TRACY in which the SCOTUS explains all this in detail!
Along with this kind of excise tax, which calculates the amount of tax to be paid from profits, gains, salaries, and other income comes a tax code with allowable deductions, exemptions, and manipulative legislation to indirectly control choices and decision making just as we now suffer under income taxation.
So, even if the 16th Amendment is repealed, with the wording suggested by the primary promoters of H.R. 25, it will have no effect in relation to excise taxes which may still be laid and require nothing more than uniformity among the states.
In spite of all the Fair Tax talk about repealing various sections of the IRS Code and closing it down as portrayed on the cover of the Fair Tax Book, the misery now suffered under income taxation, the Internal Revenue Service and the IRS Code, would remain very much alive because of a failure to provide adequate protection with regard to excise taxes, and that failure leaves a glaring loophole which defeats the number one feature of H.R. 25, and does so even if the 16th Amendment is repealed.
If H.R.25 is adopted the loophole left invites Congress to simply erase the word Internal from Internal Revenue Code and replace that word with excise, as in excise Revenue Code, and, likewise erase the word Internal from Internal Revenue Service and replace it with Excise, as in Excise Revenue Service, and, go about its business inflicting the same time consuming and costly misery upon Corporations as now done, but in addition, these corporations will also have to abide by and follow an additional rule book with all its new regulations for record keeping as stipulated under H.R. 25!
Truth is, H.R. 25 doesnt eliminate squat as Boortz portrays on the cover of his book, and it especially does not even attempt to stop Congress from calculating a tax from corporate income. H.R. 25 leaves a sleeping loophole by which Congress may decide at its pleasure, especially a socialist dominated Congress, to enact, say a small tax upon those wealthy evil corporations and scoundrels who make millions of dollars a year and bleed the poor working people, such as was alleged about Leona Helmsley who they sent to jail for an alleged tax fraud, but actually contributed more in taxes than any twenty average working people in New York.
In my opinion, the only tax reform freedom loving Americans need is to have the following words added to our Constitution bringing us back to the founder's plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
See how easy real tax reform is? It doesnt take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship and entrench our nation with more socialism and big government it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our Founders original plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!
JWK___ a proud supporter of our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX REFORM PLAN
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson
You're still as wrong as ever Johnnicakes. The income tax (and several others), the IRS, and even the income tax records are eliminated by the FairTax. That would leave your "additional rule book" nonsense right where it is today - only in your own fervent imagination.
Actually, the 32 word squib you proffer will not do as you say in any event since Congress has the power to levy taxes and your ridiculous amendment would not change that. Most people can quickly realize that but you seem unable to. Congress could easily (and legally) violate such nonsense in an instant. The FairTax, by eliminating those things the income tax depends upon is a far better protection (and it defunds the IRS as well).
You really should go back and practice your SaveAPatriot TP rhetoric to sell tax schemes to those foolish enough to believe you. You're really not getting any takers here. It's amazing to me that the IRS has let you stay out of jail this long.
Offering your failed so-called "founders' tax plan" is folly since it was so successful originally that it was replaced by our first income tax in 1863. And you expect that to be adopted and be successful today when it wasn't in much simpler times??? Get a life.
One scam percentage, one actual percentage.
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.