Posted on 05/11/2006 5:46:17 PM PDT by Man50D
That'd be great all right but, sorry, it doesn't address that in the bill; perhaps you should read it instead of going off on a tangent.
Wish I could attend, but I accepted an invitation to give a[sic] FariTax speech here in Jacksonville on that very day! I'll be sure to plug the Hannity &Colmes show during my speech.LOL! a Freudian slip.
Really, really surprising that we have people on Free Republic that accuse you of thread spamming when you are posting factsLOL! Facts or fraud?
Seems to me with a growing economy arising from more efficient business operations and increased capital investment providing additional implementation of technological productivity improvements, wages are more likely to increase with productivity and time than to fall as you seem to think.AG #534 12:09 PM PDT:
Don't know of many employers likely to raise wages of any employee without big guns behind him forcing it (e.g. unions & stikes), or exceptional merit of the individual (tail of the bell curve) in improving the bottomline of the business. Don't see either happening with repeal of a tax that is levied on a business. Can see a business take that action that will maximize his profit in a competitive market. Arbitrarily raising wages of all employee's has not genenerally been shown to be a profit maximizing activity.
sorry, it doesn't address that in the bill
Quite so. Fair tax cultists just make that kinda stuff up.
Cults and doublethink go together.
Frankly, I didn't have to read your little needle in a hay stack. It doesn't matter.
They tell me you once spent a month arguing the incorrect answer to a simple math problem.
Does Sean Hannity support H.R. 25, an alleged fair tax?
I am curious to know if anyone here knows if Sean Hannity actually supports H.R. 25, an alleged fair tax, or if he is undecided an merely leaning in favor of H.R. 25. I understand he is scheduling a public event with Neal Boortz who promotes H.R. 25.
I am also curious to know if Sean Hannity has ever compared H.R. 25 to our nations’ original tax plan which contains a number of self regulating checks and balances which were intentionally designed by the founding fathers to create a fair tax system and also designed to control the fiscal conduct of Congress.
For example, the founder’s plan provides a method to extinguish deficits in a timely manner and by a fixed rule of apportionment which today‘s socialists in Congress and friends of big government dread. H. R. 25 by contrast is designed to support existing big government [its revenue neutral feature] and socialist programs which are financed by borrowing and deficit spending, without a fixed rule to extinguish deficits.
Our founding fathers’ original tax plan was also designed to allow Congress to tax consumption, but in a manner in which the limit of tax on each particular article taxed was determined by the market place, and was intended to not tax the necessities of life nor tools of production and supplies necessary to further America’s economic enterprise.
The founder’s intended each specific article of consumption to be intentionally selected for taxation, and then an appropriate amount of tax levied upon each specific article chosen. By contrast, H.R. 25 is an across the board percentage tax on the sale of property which interferes with the market place determining the limit of taxation on each specific article chosen for taxation. H.R. 25 also defies the intended rule of apportioning a general across the board tax upon property, basing each state’s share of such a tax upon its number of votes in Congress___ i.e., representation with proportional obligation, something which the friends of big government and socialists dread with a passion.
H. R. 25 also defies the founder’s intention to limit taxes on consumption to articles of luxury. H.R. 25 seemingly addresses this important concern by creating a “family consumption allowance”, but which rations tax-free necessities of life by the dollar amount of the allowance.
In addition, the family consumption allowance entitles those who do not work for a living nor contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance. Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; prostitutes and bookies and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but makes babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. As a matter of fact the above would be getting an approximate $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25 for either breaking the law or sitting at home making babies.
The family consumption allowance happens to be a socialist windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and, would be a gift to Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress who would gladly promise to increase the family consumption allowance during elections to buy votes and remain in power!
The family consumption allowance would create a new voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check. Why in the world would any freedom loving person support such a plan over our founding fathers original tax plan?
Hopefully Sean Hannity will take the time to compare the founding fathers original tax plan to H.R. 25 and then discuss the two with Neal Boortz who has failed to compare the two plans on his show.
In my opinion, the only tax reform freedom loving Americans need is to have the following words added to our Constitution:
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 doesn’t 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 Founder’s original plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!
Regards,
JWK___ a proud supporter of our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN
"They" did?
The "fair" tax cultists will frequently pretend that general sales taxes were favored by the Founding Fathers. In fact, the first ones weren't imposed until the 20th century.
Sorry, nothing of the sort has ever been stated by any FairTax supporters that I know ...
Now with the Squirrels, that's a different story - they try to plant claims like that all the time; as you're attempting.
No, not at all, Mojo - but I would note that this is the SAME John W K who was involved with some of the folks of the Tax Protester movement.
Read about one of them (John Kotmair) here:
http://www.quatlosers.com/john_Kotmair.htm
The BS JWK pushes is a tax system that failed and was replaced about the time of the War Between the States by the first income tax. That means, less you miss the point, that the tax "plan" was pretty worthless. It seems those in the TP movement like it since it would cripple the government - and that's one of their objectives.
You're getting further on the wrong side of the fence than you know.
The base price of gasoline without the state and federal excises that are levied at the pump, yes. Just as profits and wages that are paid for out of business receipts from the sales of gasoline are taxed today under the income/payroll tax system.The Fairtax is "23% of the gross payment" so it also taxes those state and federal excise taxes an additional 30% in the process.What the FairTax legislation does is repeal federal income/payroll taxes in total, and replaces them with a single tax at the first retail sale of any new product or service.
Just as profits and wages that are paid for out of business receipts from the sales of gasoline are taxed today under the income/payroll tax system.Not "just as" because the income tax doesn't tax gross profits including overhead and expenses as the fairtax would in it's "gross payments" tax.
Mojave,
I know exactly what you are speaking about!
For example, the Neal Boortz show has become a platform to pimp his book and promote H.R. 25 with a grab bag of misleading information, inaccurate statements, and even outright lies.
Boortz appears to be intentionally avoiding the undesirable socialist consequences which H.R. 25 would bring if the plan were to be adopted. Why? I don’t know. However, on most issues I agree with Boortz.
But an example of the Boortz Newspeak and his deceptive nature in promoting H.R. 25 is his repeated references to the family consumption allowance as a “rebate”, when in fact the proposed family consumption allowance is nothing more than an proposed government created entitlement!
In fact, the family consumption allowance under H.R. 25, would create a massive new voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check.
Heck, even the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform identifies the family consumption allowance as an entitlement program…the largest entitlement program in America [if H.R. 25 should pass] costing about $ 600 billion per year which would make Hillary Health Care look like chicken feed!
The panel found in its conclusion:
“Like other consumption taxes, the full replacement retail sales tax has pro-retail growth features. Nevertheless, the Panel does not recommend a full replacement retail sales tax. Without a large cash grant program to ease the burden of the tax, a retail sales tax would not be appropriately progressive. A cash grant program to make the tax appropriately progressive would cost at least $600 billion per year – which would make it America’s largest entitlement program. The Panel concluded that it was inappropriate to recommend a tax reform proposal that required the federal government to collect and redistribute this amount in additional revenue from taxpayers. The Panel also was concerned with administrative and compliance issues associated with a retail sales tax, as well as difficulties involving coordination with existing state sales taxes.”
Regards
JWK___a proud supporter of our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX 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 were wrong about that gross payments nonsense and still are Looey. You notice none of your Squirrel buddies are supporting you.
Read the bill Looey ... especially the part aboiut taxing a thing once and only once. It's been pointed out to you over and over again - but what's one more little warping of the facts from you, eh?
Hey Mojo, I just new the smearing and lies would begin as soon as I posted in the thread.
In any event, contrary to what the haters of our founding father’s original tax plan may say, it was very successful and provided the necessary restraints upon Congress which created a favorable climate allowing America to become the economic marvel of the world, and not a debtor nation which we now are and would continue under H.R. 25!
For example, by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished, by the intended use of the direct apportioned tax among the states and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an ACT OF CONGRESS, JUNE OF 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
Regards,
JWK
Wrong on all counts Johnnicakes. The prebate is in no way an entitlement but a refund of taxes paid and as such it "costs" the government nothing (let alone 600 quadzillion as you claim). It is very much like the April 15 tax refund which also "costs" the government nothing but is a refund of taxes.
And the "massive new voting constituency" you speak of would be basically almost every taxpayer in the country which is not a "voting constituency" at all caused by the prebate but is basically the entire population.
The Tax Panel was as wrong about that as they were about the fact they thought that tinkering would solve the present problems with the tax system. Totally wrong on both counts.
And you're just as wrong trying to dredge up your failed tax scheme that was rejected by this country long ago. It's obvious that you and your Tax Protester buds would like that but it ain't gonna happen since you have no bill in Congress and no sponsors. Go back to peddling your bogus "untax yourself" schemes to suckers.
Well, Johnnicakes, are your trying to claim that your former very close colleague who you greatly admired was not involved actively with John Kotmair in the TP world for a long, long time?? Keep that up and I'll have to post the material again.
Just come right out and tell us that so we can observe the audacity of your untruthfulness.
That "connection" happens to be correct and you know it so pretending the "poor little me" defense won't get you anywhere - nor will your already failed tax plan which was so "great" it was replaced by the first income tax in 1863.
You've peddled this nutcase scheme all over the Beltway and even testified to Congress about it - all to no avail resulting in only a big yawn from all concerned. Some people aren't smart enough to stop beating their heads against the wall and go back to pushing phony tax free home study material.
Whether or not the taxes were ever paid. Scam.
The BS JWK pushes is a tax system that failed and was replaced about the time of the War Between the States by the first income tax. That means, less you miss the point, that the tax "plan" was pretty worthless. It seems those in the TP movement like it since it would cripple the government - and that's one of their objectives.
“since it would cripple the government”.
TRANSLATION:
The founding fathers plan would make members of Congress immediately accountable for its irresponsible spending and borrowing by the required direct apportioned tax among the states should Congress continue in its reckless borrowing.
Of course, this kind of accountability is unacceptable to the friends of a big socialist government, which H.R. 25 is intentionally designed to maintain under its “revenue neutral” feature.
How dare some people in America still desire that people of a particular socialist state such as N.Y. or New Jersey ought to contribute into the common treasury as our Constitution commands___ in proportion to their big mouths in Congress Assembled when voting to squander money from the federal treasury.
How dare some people want New York’s and New Jersey’s Congressional Delegation to return to their state with a bill for their states’ apportioned share to extinguish an annual deficit created by their big spending mouths in Congress Assembled.
And, how dare someone would want to control the reckless spending and borrowing practices of Congress with the founding fathers solution!
But heck, we all know America is infested with socialists and the friends of big government, which H.R. 25 is intentionally designed to fund, and fund without that moment of accountability which the direct apportioned tax would bring if Congress continued to borrow to feed its love for pork.
Regards
JWK___a proud supporter of our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [which H.R. 25 does] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ___ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
So the 1895 decision directly superceeded the 1911 decision. I don't think so.You've stumbled onto one of AG's tricks. He posts ruling from history that backup his point of view and ignores any since.
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.