As I see it, Taxman is making a false choice—either the income tax or the Fairtax. Both have serious warts, so while I agree that the income tax needs attention, the Fairtax is a really bad plan. Here’s why.
Basically, the Fairtax creates a fatal confrontation between the Federal and State/Local governments over the proposed unconstitutional taxation by the federal government of State/Local government consumption. Fairtax throws retrees under the bus by forcing them to resume paying for their SS benefits with their sales tax dollars. Fairtax unfairly double taxes everyone’s after tax savings. Fairtax would destroy the new housing market. Buyers would have to come up with not only a 20% down payment but also the 30% sales tax which has no collateral value. The “prebate” would create a group of 45 million workers between the ages of 18-64 who would pay no net federal tax, yet would still qualify for full SS retirement benefits. Retail prices would rise by 18% on average after removing all business “embedded” taxes.
There is much else wrong with the Fairtax scheme, and it is very unlikely that Congress will ever give it serious consideration, imho!
I have neither the time nor the interest in debating you.
We are back to, “FRankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” about what you think.
Basically, the Fairtax creates a fatal confrontation between the Federal and State/Local governments over the proposed unconstitutional taxation by the federal government of State/Local government consumption.
hbvg3,
Let me give you another argument concerning the un-constitutional nature of H.R. 25. The fact is, the alleged fair tax runs afoul of the very intentions for which our Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned.
Our founders intended for Congress to finance its expenditures from imposts and duties at our water‘s edge, and, as a second means to fill the national treasury miscellaneous excise taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption (indirect taxes) were permitted. But if these taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures and a shortfall was created, then and only then was a general tax among the states to be laid to equal and extinguish the shortfall (deficit)!
Our Constitution’s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the states, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
In fact, the rule of apportionment was specifically adopted so the people of those States paying the lion’s share of the general tax would be guaranteed a vote in Congress proportionately equal to their financial contribution!
Keep in mind our progressive crowd gave us the 16th Amendment which they intended to use to circumvent the rule of apportionment as applied to raising revenue. Socialists, “progressives”, RINOs and the friends of big government, are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states they run and hide from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave them their one man one vote.
The alleged fair tax, just as the progressive income taxation now does, is designed to subjugate the rule of apportionment so that the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share under the alleged fair tax are not given their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote in Congress equal to their financial contribution. And this is what Mike Huckabee, Neal Boortz and Herman Cain hide from their listening audience___ our founding fathers intended rule requiring representation with proportional obligation! But, instead of me telling you what our founders intended with regard to any general tax laid among the States, let them speak for themselves!
With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment __ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And see Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”__ 3 Elliot’s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ 3 Elliot’s, 244 Mr. George Nicholas
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot, 255 And Mr. PENDLETON makes it crystal clear what evil is being addressed with regard to the rule of apportionment. He says: The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion ___ 3 Elliot’s 41 Bottom line is, H.R. 25 would violate the agreed upon rule that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are to be guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution. But what can we expect when fair.tax.org is proud to announce their proposed tax is a “progressive” tax.
JWK