OK, FAIRtaxers, have at it!
Let us work together to push the FAIRtax issue in 2023!
Go to https://www/fairtax.org to get involved, please!
The national sales tax is a perfect, simple, tax which is why the bureaucrats in Washington, who make the tax code complex and difficult in order to keep their jobs, absolutely hate the idea.
A national sales tax means if you can afford lobster, you pay a higher tax than the guy buying bologna. If you can buy a top-of-the-line vehicle, you’re going to be paying a higher tax than the guy picking himself up a cheap used Ford Focus. It’s the only real, fair tax.
But MOST importantly, it makes sure the government is promoting prosperity (unlike, for example, right now). If the economy is good and people are buying things, government makes more money. If the economy stinks, government has to do with less.
Under those circumstances, you bet government is going to do its best to keep people buying and the money rolling in.
Implementation of this means the gubment tracks where you spend your money. No thank you. There's a reason lots of people like to pay in cash.
Older retired people have very little income,
live off of their savings and social security,
pay very little in the way of income taxes,
and do not want to pay a national sales tax.
While the FAIRtax is a potentially good idea, I prefer a flat tax of 15%. First $35,000 is tax free and then you pay 15% on everything after.
The present progressive income tax system has been a massive transfer of wealth for a long time. They will not let go of that easily.
Very wealthy people save and invest. Mostly that is why they have a bigger chunk of Cash. If you will notice as we lowered the taxes of very upper class and even moderately wealthy persons they become more and more Democrat. So unless they really spend massive amounts of their money they end up the winners. It’s just like the poor. The less they pay in taxes and the more they receive from welfare state the less they care about spending. The rich can have their lower taxes and get their government contracts, subsidies and spend government money on their pet projects (especially since they run both parties). The flat tax is clearly self defeating.
You would think this would be something the people would want?
The “fair” tax is simply to large for me to support this particular incarnation of it.
No more than 10%. When you consider all the massive taxes collected on everything they can live on 10%. They just would have to stop the unchecked spending sprees they will not stop themselves from doing.
No more than 10%, and I am on board. IRS can then go bye bye which would help cut expenses.
This will never happen, however. DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH.
Taxes in this country have zero to do with covering debt. Taxes are all about control and punitive penalties over regular people. Even former fed chairs have admitted this truth.
The Fairtax would be my second choice.
"THE LIES AND UNTRUTHS IN THE ATTACKS ON THE FAIRTAX"
Regarding the FAIRtax, beware of federal government “remedies” for crises created by the untrusted federal government.
To begin with, patriots are reminded that Thomas Jefferson had noted that all federal revenues of the constitutionally limited power federal government were (originally?) based only on tariffs that wealthy people paid for their imported, foreign-made goods (my wording).
“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied [emphasis added]. … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.” —Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
Next, regardless what FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), not only had the 19th century Supreme Court emphasized the already reasonably clear meaning of that clause, that Congress does not have the express constitutional power to regulate INTRAstate commerce, but neither does Congress have the express constitutional power to regulate intrastate commerce by means of taxing intrastate commerce (my wording)!
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Regarding the Trojan Horse 16th Amendment (16A), proposed to the states by Congress which the states ratified in 1913, some people argue the following about that amendment. They say that when the states ratified that amendment they surrendered to the federal government most of the unique, 10th Amendment-protected powers to serve the people that Justice Joseph Story had clarified belong uniquely to the states. The congressional record also shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had basically said the same thing.
"They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embrace every thing in the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and health laws, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and others, which respect roads, fences, &c. are component parts of state legislation, resulting from the residuary powers of state sovereignty. No direct power over these is given to congress, and consequently they remain subject to state legislation [emphasis added], though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers." —Justice Joseph Story, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, 1833.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
"16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
H O W E V E R...
Compare Justice Joseph Story's mention of 10th Amendment healthcare in 1833 (above) with the excerpt form Supreme Court case of Linder v. United States, 1925 (below), Linder decided about 12 years after 16A was ratified. Those before and after 16A ratification clarifications of state power healthcare are clear indications that the states had not surrendered their unique healthcare powers, for example, to the feds, regardless of 16A imo.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress [emphasis added].” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
As far as I'm concerned, rich people and corporations can not only pay for all unconstitutional, unaccountable spending of the big, bad federal government, but they can have the job of policing against unconstitutional federal spending.
The inevitable remedy for ongoing, corrupt post-17th Amendment ratification political party treason (imo)...
All MAGA patriots need to wake up their RINO federal and state lawmakers by making the following clear to them.
If they don’t publicly support either a resolution, or a Constitutional Convention, to effectively "secede" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by amending the Constitution to repeal the 16th and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A), doing so before the primary elections in 2024, that YOU will primary them.
If the proposed amendment was limited strictly to repealing 16&17A, relatively little or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification of the amendment imo.
With 16&17A out of the way, my hope is that Trump 47 becomes the FIRST president of a truly constitutionally limited power federal government.
In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for significant MAGA legislation to appear in the first 100 days of new term for what may still prove to be another RINO-controlled House.
Trump will hopefully do another round of primarying RINOs for 2024 elections.
Scenario...
Three guys rent a house together. For purposes of the probate, is this three single member qualified families at the same address or one single member family? Will this raise red flags with the tax authorities for multiple families at a given address?
Rd later.
Thanks Taxman. I hope the conversation advances!