Posted on 08/12/2002 2:18:13 PM PDT by Keyes For President
Perhaps the fastest way to make America a free country again would be to repeal all income taxes – the personal income, corporate, gift, estate and Social Security taxes.
This would create at least five very important benefits:
1. An increase for you
The first is an enormous increase in your take-home pay.
Take a look at last year's tax return or your paycheck stub. See how much you pay now in income and Social Security taxes. If yours is a typical middle-class family, that's probably at least $10,000 per year.
When we repeal those taxes, what will you do with that extra money?
Will you put your children in a private school where they'll get the education you want for them?
Will you start your own business?
Will you support your church or favorite charity in a way you never could do before?
Will you buy a new home, or take your family on the vacation you've always wanted but could never afford?
That money is yours. You're the one who gets up every morning and puts in long hours to support your family.
You should have every dollar you earn – to spend, to save, to give away as you think best.
2. An increase for your associates
Everyone you deal with – your employer and your company's customers – will get a similar increase in take-home pay.
If you work for a company, your employer will have far more money to spend on you and other employees. And he'll have to spend a lot of it on you, because his competitors will have more money, too – enabling them to bid more for your services.
If you're in business, your customers will have more money to spend with you.
3. An increase for everyone
In fact, everyone in America will have more money. This will unleash the greatest prosperity America has ever known.
Even those who pay no income taxes now will benefit, because others can hire or help them more easily.
4. Free to do as you please
The fourth benefit is that your life finally will be your own.
You won't have to trust your employer with your retirement money, since tax deferral won't be an issue. You could simply divide your savings among a few banks, or put them in Treasury bills, and be safer and enjoy a better return than Social Security offers – and you won't have to worry about corporate scandals.
No more fear of an IRS audit. No more snooping into your personal financial records. No more having to account for everything you earn and spend.
A flat tax won't end the IRS. Even if you could file your return on a postcard, the government would still force you to verify that all the numbers are correct.
Having an IRS Gestapo may be typical of most nations, but no country is truly "free" so long as there's such an agency.
5. Neutralizing the government
Perhaps the most important benefit of all is simply this:
Politicians will no longer have the resources to cripple the economy and run everyone's life.
Without the income tax to finance them, the politicians can't interfere with health care, education, charity, farming, business or any other area of society.
Before the income tax began in 1913, the politicians sometimes raised rates on tariffs and excise taxes to finance their harebrained schemes. But people simply bought less of the products that were taxed – reducing the government's revenue and forcing the politicians to give up their grand plans.
But with the income tax, there's no limit to how much they can tax us. You can't stop earning a living whenever the tax rate is too high. As a result, the top rate reached 94 percent during World War II – and it didn't fall below 70 percent until 1982.
In 1912, the federal budget (in 2002 dollars) was $12 billion. Today it's $2 trillion – only because the income tax makes it possible.
With no income taxes, economic necessity will force the politicians to abide by the Constitution. America will be a free country once again.
Free at last!
You can, if you choose, rejoice when tax rates are reduced slightly. But I want much more than that.
I want an end to all income taxes. And there's no good reason we can't have that.
If the feds would focus on national defense instead of offense, we'd be better protected with a $100 billion federal budget than we are now.
Social Security could be liquidated by selling off federal properties that serve no constitutional purpose – using the proceeds to buy private annuities for everyone who's dependent on Social Security now or will be in the next 15 years. Everyone else will be ahead just by repealing the Social Security tax.
The benefits of liberty are boundless. The tyrannies of government can be limitless as well.
Which do you choose?
Any candidate who will guarantee his commitment to the concepts listed here, gets my vote.
Any candidate who refuses does not deserve my vote.
Wait until they are paying $15.00 to $20.00 extra on every $100 they purchase.
That's the whole idea. Today, with the income tax being taken out before they ever see it, most people don't really realize how much of their income they are now paying in taxes, so there is no broad public outcry, every time Congress raises taxes. Even though, with a National Retail Sales Tax, the prices of products would drop by more than the sales tax increase, people would begin to realize how much they are being gouged by the government and we would begin to see a broad public outcry for lower taxes, even at the expense of reduced entitlements. We want them to be outraged.
Any candidate who will guarantee his commitment to the concepts listed here, gets my vote.
Let's qualify that.
Some candidates have proven that their guarantee is not worth the time it takes to laugh at it. That's why I voted for the Republican challenger in our last congressional district primary (he lost) and why I will probably vote Libertarian or other third party for President in a couple of years, depending on who is running. Although I still consider myself a Republican, the fact that the lack of principles in republican legislators is fast approaching the total lack of principles on the Democrat side of the aisle, now makes me place the man above the party.
Maybe that statement should be:
Any candidate who will reliably guarantee his commitment to the concepts listed here, gets my vote.
That will not happen. Businesses will use the situation to gain more margin. Even if they do lower prices (1) it will not be immediate becuase of an uncertainty over how the tax change will affect the businesses bottom line and (2) when business does determine they can drop prices, they will not drop them as much as the tax savings they will realize.
I am not making any editorial statement on this, simply telling you that this is natural and what will happen. THe liberals, to be sure, will have a field day acusing business of being greedy.
Points 1 and 2 above are pretty much what took place when Canada and Australia switched over to a value added tax (sales tax, Goods & Services Tax) system, which is likely the way the U.S. would go - if they go there.
I share your desire to see it happen although I will be very, very surprised if we ever see it. There is too much corruption in Washington and elimination of the income tax in favor of a fair sales tax makes it harder to be corrupt.
Please understand my level of commitment......
the "we're for smaller government" gop has lost it's credibility.
It will take alot for me to believe that a candidate's word is honorable.
Even if they do lower prices (1) it will not be immediate becuase of an uncertainty over how the tax change will affect the businesses bottom line
This is true. Any substantial change in our tax system will create some temporary turmoil. But the temporary turmoil resulting from a move to a true sales tax - not a value added tax - will be short-lived, as market forces take over. Small businesses will try to use such uncertainty to get a jump on their larger, more cautious competition, which leads to my second point.
and (2) when business does determine they can drop prices, they will not drop them as much as the tax savings they will realize.
If we should go to a true sales tax - not a value added tax - then market forces will force prices down to margins similar to previous margins. The thing that currently keeps the large corporations from raising prices to exorbitant levels, is that in order to compete, small businesses keep finding ways to cut costs and thus their need for a higher profit margin. That same motivation will force prices down after a move to a true sales tax.
As long as there is competition in the market (Congress and the Whitehouse has not yet outlawed competition), market forces will keep profit margins at about the same level.
I share your desire to see it happen although I will be very, very surprised if we ever see it. There is too much corruption in Washington and elimination of the income tax in favor of a fair sales tax makes it harder to be corrupt.
Agreed. But, the economic alternative is so horrible that we cannot let up in the least, on our efforts to abolish the income tax, in any of its forms, and replace it with a National Retail Sales Tax.
Not true. Earned interest is capital gains. As such, it is income and will not be taxed.
Interest is the price paid for borrowing buying (consuming) money.
Only for the bank, or wherever you are investing it. Since there will be no more corporate taxes, banks will not have to pay interest as well.
I get your overall drift that interest earned will be lower as well. That's fine. That just means people will take bigger risks to get higher interest. If you are risk-averse, you will settle for lower levels of interest. If you are a risk-taker, you will go for higher return and more risk.
I'm not totally sold on a consumption tax either. However, one huge benefit would be the accountability that has never before been present - Average Joe buys a pair of shoes for $20 and has to pay $4.50 in federal tax. Now, for the very first time in his life - Joe realizes his individual tax burden and starts looking for his congresscritter!
There is a very interesting story behind my comments on the 27th Amendment.
This cowboy from West Texas laid the dangers of it on me. Still wore cowboy boots and hat but was working telecom. A quite intelligent gentleman but his looks were decieving. LOL!
Take care,
CATO
Not true. You'll need to do your homework. Read the legislation.
From Hr2525 (the fairtax)
`SEC. 801. DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION SERVICES AMOUNT.
`(a) FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION SERVICES- For purposes of this subtitle--
`(1) IN GENERAL- The term `financial intermediation services' means the sum of--
`(A) explicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services, and
`(B) implicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services.
`(2) EXPLICITLY CHARGED FEES FOR FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION SERVICES- The term `explicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services' includes--
`(A) brokerage fees;
`(B) explicitly stated banking, loan origination, processing, documentation, credit check fees, or other similar fees;
`(C) safe-deposit box fees;
`(D) insurance premiums, to the extent such premiums are not allocable to the investment account of the underlying insurance policy;
`(E) trustees' fees; and
`(F) other financial services fees (including mutual fund management, sales, and exit fees).
`(3) IMPLICITLY CHARGED FEES FOR FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION SERVICES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `implicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services' includes the gross imputed amount in relation to any underlying interest-bearing investment, account, or debt.
`(B) GROSS IMPUTED AMOUNT- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `gross imputed amount' means--
`(i) with respect to any underlying interest-bearing investment or account, the product of--
`(I) the excess (if any) of the basic interest rate (as defined in section 805) over the rate paid on such investment; and
`(II) the amount of the investment or account; and
`(ii) with respect to any underlying interest-bearing debt, the product of--
`(I) the excess (if any) of the rate paid on such debt over the basic interest rate (as defined in section 805); and
`(II) the amount of the debt.
`(b) SELLER OF FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION SERVICES- For purposes of section 103(a), the seller of financial intermediation services shall be--
`(1) in the case of explicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services, the seller shall be the person who receives the gross payments for the charged financial intermediation services;
`(2) in the case of implicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services with respect to any underlying interest-bearing investment or account, the person making the interest payments on the interest-bearing investment or account; and
`(3) in the case of implicitly charged fees for financial intermediation services with respect to any interest-bearing debt, the person receiving the interest payments on the interest-bearing debt.
Regarding terrorists, yes an armed citizenry can cut attacks short. Arming Israelis helped to stop terrorist attacks with guns. But the terrorists adapted, they went to bombs and then suicide bombs. But the Arabs wouldn't even bother with such tactics if it wasn't for the Israeli govt. and the IDF and IDAF. They'd simply send their armies in to slaughter the well-armed citizenry with tanks or artillery. They'd pull an Assad and level the Jewish cities artillery.
Guns on the planes might have helped. But if the average citizen could carry guns on a plane, wouldn't terrorists also be able to get guns on board? In several of the hijackings, the terrorists were the majority in first class with only a stewardess and businessman or two in their way. As the attackers, they would have had a huge advantage in a gun fight. To be honest, probably the only place where a gun could have made a difference was in the cockpit. And only if the door had been secured. But the new doors and pilot wariness wasn't part of the equation early that morning.
Guns wouldn't have helped against the shoe bomber if he had simply used a lighter or if he had went to the bathroom to use his match. Instead, the moron tried to do it in front of others.
Please note I believe Americans should be allowed to carry guns in most places. But to believe that such individual weapons could defend our country against organized armies is wishful thinking. Do not confuse the British Army with it's thousands with a Chicom army with it's millions. There were things that the British wouldn't do over the long run. The Chicoms would willingly slaughter every American they found in a resisting area. Also, Americans were a relatively self-sufficient pre-industrial society in 1776. But today, only a handful of people live on farms. An invading army could easily starve most of the population into submission or death. No, our best defense is our ability to sink such an invading force with our expensive and advanced Navy and Air Force.
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.