Posted on 02/08/2003 5:56:38 PM PST by Bigun
White House Floats Idea of Dropping Income Tax Overhaul By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — President Bush, having already set off a firestorm over his proposals to cut taxes and revamp retirement accounts, suggested today that the time might be near to drop the income tax as a whole and replace it with some form of consumption tax...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Are you not capable of evaluating an idea until it's been translated into wonkese?
No, The devil is always in the details. I expect to see some details of how a proposal must be implemented for me to evaluate viability of a course of action.
Without the implementing details necessary to understanding the potential impact on the nation of an enactment, there can be no meaningful discussion regarding any particular system. Without the necessary detail all taht exists is good sounding jargon and sound bytes to lead folks into disaster. Any proposition can be made to sound good with no attention to necessary detail.
Example, look how long it took me to demonstrate the inherent incapacity of a tariff only system sustain a decent budget, to your satisfaction. Trying to discuss broad concepts without the details implementing them leads to overlooking the essentials and making invalid conclusions on too few facts.
And again...show me in the code where it says I'm liable. If we are to follow the law, and not case law, which is overturned quite often, show me where in the code it says we are liable. There must be some relevant regulation that we are to see for sure that we are laible. Quoting court decisions is not the law. WE all know the courts are corrupt.
You have not been able to answer except with case law which is irrevelant to this discussion.
Lawyers and judges can base their findings on previous oppinions. BUt they can be overturned.
I've never seen one instance where a zero income return has been ruled by any court to be illegal or frivolous.
And who is exempt if they put that on a w4?
And again...show me in the code where it says I'm liable.
Once again since you seem to have a reading disability, and demand a repeat for lack of comprehension the first times around:
If it is established in the courts that you have "gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return 26 U.S.C. s 6012" you are a "person liable" 26 U.S.C. ss 6001, 26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.
- "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."
- "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.
- Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.
- Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
- Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, ..."
Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."
If you don't like the code, you are welcome to cry on a judge's shoulder for whatever good that may do you:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that state citizens are exempt from income tax.KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
Or work to repeal it. John Linder (R Georgia) offers a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement:
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Then what is the definition of income? What is income?
Can't read to well can you, here it is again:
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill
And hasn't changed in the intervening 147 years:
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
- "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."
- "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "
Eisner v. Macomber(1920), 252 U.S. 189,207
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189#207
- "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), ... , 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054)."
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary © 2000
Main Entry: in·come
Pronunciation: 'in-"k&m also 'in-k&m or 'i[ng]-k&m
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a coming in : , <fluctuations in the nutrient income of a body of water>
2 : a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time <has an income of $20,000 a year>
You have not been able to answer except with case law which is irrevelant to this discussion.
26 U.S.C. s 1, 26 U.S.C. s 63, 26 U.S.C. s 61, 26 U.S.C. ss 6001, 26 U.S.C. ss 6011, 26 U.S.C. s 6012.
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
James Madison, Federalist #45:
- "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
Lawyers and judges can base their findings on previous oppinions. BUt they can be overturned.
Not without generating "case law which is irrevelant to this discussion", so they can't be overturned according to you. Which is it, is case law relevant, or not?
I've never seen one instance where a zero income return has been ruled by any court to be illegal or frivolous.
Haven't look very hard have you.
According to Erwin Schiff who coached these folks along, and helped them file his specialty, (i.e. the zero income tax return):
"Robert and Elena Brown of Las Vegas filed their 1996 "zero" income tax return, they requested a refund of the $5,035 in "wage taxes" they had paid that year.
|
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AND SERVED D.C. No CV No. CV-98-00825-PMP (RJJ) ROBERT A. BROWN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2066.htm
|
Lawyers and judges can base their findings on previous oppinions. BUt they can be overturned.
OOps, rulings didn't get overturned. Too bad.
Tell me something: Did the NRST proposal spring fully-formed, in every legislative detail, from someone's head like Athena from Zeus, or was it the result of people talking about different ideas to see what would work and what wouldn't?
It came from a group of small businessmen in Texas who put in the necessary bucks and effort to create a proposal for a tax system developed on a basis of economic studies, basic constitutional law, and a firm grounding in the proper legislative language to achieve the goal of eliminating the income/payroll tax system completely.
The first draft was not offered to the general public, or Congress for that matter, until proposed legislative language was written and offered to be introduced in Congress where the debate could begin on the basis of the solid foundation rooted in the studies and legal work performed in its development.
Too many fingers in the pot at the front end is guaranteed to spoil the pie and miss the goal for lack of focus.
The heavy lifting been done, the bill and background on which it stands is out before the public in open view for debate, criticism, and refinement. Go to it.
And who is exempt if they put that on a w4?
Who's they? Garbage in Garbage out. Making an invalid statement on any legal form just increases the legal risk. Go for it, you can always cry on the judge's shoulder when they use it against you.
The W-4 is merely a mechanism to set up witholding, which is not the income tax, but one method of several for arranging payment of income tax.
BARAL v. UNITED STATES, 172 F. 3d 918; affirmed SCOTUS 98-1667 (Feb 22, 2000)
- "Contrary to Baral's claim, the withholding tax and estimated tax are not taxes in their own right (separate from the income tax), that are converted into income tax only on the income tax return. Rather, they are methods for collecting income taxes."
Make a fraudulent statement or don't pay the proper tax, guess what's waiting in the wings for DOJ to play with:
Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.Section 7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax
Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.Section 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Just think, they get to do that with an "imposed" tax.
Hehe, don't worry, they just impose it for you, you don't even have to worry about looking up the term "liable". You only need to know what "impose" and "required" means.
Main Entry: im·pose
Pronunciation: im-'pOz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): im·posed; im·pos·ing
Etymology: Middle French imposer, from Latin imponere, literally, to put upon (perfect indicative imposui), from in- + ponere to put -- more at POSITION
Date: 1581
transitive senses
1 a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies -- C. H. Plimpton>
Danged French again,! Always mess'n with us, ought to at least flush em out of the english language donch'ya think?
Main Entry: re·quire
Pronunciation: ri-'kwIr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·quired; re·quir·ing
Etymology: Middle English requeren, from Middle French requerre, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin requaerere to seek for, need, require, alteration of Latin requirere, from re- + quaerere to seek, ask
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to claim or ask for by right and authority b archaic : REQUEST
2 a : to call for as suitable or appropriate <the occasion requires formal dress> b : to demand as necessary or essential : have a compelling need for <all living beings require food>
3 : to impose a compulsion or command on : COMPEL
4 chiefly British : to feel or be obliged -- used with a following infinitive <one does not require to be a specialist -- Elizabeth Bowen>
Wouldn't you just know it, them French, cheeze eat'n, surrender monkey's do'n it to us ag'n.
Isn't it nice Congress Critters are looking out for you?
You only have to look up two terms in the dictionary to find out whether you "owe" a tax or not, instead of three. That's called simplifying the tax law :O|
"The fact that the law doesn't authorize a tax on wages also doesn't "fly" in our courts - as of today."
Gee you think maybe he is on to something?
As I have stated many times before, complain to Congress if you don't like the Court's construction of the statutes. Otherwise, them Courts will just keep on slapping folks with penalties, fines, and jail time figuring that's what Congress wants them to do.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."PATTERSON v. McLEAN CREDIT UNION, 485 U.S. 617 (1988)
- Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 736 (1977) ("[W]e must bear in mind that considerations of stare decisis weigh heavily in the area of statutory construction, where Congress is free to change this Court's interpretation of its legislation" (WHITE, J., writing for the Court))
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
- "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
So fix the courts by fixing the tax law:
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
17% was tossed around earlier on the thread. I just used it to illustrate the power of making taxation more visible. If the real rate would be 23%, or higher, I think all the more reason to publicize it.
Here's how tax rates come out for the Armey/Shelby Flat Tax, a flat individual/corporate income tax, leaving all SS/Medicare, Federal Unemployment, excise taxes and tariffs in place and unchanged.
http://www.library.unt.edu/govinfo/subject/vital.html
- "The chart below shows a hypothetical set of flat tax rates and allowances that would result in revenue neutrality. This model, produced by the Congressional Budget Office shows that all federal income tax revenues could be fully replaced by a system with a flat tax rate of 13.1 percent and no deductions. Allowing total deductions for a family of four to reach $36,800 (more than double the amount allowed in 1995) would require a 19.9 percent rate."
Joint Economic Committee
Revenue Neutral Tax Rates for Alternative Allowances and Exemptions Under a Flat Tax Standard Allowances Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Single $13,100 $13,100 $ 6,550 $ 6,550 $0 Joint $26,200 $26,200 $13,100 $13,100 $0 Head of Household $17,200 $17,200 $ 8,600 $ 8,600 $0 Dependent Exemption $ 5,300 $ 2,650 $ 5,300 $ 2,650 $0 Revenue Neutral Tax Rate 19.9% 19.4% 16.8% 16.3% 13.1% Source: Congressional Budget Office, 1995.
Under the Armey "flat" tax, as it is currently proposed,(HR1040 introduced 3/15/2001) a single person would pay:
7.65% ---- 7.65%(SS/Medicare) tax on wages/salary income below $13,600,
26.65% --- 19% + 7.65%(SS/Medicare) tax on wages/salary and other taxable income from $13,600-$75,000
20.45% --- 19% + 1.45% Medicare tax on wages/salaries and other taxable income from $75,001 up.
0% -------- on savings & bond income and stock dividends.
And that single person's business/employer pays,
19% ------ on earnings (Gross Receipts less allowed business deductions, exemptions and credits)
13.65% ---- 7.65% on SS/Medicare employment excises + 6% federally mandated unemployement excises levied on each employee's on wages up to $80,000.
7.45% ----- 1.45% on Medicare employment excises + 6% federally mandated unemployement excises levied on each employee's wages greater than $80,000.
Plus additional selective excises and tariffs dependant upon the nature of business engaged in.
Note: The base "Flat Tax Rate" is subject to meet revenue neutrality requirements under the Budget Enforcement act. The 19% rate stated in the Armey/Shelby Flat Tax proposal does not meet these requirements at the exemption levels stated and would of necessity be adjusted upwards, and/or personal exemptions and business deductions be reduced to meet revenue neutrality criteria for enactment.
inquest #375: So if we have to pick a tax, why not go with one whose primary effect will be to protect national sovereignty?
I notice you never did actually answer my point as regards being dependant up a tariff for government revenues:
Geezer #376: How does becoming dependant upon tariffs as a source of tax revenue protect national sovereignty?
A nation looses sovereignty in direct relation to a countries dependancy upon other governments for tax revenue.
Putting aside the fact a tariff alone could never answer the revenue needs of the nation in the modern economy.
Imports make up one ninth of the of the total national economy, and we collect only $20 Billion of a $2 Trillion federal budget in tariffs. (0.1% of total federal funds)
Political interference as regards to trade, comes predominately from Exports, not imports. The problem is taxing exports to remove the influence of foreign trade are expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
In principle a tax is not necessary to shut down foreign trade to avoid the objectionable influence over sovereignty you feel it has.
Foreign trade could simply be prohibited by statute under the commerce clause, and meet your expressed intent to limit the loss of soverignty claimed.
Goal accomplished, no dependancy on foreign governments for tax revenues. Of course there is the little problem with loss of export and import industries to deal with but what the heck.
Well, I'll answer it now by saying that if we continue getting most of our revenue from internal sources, then we wouldn't be dependent upon tariffs for revenue. And to the extent that we are, our dependency will not be on any one government, but on maintaining good general trading relations with the outside world.
Political interference as regards to trade, comes predominately from Exports, not imports.
Could you elaborate on this?
Foreign trade could simply be prohibited by statute under the commerce clause, and meet your expressed intent to limit the loss of soverignty claimed.
There's no need to be extremist about it. Trade certainly has its benefits, and not only economic benefits either. But without any kind of firewalls, our economic affairs could be in danger of manipulation by foreign governments, particularly from those countries that don't have as clear a distinction between the private and public sectors as ours does.
Political interference as regards to trade, comes predominately from Exports, not imports.
Could you elaborate on this?
Many nations we trade with maintain tight regulation over our exports to them (Japan and China being very good examples) regardless of the state of their export trade to us. Their internal economic and political concerns are of greater importance to them than selling something to the U.S..
Domestic companies desiring to trade in those nations press on the Congress Critters & State department for favorable concessions to establish or enhance those foreign markets for our goods and services. To establish that export trade with other nations we inevitably end up giving in to one or more political concessions to foreign governments trying to accomodate our businesses giving rise to our perceived loss of soverignty.
We are not dependant any more upon imports to maintain our economy than foreign nations are depedant upon our exports.
Imports merely need to maintain low prices(low labor costs) to aquire access to our markets. Add a tariff to those imports, just means lower wages to a third world laborer if he gets a wage at all, meaningless to a foreign government that is not dependant on the good graces of its population to maintain power, a laborer in such a country is just another expendable resource to sell for whatever the market will bear. If a such a nation fails to sell resources or goods to us, they simply look elswhere or tighten the belts of their populations (NK and Iraq for the extreme examples) but political concessions of concequence to us are never on the table for anything more than lipservice. (Note the lack of effect of boycotts and sanctions in third world politics.)
But without any kind of firewalls,
The firewall is called Commerce Clause:
Constitution, Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Taxes are expressly for revenue not control, regulation, or gaining political concessions:
Constitution, Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Nor are they particularly effective in achieving a desired result where foreign politics are concerned since they can only be laid upon our own populace under the constitution.
Constitution, Article I Section 9: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
our economic affairs could be in danger of manipulation by foreign governments, particularly from those countries that don't have as clear a distinction between the private and public sectors as ours does.
Only when our own demand more than the foreign government is willing grant. It's called leverage. Congress Critters & Presidents respond to the demands of the electorate and businesses that maintain them in there chosen profession. Foreign governments have no votes nor do they sway the electorate of this country. The electorate and our own businesses on the other hand do.
The two rules on which representative government swings:
In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-Voltaire (1764)
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Note that "foreign government" is not a part of either equation.
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.