Posted on 04/22/2003 10:40:02 AM PDT by sheltonmac
There is an important distinction to be made concerning a "national sales tax" as proposed to replace current taxation, and the method of taxing consumption as intended by the Founding Fathers. A national sales tax would give Congress an across the board percentage of our economy by laying an internal tax, whether such revenue is needed or not. The Founder's method of taxing consumption began with an external tax on imports at our water's edge, and was extended to reach internal consumption only if external taxation were found insufficient.
It is important to study our nation's first revenue raising Act to understand the wisdom of the Framers. The Act was "... in a certain sense a second Declaration of independence; and by a coincidence which could not have been more striking or significant, it was approved by President Washington on the fourth day of July, 1789." [See, Twenty Years of Congress, James G. Blaine, 1884, Vol. 1, page 185]
Madison, in discussing this Act before Congress, clearly pointed out a very important principal of American's original tax reform package:
"...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents."
The Act imposed taxes, not on American constituents, but on "goods wares and merchandise" imported into our Country by foreign nations, and not one dime was raised under the Act by any internal taxes. Internal taxes were frowned upon by the Founder's especially when a national revenue could be had by requiring foreign nations to pay for the privilege of doing business on American's soil!
Jefferson, in his Second Annual Message (December 15, 1802) states:
"In the department of finance it is with pleasure I inform you that the receipts of external duties for the last twelve months have exceeded those of any former year, and that the ratio of increase has been also greater than usual. This has enabled us to answer all the regular exigencies of government, to pay from the treasury in one year upward of eight millions of dollars, principal and interest, of the public debt, exclusive of upward of one million paid by the sale of bank stock, and making in the whole a reduction of nearly five millions and a half of principal; and to have now in the treasury four millions and a half of dollars, which are in a course of application to a further discharge of debt and current demands."
Imagine...all this in consequence of "external duties!"
In Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1805), he points out:
"At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them, and because, if they had any merit, the state authorities might adopt them, instead of others less approved."
"The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, "what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States?"
The national sales tax idea would do ill to our nation as it is an internal system of taxation which ultimately increases the cost of goods manufactured on American soil; burdens the American Citizen in its collection; and, is to be paid BY the farmer, mechanic, laborer, etc. who will continue to see the intrusion of the "tax gatherer of the United States" if such a system is adopted!
It is also important to note how imposts and duties (external taxation) were successfully used to encourage domestic manufacturing and assist in building a strong industrial base. The first revenue raising Act imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports shipped in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:
"a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof."
This skillful use of external taxation gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's merchant marine becoming the most powerful on the face of the planet. In addition, our national treasury was filled by foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on American soil.
But this was when members of Congress, and those running for Office, put American interests first and would have considered NAFTA, GATT and the WTO as acts of sedition, and would have tarred and feathered those promoting such surrender of America's sovereignty.
A national sales tax plan which omits external taxation as a principal source to fill our national treasury, is in fact a surrender of national sovereignty to the advantage of foreign interests!
It is quite obvious the American People are fed up with the manner in which Congress now raises its revenue, and the system will be changed...one way or another. But if income taxation is abandoned and the Founders original tax plan is returned to, including the use of impost and duties at our water's edge as a principal means to fill our national treasury, a powerful group of international financiers and investors will have their gravy train cut off. Perhaps that is why a flat tax along with a national sales tax has been offered as "tax reform" by the establishment ... each proposal cleverly perpetuates a burdensome system of internal taxation as the principal means to raise revenue, and leaves the international gravy train in tact by not resorting to external taxation to meet the expenses of Congress as was intended by the Founders!
In closing, many of the same people who promoted the NAFTA, GATT and the WTO (the free trade crowd) are now promoting various forms of tax reform ... each proposal cleverly maintaining internal taxation as a principal means to raise a national revenue. Let us continually keep in mind the important distinction between internal and external taxation while working toward the elimination of income taxation and strive to return to the Founding Father's original tax reform package which provided the means allowing America to become the economic envy of the world.
Well, then, we have a conflict between state sales tax (rent is taxable) and the NRST. Gosh more bookkeeping shenanigans! Similarly states rarely tax services or advertising and the NRST would. Oh, what a nightmare!
Not actually as states are encouraged to conform their state tax structures to be similar except for rate to the proposed NRST.
Those states that elect to conform their sales tax system to the NRST standard, will be allowed to adminster and collect the NRST along with their own state retail sales tax by simply adding the rates together and charging a single unified retail tax, sending the federal portion to the U.S. treasury, and retaining their portion of the unified tax.
The advantage to the states who do so is a less complex tax system to administer and the state is paid by the US government for admistering the the NRST tax. Since the two tax systems are one within the states that conform, the states cost against it's budget for tax adminstration is fully recovered from the federal administrative payment to them.
A consequence of conforming state sales tax to an NRST structure in most states would be the ability to reduce their sales tax rate because the NRST has a broader tax base with no retail exceptions than what currently exists in most state sales tax structures.
The additional step of repealing state income taxes and going to a retail sales tax only system is a very short step for them from there.
Testimony of Texas State Comptroller office in regard to their estimation of the impact of the FairTax proposal on the State of Texas, the feasibility of conforming to the NRST structure and administration of the NRST along with their own tax system:
April 11, 2000, Billy Hamilton, Deputy Comptroller, Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, on behalf of Honorable Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas State Comptroller of Public Accounts
Just keep posting the same old misinformation, surely at some point people will start to believe you.
Just keep making unfounded bare assertions and personal opinion without documentary substantiation and you will continue to be shown up for the disinformation artist and bullsh'tter that you are.
Yes, the old 'it's voluntary - no one has to do it' - you just get to pay more taxes than anyone else if you choose not to check in with the government each month and not to take their rebate - thus becoming someone who expects and begins to depend on a government check. That really sounds like freedom to me. You are free to get the money as soon as you conform and 'be sure your papers are in order' each month.
Look to the necessity of enacting a constitutional amendment to repeal the inalienable right to life so it can be taxed. I don't think I will be in there fighting for that one with you.
Boy now that is a stretch isn't it? If I think it would be fair for everyone to pay 10% on the thingsl they purchase and not have to check in with the government and receive a check each month from them - I am trying to tax their very existance? Boy, that is really, really going some. I you say I am getting worked up!! I don't think there is anyone in this country that will starve because there is a 10% tax on things - no one.
Why are you so determined to keep this on there? Why are you using something so farfeched as to say I want to tax a person literally to death?
But now, haven't you been telling me that when this goes into effect all income tax will be gone and the prices of products will go down enough to make up for the 25 to 30% sales tax. Now if we only have a 10% sales tax - wouldn't everyone have a 15 to 20% reduction in the purchase price of goods? You can't have it both ways. If prices will go down as much as the tax you are advocating - then it would certainly go down as much as I am advocating and there would actually be a savings. And the best part - no checking in - no filing for money - and no dependence on the government.
Your very insistance that it be a part of it doesn't make me feel any better about it.
Now you are telling me that the rebate is for the ones who can least afford the taxes - why, then, will everyone be involved? You see, some things just make no sense.
Prices will come down to equal an additonal 25 to 30% tax with a rebate - but they wouldn't come down to a 10 to 15% level (leaving a reduction in prices) by your calculations. NOw explain that.
This is for those whose very existance will be snuffed out if they had to pay 25 to 30% sales tax - yet everyone will receive it? Explain that to me.
I don't buy the theory that prices will go down - but if they go down 25 to 30% - then a 10 to 15% percent tax would actully be a savings for everyone - everyone would share equally. See, no children or old people starving - they actually are getting more for their money.
Now I want to ask you a question and I really would like you to answer me honestly - if you knew, without a doubt, that this tax would, in fact, create this mindset (a sense of dependence on the government for future generations) - would you still support it?
Yes, the old 'it's voluntary - no one has to do it' - you just get to pay more taxes than anyone else if you choose not to check in with the government each month and not to take their rebate - thus becoming someone who expects and begins to depend on a government check. That really sounds like freedom to me.
Then your claims for desire for freedom and privacy from the national government not knowing where you live is not worth much to you are they.
The average person now pays 24.2% in total federal taxes, all of them are reflected in the current price of goods and service making up the total payment for them.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0
Effective Total Federal Tax Rate (Percent of reported income) Income Category 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Projected
1999All Families 22.8 23.4 23.5 21.4 21.8 22.6 22.5 22.6 23.5 24.7 24.2 Data from IRS collections statistics and The Bureau of Economic Analysis as compiled in tabular form by the Congressional Budget Office.
Foregoing the FCA, is giving up nothing whatsoever, just what would be additional money that you would otherwise not have under the current system.
You would still get you full gross paycheck as opposed to your current takehome (aftertax) income. You would pay the same total price for goods and services with the NRST included as you do now under the income/payroll systemwith tax embedded instead of being detailed on a receipt.
Not requesting the FCA still leaves you in better condition than the current system. Not requesting leaves you totally free from letting the government know where you live so it can pay you.
Since you express such concern over your privacy in not letting the federal government know where you can receive a check, I presume you forego any SS and Medicare benefits or any other federal program as well.
? If I think it would be fair for everyone to pay 10% on the things they purchase
What tax system under consideration by the Congress replaces the current income/payroll taxes with a 10% tax on things they purchase?
If government taxes what is required for survival, it taxes life regardless of the rate. That's simply a statement of the obvious.
and not have to check in with the government and receive a check each month from them
Not a requiement of the NRST at all, its your choice to request the check or not. To not request the check allows to actually come out in better position than the current income/payroll tax does.
Why are you so determined to keep this on there?
I realize that no tax system or reform going to ever be enacted without a mechanism to provide a base exemption for povertylevel expenditure of some sort.
Exempting a list of specific goods and services is nothing more than a invitation for special interests to play the same games of tax the other guy's goodies not mine played in the current system.
Demanding folks to provide info for a means tested system of rebates for actual expenditures is worst,
That is why the FCA has been selected as a better alternative of the possibilities. It maintains the least intrusion into financial privacy of the family, least opportunity to opening the gates for political manipulation and complexity that is the nemisis to all income & VAT systems, and it still provides the exemption for base survival demand by the public in any politically viable tax system.
Why are you using something so farfeched as to say I want to tax a person literally to death?
I didn't say that at all, I just said a tax on survival level of expenditure is a tax on life. (i.e. a tax on an unalienable right per the Declaration of Independence.)
But now, haven't you been telling me that when this goes into effect all income tax will be gone and the prices of products will go down enough to make up for the 25 to 30% sales tax. Now if we only have a 10% sales tax - wouldn't everyone have a 15 to 20% reduction in the purchase price of goods?
"Revenue Neutrality" is the requirement of the Budget enforcement act. You are welcome to try to try to get a bill on the floor of Congress without out that if you wish. Good luck.
23%........... Effective total federal tax rate with respect to consumption expenditure
14.91% ..... rate if Social Security and Medicare were eliminated
14% .......... rate if Nat'l Endowment for the Arts were eliminated
11.9%........ rate if Dept. of Education were eliminated
10% .......... rate if welfare were eliminated
9.8%.......... rate if foreign aid were eliminated
etc.
So lets look at what the maximum it would take to fund those functions clearly authorized under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, in current dollars:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html#Spending
- $285 Billion --- Defense
- $ 49 Billion ---- Veterens Services
- $ 31 Billion ---- Administration of Justice
- $ 16 Billion ---- General Government
- $199 Billion ---- Interest on the Debt
=========================
$580 Billion ---- Total
Institute an across the board, Flat rate, single stage National Retail Sales Tax, which taxes all imports and domestic products with the same rate.
Replacing present all current federal tax law with a retail sales tax would be 23% on new goods and services paid and receipted at the retail register. No hidden tax, no exceptions, exemptions everyone participates.
Such a tax acts in a natural manner to encourage the elimination of excess government functions through visibility of burden among all constituencies of the electorate.
The total federal government budget would move from $2,000 billions towards something less than $580 billions calculated.
The across the board federal tax rate on new goods and services would decline towards less than 6.7%.
As tax rate on sales decreases the economic burden on retail items, the sales volumes and growth in the economy would be tremendous allowing even further reductions in tax rates below that less than 6.7% theoretic level.
That is what I perceive as the ultimate achievements possible under a National Retail Sales Tax structured in the manner of the revenue bill H.R.25. Simple common sense applied to the principal of TANSTAAFEL,( no free lunch, everyone participates in paying there way in proportion to the benefit the extract from their consumption.) encourages the natural change in attitudes required of the electorate as regards the burden of government largess in their lives.
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income
Hmmmmmm....... It's do able, with time and effort, once the blinders are removed from the electorate with the NRST as proposed.
You are welcome to try to achieve that 10% if you like without the NRST as proposed first. Others attempts to reduce the federal proclivity for spending money hasn't got very far so far without the visibility of the true tax burden on everyone the NRST provides.
What kind of competition will they have they don't have now? I don't understand. So you really think that because they no longer have to pay taxes - they will drop the prices 25 to 30% - I don't think so.
I was just quoting the outrageous prices - but I used to buy a certain brand of jeans at a department store for 9.98, made in America. I now buy those same jeans (not as good a quality) made in China at Wal-Mart for 15.00.
Now I have given you everyday examples of things - and you have countered with economics - ese of the way things out to be. I want to deal with the way things are. Right now manufacturers overseas are getting a great bargain with not only no payroll taxes - but no OSHA, environmental of any kind, no safety, no quotas, etc. and no reduction in prices. Manufacturers here are getting a great bargain in taxpayer subsidized, non taxed employees and no reduction.
Don't quote me from what should happen - I want to work from what is happening and why your premise isn't already working to some extent.
Now you are attempting to be insulting - but you see I do know about agribusiness - I do. I know that illegals work not only as chick pluckers, but in every phase of this from feeding to packaging to transportation to billing, etc. I know that in the construction business they work at everything from the concrete work of the slab, framing, dry wall, plumbing, electrical, plumbing, painting, brick layer, roofing and so far it hasn't produced the savings you think no taxes will produce. Let's work with that. I don't quote from economic professors - I deal with reality and what is happening. I want to know if eliminating the payroll taxes ( which I find very appealing) is suppose to bring such benefits and savings - why it hasn't in the industries that is heavily into illegals who pay no tax. I realize labor isn't everything - but it is a big part of those industries and it hasn't produced some appreciable savings to the public - why? Keep in mind now, that payroll taxes have been eliminated for a significant portion of the labor force in these industries - but it hasn't been replaced with another tax - and no savings - why? If we had the answer to that why - maybe we could see if replacing the taxes will do the job?
And in exchange for a maybe and should - we are going to put everyone at the mercy of the federal government in order to get their rebate. We are going to make everyone and future generations belly up to the federal trough if we don't want to be drowned in taxes.
Now if that rebates represents the very life of the poor - don't you think it is a little represensible that what you are advocating demands they 'fill out forms' each month in order to be given their very life. It really is a little ludicrous, don't you think?
Now I do believe with all my heart this 'making sure our papers are in order' so we can get our monthly check will most certainly produce a mindset in the American public to accept that the government is necessary to our survival - much as welfare and SS has done for many. Now I ask you - if you knew for sure that would happen. If you knew for sure every future generation would begin to look to the government for sustenance - would you still support it?
That was my suggestion of a figure, sans rebate, to replace teh 23 to 30% with rebate - why wouldn't it work?
If government taxes what is required for survival, it taxes life regardless of the rate. That's simply a statement of the obvious.
But you see with this rebate, it won't tax that what is needed for survival - it will be forcing Americans to each and every month 'check in with their government' in order to have the necessary survival funds. Doesn't that bother you? It does me. I don't know what it wouldn't bother anyone who really treasures their freedom and the hope of freedom for future generations.
and not have to check in with the government and receive a check each month from them Not a requiement of the NRST at all, its your choice to request the check or not. To not request the check allows to actually come out in better position than the current income/payroll tax does.
Of course not, it is strictly voluntary - you just pay more taxes. Do you really like that attitude. Do you really think an American should be taxed more because he doesn't want to 'check with the principal' each month and be sure he gets his monthly largesse from the big guys. Yeah, I am getting a little worked up. I cannot believe that any, any freedom-loving American would even consider a program that demanded month registration of each family in this country. That is just mind-boggling. There is not enough money in this country for me to suggest that should be done to my fellow countryment.
I will confess to you that I have no idea what all that economics jargon is - I want to talk everyday words and the effect on the people and economy of this country in a real way.
Now I do see how this credit came about. It is an attempt to stave off the welfare groups and their politicians and an attempt to keep politicians from 'encouraging' monies to first one of their pet projects and then another with tax exemptions. I see the reasoning - there's no flies on me - I grasped that immediately. Then, however, what I grasped was that by catering to this group who just might be 'checking in each month to receive their check' anyway - we will just make everyone in America 'check in'. WE will all be welfare recipients - that is some improvement - for a socialist government - not for a free society.
Have I said I will pony up and register? I am saying that you and the ones advocating this are forcing Americans to either give up their freedom or their money. How is that an improvement? Now we only have to do it once a year - you want us to have to do it each month so we are constantly in touch with our provider. Surely you see that - you do.
Since you express such concern over your privacy in not letting the federal government know where you can receive a check, I presume you forego any SS and Medicare benefits or any other federal program as well.
I love it when someone proves my point. You see the unintended, although I think intended consequences of SS and medicare is that older people, for the most part, have become - some out of necessity - some out of laziness dependent on that monthly check - therefore they make sure it comes to the right address. Although, it does not necessitate that the recipients 'keep their papers in order each month' to receive those monies. So you have made my point for me - by receiving government checks, you have made the elderly dependent on the government, as are the ones receiving welfare, etc. Is that what you envision for the America's future? I love it when someone makes my point for me.
What kind of competition will they have they don't have now? I don't understand.
The same competition that has always existed, for the consumer dollar applied to consumer purchases.
Prices are a function of consumer demand, supply of goods and consumer dollars available for allocation to individal goods in accord with the consumers desires.
For the total payment on any specific product to advance, the consumer has to give up something else to apply to the purchase. Those businesses willing to accomodate unchanged total payment that market conditions have already stablized will receive the business. Those that attempt to capitalize on the situation by trying to add NRST to their pre-NRST shelf price and take a windfall profit will lose their business and fold.
So you really think that because they no longer have to pay taxes - they will drop the prices 25 to 30% - I don't think so.
20-23% is my determination on the basis of published data and economic research. Your guesses on the matter mean little.
I want to work from what is happening and why your premise isn't already working to some extent.
The premise is already at work, the current total payment for any specific good or service is set by market equilibrium of supply of goods and consumer demand as it currently exists. That market equalibrium does not change just because we change the form of taxation. Same dollars available chasing the same goods ensures the same total payment (tax + shelf price) before and after the NRST.
And in exchange for a maybe and should - we are going to put everyone at the mercy of the federal government in order to get their rebate. We are going to make everyone and future generations belly up to the federal trough if we don't want to be drowned in taxes.
Show me your data. Show me how you are required to request this payment or give government anymore than it already knows about you from you particpation in current tax systems and government programs now in existence.
don't you think it is a little represensible that what you are advocating demands they 'fill out forms' each month in order to be given their very life.
Would be if that were true, however the only "forms" filled out is the one to tell the Social Security Administration where you receive your check identifying you with the social security numbers of the legal residents in your family for which you make your request. That is done once a year. If you don't want the check for not identifying yourself to make the claim, don't request the FCA. You will still be better off than under the current or even any of the flat tax proposals.
Your choice, do whatever you will. Course I do wonder how you don't let the government know the same information and more now or under any other tax or individual benefit program in existence.
Now I ask you - if you knew for sure that would happen. If you knew for sure every future generation would begin to look to the government for sustenance - would you still support it?
Since I know there will be no NRST or any other tax reform without that potential, and the same information and more is already available to the government under the current system and any other viable proposal out there. Yes I do support it.
And since do know for sure your worst fears of exposure to govenment knowing where to send a tax refund or social security check to you already is already in place. I worry not at all about it.
Even if it means that future generations of Americans will become addicted to the government hand outs by this tax - you are still willing to do it?
Now most only deal once a year with the government on our taxes - and sometimes it is one way. Under your plan, everyone will be up close and personal each and every month of their life with the federal government. Is it worth it? I don't think so - there has to be a better way.
But if this is passed it will only be because the politicians feel putting us all on a leash is more attractive to them than the monies they make deliverying goodies to their contributors.
Yes, I am familar with the Un-earned income tax credit - but right now not every American gets that and it is only done on a yearly basis, not monthly. But don't ever, don't ever think people are not addicted to that already.
Just don't tell the government where to send that check when it comes due for you. No problem, your choice.
So in return for a savings on taxes - you are willing to forced each and every American family, each and every month, to 'file with the government' in order to receive monies back.
Please show us where this bill forces you "each and every month, to 'file with the government' " much less "in order to receive monies back."
I guarantee you will not find it. click here and begin your search ---> [ H.R.25 ].
I await your reply.
Heck it is illegal for them to be here in the first place - but they are here. That is a little naive thinking. What I have seen where illegals are hired is they usually have a fake SS card and payroll and workers comp are paid...true they may work for less dollars per hour, but the taxes are still withheld...
Where I see them work, they work as contract labors - sure they show an ID, but that is just something to write down - the employer sends out a 1099 at the end of the year and it is the resposibility for the employee to pay self-employment taxes and income taxes and we know they are all going to do that right - especially when they are working on a fake ID that probably belongs to Granny Jablonski in NEwark? Many of these illegals work through temp agencies and are worked as contract labor - and many, many simply get paid cash under the table.
Now if they do file a return, they get back everything they pay in plus the un-earned income tax credit.
Believe me it is happening. IF employees had to provide everything for the illegals they do for Americans - why would they hire illegals?
I really don't know if you are that naive or if you are just trying to make an argument. If you are naive, let me tell you that you are just that, naive.
Now the savings occurs when they do not have to pay workman's comp, healthcare costs, matching SS or anything else. They just write a check period - for the total amount they have worked and they work them for less than they would an American citizen - so surely you can see where that is a savings to them. No matching taxes, no workman's comp, no bookkeeping, no reponsibility, and cheap wages - what's not to like.
The no payroll tax is not just my idea - it is a fact that even the government is finally admitting.
But 'they wouldn't work illegals and not collect taxes - that is illegal' - think about that statement. The illegals are illegal, working them is illegal. Working someone as contract labor is far from illegal - my husband has worked essentially as contract labor for the last 15 years. Manpower agencies provide contract labor for factories, trucking companies, the little guy who throws the trash for the garbage company. I once knew a man who had worked for a garbage service for 6 years and was still considered a 'casual', or contract labor through a manpower agency.
So once again, if you naive, I will give you a pass - if not - shame on you.
Yes, I am familar with the Un-earned income tax credit - but right now not every American gets that and it is only done on a yearly basis, not monthly.
Ah to the contrary, the EITC payment can be applied to montly tax witholding at one's request.
And the NRST FCA, requires even less information, with its optional annual confirmation of ones mailing address for legal residents having social security qualification only.
Once you privatize the social security system, the FCA can disappear as well as the tax rate will be so low as to make FCA meaningless.
So get to work on that goal as I do and no more reporting of where to send checks , FCA SS Medicare and Tax refujnds all at once, with an NRST tax rate of 14.91% to boot.
Get busy lady, let's privatize the Social Security/Medicare programs. And do away with all need to tell the government where to send checks for lack of public interest in such nonsense.
Until then you will just have to forego asking for money back from the feds to preserve your valued mailing address from the government.
But SS is really not a good example - it makes my point rather than refutes it. I remember when the elderly in this country were a fiercely independent bunch of people - they didn't worry month to month, year to year, election to election if the federal government was going to cut off their checks - because the either didn't get one or they hadn't become dependent on it. Things have changed haven't they? I don't believe we have had an election in the last 40 years that the democrats haven't told the elderly they will be put in the streets if they vote Republican - is that the mindset you want for all Americans? I don't - there must be a better way - I want less dependence on the government - not more.
I remember when the black people were independent, dignified, self-sufficient - in walks the government and 'gives' them something - some blacks still have that dignity and independence - but sadly we have seen what has become of them and of course anyone who takes welfare - I just think it harmed the black race worse -
Again, don't just fluff it aside - look at those two examples and ask yourself if there is just the slightest possibility what you are advocating will do that to the entire nation? If you think so and still want it - then a better country is not the aim here.
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.