Posted on 02/10/2004 10:06:34 AM PST by ancient_geezer
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/duke/2004/duke020904.htm
|
A Foolproof Tax Plan Former Chief Justice John Marshall once said, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” And boy, was he right. Confiscate enough of people’s wealth and you’ve turned them into veritable serfs toiling dawn till dusk just to keep their heads above water. We’re not yet serfs in this society, but we’re getting closer all the time. As of now, the government takes 30-60% of our income and this translates into working until May of every year for Uncle Sam – and our hours are getting longer. You see, every year the government grows, and what does this mean? It means it creates new programs and programs require money to administer. It means that every year it creates new laws, regulations and mandates, and the bureaucracies which are necessary to enforce them require money to operate. But not just money – LOTS of money. Money is the lifeblood of government; it is what keeps the heart of the big government beast beating, and this growing boy needs lots of transfusions. Distressing as it is that this government vampire is sucking us dry through an open wound, more distressing still is the salt that is thrown into it. What is this? It’s the fact that after forcibly extracting an exorbitant amount of our resources from us, the government then uses our own money to tyrannize us. After all, the laws, regulations and mandates that our booty is used to enforce take away our freedoms. Statist Karl Marx said, “When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.” I’d say that the spirit of Marx lives on in the statists in Washington and they are hanging us, and we’ve given them the rope. Unfortunately, the problem can only get worse because the tax system we now have is fatally flawed, as it ensures constant movement towards higher taxes and bigger government. But there is a way to put this government beast on a diet and get him in shape, and then put him in the cage that used to be his home. The solution is a simple, three-pronged tax plan that would strike fear into the hearts of the Washington pickpockets, and here it is. 1. Create a law stating that there must be national referenda on ALL tax increases. What this means is that every time a politician proposed a tax increase, it would have to go up for a vote of the people. A radical idea, I know, but it would actually have to be passed by a majority of those whose money would be taken before it could go into effect. I would prefer to make a 2/3rds majority the necessary margin, but if the country wouldn’t find this idea palatable I’d settle for a simple majority. We could decide this as a nation. What this would do, though, is truly put power back in the hands of the people. And that’s what it’s all about. After all, who should have control over OUR money? Not some politician who’s willing to sell his soul and use a half a billion dollars of our money to buy another 10,000 votes. Not some special interest lobbying group that can make limp-wristed politicians’ knees shake and cause them to funnel a billion of our dollars to its pet cause. We should. It’s the fruits of OUR labors and before one thin dime of it is taken, OUR permission should have to be granted. 2. Create a law stating that there may only be ONE form of federal taxation. This measure would serve to achieve a very important goal, which is the elimination of the multitude of hidden takes that now exist. There are taxes on virtually everything: plane tickets, phone bills, gasoline, and a long list of others that almost no one is even aware of. Politicians love these hidden taxes. This is because raising taxes isn’t popular and Mr. Sneaky Politician knows that if people are aware of his raising of them, he might have to incur the wrath of the voter at election time. So you see, hidden taxes allow these weasels to raise taxes with impunity; the action never makes it onto the radar screen, so the offending politicians’ careers won’t be shot down. The first measure [national referenda] alone would put an end to this skullduggery, because if politicians wanted to attempt to raise taxes they would have to do it in the light of day. The voters would be aware of it, and then they could make informed decisions in the voting booth and hold shameless politicians accountable for their actions. However, we should simply dispense with these phantom taxes altogether because they ensure that most people won’t be fully aware of how great a tax burden they’re carrying. If we eliminated hidden taxes, the true degree of taxation would be starkly apparent to everyone. 3. Make that one form of taxation a national sales tax. Think about it: if you approached someone on the street and asked him how much he earned per year, what would the probable response be? Most of us know: he would refuse to answer and state that it was personal information – he would say in essence “none of your business.” Yet, when people operating within the context of the government agency called the IRS ask us the very same question, we obediently provide that information and much, much more. We not only tell them how much we make but also how we make it, what we spent much of it on, and whatever other details our feudal lords require us to divulge. The truth is that we should tell those in government the same thing we’d be told on the street: none of your business – because it isn’t their business. The income tax as it is now constituted is coercively intrusive and therefore is an affront to the principles of freedom. Another positive benefit of eliminating the income tax is that the withholding tax would also become a thing of the past. Established in 1943 to help finance WW II [it ended, didn’t it?], this tax serves a similar purpose to that of hidden taxes, in that it diminishes people’s awareness of and resistance to taxation. Politicians know this; they know that this incremental, stealthy removal of resources changes people’s perspective because they never have possession of this withheld money – they never see it. It’s “out of sight out of mind.” Consequently, not only don’t most people protest this excessive confiscation of their wealth, but many are actually happy when they get their refund checks from this robber baron government. But, you can rest assured, if Americans instead had to write the government a large, one lump sum check on April 15th, their tune would change markedly. A little sidenote here: the income tax is also contrary to the original intent of the founders of this nation and was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at the end of the 19th century. Only the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, legalized this un-American practice and made it a fixture in the American landscape. Now, contrast a national sales tax model with the sad state of affairs outlined above. You wouldn’t have any complicated tax forms to fill out, nor would you have to negotiate the IRS’ labyrinthine trove of rules. You wouldn’t have to spend money on tax preparers, keep detailed books for your business, or account for every thin dime you make. And it would give you greater control over your finances because Uncle Sam wouldn’t see one penny of your income until YOU decided to spend it. Lastly, a national sales tax would be naturally progressive because wealthier people who buy bigger ticket items would pay more in taxes just as a matter of course . Politicians wouldn’t like this plan because it robs them of power and control over our lives. But we should have this power and control because we should be free people – not subjects. It’s time to say “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,” and demand that this plan become part of the fabric of our government. We should remember that money is not just paper - it represents resources. The ability to feed and clothe our families, to obtain health care, to get a good education and a million other things – it represents the worldly dreams and aspirations of ourselves and our children. And yes, the power to tax IS the power to destroy, and the power to tax highly is the power to destroy mightily. This is why the people must control this power – not the political elitists. It’s time to cut the blood supply and slay this big government dragon and truly make ours, as Lincoln said, “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Selwyn Duke |
Just in case yah need sump'n to distract you.
Herman Cain for United States Senate, state of Georgia 2004 and
Vernon Robinson running for North Carolina's 5th Congressional District
That have announced their support for replacing the federal income tax with a national retail sales tax.
Get enough of these folks and folks like them elected & re-elected. And the NRST will be in our future.
He is ON TARGET with this article for sure!
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 TANSTAFFEL,( 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.
Dunno! Perhaps because it make PERFECT sense maybe! ;>)
The VAT is hidden, and insidious.
Bad idea.
One tax, at the retail level, that is totally visible.
And under the FairTax, the burden of regulation will be utterly removed from nonprofits, and all of the destructive and liberty-robbing game-playing will come to its rightful end.
Merge the two competing ideas for the national sales tax and the national VAT tax.
A VAT is the antithesis of a Retail Sales Tax, one justification of having a retail tax is to assure visibility, which a VAT tends to prevent.
A VAT is not a great idea, why would you want to tax the same things twice? and why hide the taxes that consumers ultimately pay by embedding them in retail prices?
How can anyone exercise that "Eternal Vigilance" necessary to keep government in check. That is part of the problem with income taxes + business taxes that we have. Much of the tax burden is hidden from view and is why:
70% of the voting public clamors for more from government expecting someone else to foot the bill and why over 60% of the voters PERCEIVE no problem with the taxrates and vote for polidiots that promise to bring home the most bacon
The problem with a national sales tax is that some of us who have been working for over 3 decades have managed to save in POST tax savings accounts; upon retirement when we want to use some of that ALREADY TAXED MONEY we would have to pay another tax on top of the first one. I do not support a national sales tax. A single rate flat income tax would be preferable. However, NO tax would be better still.
I propose that we limit the terms of the legislatures; make the bastards get a real job for six months out of the year. Less legislative time, less expense. Its as simple as that.
There is, in the end, only one real way to reverse the trend of ever-growing government power and authority: and I am afraid that it is not a very pleasent one. Half-hearted attempts to get the very criminals in government who are stealing the lifeblood of the nation to change is folly. They like the power and they are addicted to the money. On top of that, we have all been co-opted into the system because of our "contributions" to Social Security and Medicare. And there is a growing cadre of those who are total wards of the state and who have become so because of 60 years of the growing Welfare State. An end to welfare? Fat chance.
No tax on exports.
A Retail Sales Tax does not tax exports (unlike the income/payroll tax scheme of today that embedds taxes into the pricing of goods and services).
No exemption for non-profits, such as churches, foundations, etc.
All tax exemption status does is make contributions declarible as deductions in computing income and provide a hook to control such entities.
No income to compute, no deductions under a retail sales tax. No hook for control.
Most other trading partners are disadvantaging US companies in this manner.
True,
Our policies should be reciprocal.
Doesn't mean they should be identical, just border adjustable.
Exports are not a retail item, they are business activities not taxed under a "retail" sales tax.
Under a retail sales tax, no crediting for a VAT is required, the border adjustment is automatic by virtue of never having taxed an export at any production level in the first place.
OTOH, all consumer goods(which includes the any import material that went into them) are automatically hit with a retail sales tax when sold. Thus all imports are hit with the same tax rate as domestic goods, which is just the opposite of today's system.
There is neither need nor desirability for instituting a VAT. A VAT serves only to purposes to hide tax burdens, & collect the tax from citizens out of their control. Neither purpose is appropriate to a free nation.
The function of consumption taxes should include that option of the electorate to avoid them are excessive, a VAT defeats that potential:
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, said it best in Federalist Papers #21 when he stated:
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption
that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without
defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue.When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty
that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection
is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when
they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the
citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of
the power of imposing them.Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect
taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue
raised in this country." (Emphasis added).
A broadbased VAT defeats this characteristic of consumption taxes as veiwed by the founders of the Constitution. A VAT is indistinguishable from a corporate income tax in operation. Income taxes are what we are trying to get rid of.
Any real attempt at "reform" of the tax system will meet with failure. Why? Because the damn tyrants (of both main parties) like it just the way it is: they skim off more and more money every year using hidden techniques. Very little of it is out in the open. The current income tax structure would be untenable IF the working public had to pony up a check every April instead of having the trillions merely confiscated from every paycheck.
In which case, you don't need to worry about a National Retail Sales tax will you.
The problem with a national sales tax is that some of us who have been working for over 3 decades have managed to save in POST tax savings accounts; upon retirement when we want to use some of that ALREADY TAXED MONEY we would have to pay another tax on top of the first one. I do not support a national sales tax. A single rate flat income tax would be preferable.
You get hit with the same tax regardless: All income and payroll taxes are embedded in the price of goods and services now. You pay at both ends as it is. All your "POST" tax savings accounts have assure is that when you spend it a business is going to turn around and remit the tax extracted from the higher prices that it is embedded in.
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
Under the National Retail Sales Tax proposed, shelf prices can be expected to fall approximately 20-25%, the total payment for goods and services after the NRST will be approximately what you pay now for consumption.
Secondly, what prevents you from just spending earnings from your investments? That under the current system such earnings are still taxed both as income and when you spend it. Under the NRST earnings are only taxed when spent.
However, NO tax would be better still.
ROTFLMAO, and you figure "Any real attempt at "reform" of the tax system will meet with failure."?
Finally, why do you wish to continue justifying both your expenditures and your income to government? For that is what you are bound to under any income/payroll tax system Flat round or otherwise.
The NRST has much more going for it than just dollars on taxes. How much is freedom from government intrusion into your family and private affairs worth to you and your decendants.
but where do you see "Veteran's Services" as a constitutional obligation of the government?
You don't see compensation to our Veterans for injuries inflicted by wars that we send them to as an obligation of us all?
Sorry I disagree very much on that one.
Veteran's Services is least as much a constitutional obligation as providing sufficient compensation in other areas of services due. It is a moral debt owed to those called up and injured in the service of our nation.
Slipping stuff like that into your argument devalues it.
Get your leg blown off in a war defending this nation, before you talk about "devalue" to me.
When this nation sends its men to war (A constitutional authority) it is responsible for the damage done to those men it has sent.
Yes, you need to control taxation
In a revenue bill, which a tax law is enacted.
But control on spending is required as well.
Appropriations bills are where spending is addressed
The two are not mutually exclusive, they are however on opposite sides of the coin and can only be addressed separately. The tax side, when visible, gives impetus and reason to all for implementing spending control which ultimately can only come from the electorate:
Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:
"If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
The key is to raise visibility of the real tax burden on the electorate and assure all participate proportionatley in it. Self intrest will encourage the rest.
We must . . . End Tax Slavery Now; Nov '97
by Jarret B. Wollstein
HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY PAY?
According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes - 34.2% total.
But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:
- Compliance costs - record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.
- Enforcement costs - IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.
- Emotional, moral and cultural costs - families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.
For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:
Federal taxes 22.4% of income
State & local taxes 11.8%
Compliance costs 22.2%
Regulatory costs 12.7%70.1% of your income is now consumed by government
You and I actually agree on the moral obligation of the state to those who make sacrifices on her behalf. But it's not in the constitution. So your very good points about restricting government to its constitutionally designated responsibilities get discredited because you decided to make veteran's issues something it's not.
Why not just say, I believe the government should do the constitutionally authorized X, Y, and Z, and I think they should also spend money on M because it's the right thing to do, and the founders missed it?
Just because constitutional "interpretation" can work in our favor does not make it right.
Yea and people who fight the system are just tax cheats right?
Here's a couple of good quotes for your collection....“I never could believe that providence had sent a few men into the world ready, booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready, saddled and bridled to be ridden" - Richard Rumbold, patriot soldier at the gallows
"We're confiscating property now....That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him." - T. Coleman Andrews, May 25, 1956, Commissioner of the IRS
Why not just say, I believe the government should do the constitutionally authorized X, Y, and Z, and I think they should also spend money on M because it's the right thing to do, and the founders missed it?
Because the founders didn't miss it.
They laid out the enumerated authorities to
tax, "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence"
"To raise and support Armies" on a two year appropriations basis
"To provide and maintain a Navy;"
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"
You may not like the inclusion of responsibilities of government for veterans included as constitutional, but that obligation arises out of the same responsibilities it is bound by under exercise of its authoriteis "to lay & collect taxes to ... provide for the common defence", "to provide and maintain a navy" , and to "raise and support armies" on a 2 year appropriations basis.
Once government has exercised one of it's enumerated authorities, it becomes responsible for the results of that exercise. Any other way to view such exercise would nullify any pretense of limited constitutional government.
Responsibility is a co-commitment with Authority. Without responsibility, Authority becomes arbitrary and dictatorial as opposed to a government of limited powers.
When, as a nation we place men at risk through governement's exercise of enumerated authorities, it of necessity, becomes responsible for the men it places at risk in its service.
You cannot divorce responsibility incurred by government exercise of authority without violation of the guarantees of the Constitution that limit it's exercise of power.
Sorry, I get down off my soapbox now ;O)
Yea and people who fight the system are just tax cheats right?
Not necessarily, but they are often dupes of con-men who lead others into deep legal trouble using invalid and deliberatly misleading arguments.
I recommend repeal of the income and payroll tax statutes instead of playing moth to Congress Critter's candle, the IRS.
A couple of quotes for your collection:
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
Constitution for the United States of America:
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.
Over the ensuing decades, the stupid voters of California most of whom do not understand that bond sales are taxation, merrily approved and voted to amend the Cal Constitution to the tune of 100 billion dollars or more of non-discretionary spending for a variety of social/educational needs. Now, the new Governator is discovering that there is very little wiggle room in cutting this mandatory spending. The only way to do it is to amend the Cal Constitution again. And the damn Marixist-inspired legislature will see to it that that cannot be accomplished without (figurative) bloodletting. Now magnify this a thousand fold and view it down the road about 10 years on. That is where the Federal government is going. And not one political candidate in a thousand has any intention of changing that. In my opinion it will take more than the ballot box to do it.
Where I get a little fuzzy is when we lump "veteran's issues" into some sort of catch-all federal obligation. Better to be quite specific in our discussion of which issues are obligations, and to what extent.
Where I get a little fuzzy is when we lump "veteran's issues" into some sort of catch-all federal obligation. Better to be quite specific in our discussion of which issues are obligations, and to what extent.
I see the difference as Veteran's "Services", being the line item of the federal budget, which deals with those established laws governing medical and pension programs enacted and dependant on the consequences of military service to the nation. It is that sense that I used it in the calculation.
Veteran's "issues" as a whole are little more than another set of political footballs that every group comes up with to stir the political pot to see what falls out. 1st amendment covers them though government action may or may not be appropriate for any particular issue.
This is your standard for the Courts. Meet it and you might have a chance, otherwise expect to crash & burn before any thing changes in law concerning the income tax.
Much easier, and more certain, to seek legislative repeal than ever see a winner in the courts.
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 [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."
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
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.