Posted on 10/14/2004 11:11:20 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I personally think you are because you always WANT a ""NEW ""US tax not supported by The US CONSTITUTION.
Your FR post for years have been nothing short of TREASON against my family members at Valley Forge under Oath.
Your FR post for years have been nothing short of TREASON against my family members at Valley Forge under Oath.
Correct. With an amendment that clearly sets out that the federal government can never impose both a tax on income and a tax on sales, the FAIR tax could work.
Yes, there are a lot of details that need to be worked out. But the disadvantages to individuals because of an income tax begs that a better system be implemented. The advantages of a sales/consumption tax is that, if you don't have enough money, you don't buy as much but you get your full income. You can put yourself on a spending diet until you have enough to get what you really want or need. You'll be able to buy a house sooner and faster. If you have a lot of extra money, you can go out and blow it.
A sales/consumption tax also forces the government to be more fiscally sane as their spending allowance will be directly apportioned by what has been sold. If they get out of hand with spending, people can stop buying and starve them out.
Like it'll ever happen, though.
If you are part of the US Government,we will charge you with FRAUD on behalf of the PEOPLES lawsuit.
Too bad your if misses target as well as your charges, LOL.
TP'r : One who's tax evasion sales pitch and legal argument has the substance of used toilette paper.
I personally think you are because you always WANT a ""NEW ""US tax not supported by The US CONSTITUTION.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- 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;
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 edition:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "
"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. . Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment." (Emphasis added).
H.R.25, S.1493
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 for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Your FR post for years have been nothing short of TREASON against my family members at Valley Forge under Oath.
Your FR post for years have been nothing short of TREASON against my family members at Valley Forge under Oath.
Got hiccups?
You were on the Brit side of the river I take it then, as mine were serving under Gen George Washington.
Sorry,
My x5 Great Grandfather served with George Washington at Valley Forge as he was one of the officers who took the oath at the Valley.We bear the same name today.
I could buy into that scheme.
My x5 Great Grandfather,
Good for your 5x Great Grandfather.
Glad to know he served with mine, a Captain of the PA militia, and his 3 brothers, and their father a Virginian and one of Washington's Generals.
We bear the same name today.
As does my family.
Unfortuately, one's ancestory is no palative for one's capacity for delusional positions, nor a recommendation of the right or wrongness of the causes that one may become aligned with.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--John Adams
Doesn't Russia get by with a flat tax of 13%???
I could buy into that scheme
No, but there are those that would lead one believe so.
|
RUSSIA: PART TWO OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TAX CODE August 10, 2000
Alexander Chmelev and Evgeny Astakhov Baker & McKenzie, Moscow Office
Sent by BISNIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, http://www.bisnis.doc.gov Judith_Robinson@ita.doc.gov, Tel: 202-482-2293. BISNIS sends this report as a courtesy to the U.S. business community. This is not to be construed as endorsement or sponsorship of any information or group. On August 5, 2000, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin signed into law four chapters of Part Two of the Russian Federation Tax Code and Federal Law No. 118-FZ ôOn the Implementation of Part Two of the Russian Federation Tax Code and Amendments to Certain Federal Laws on Taxationö (the "Implementation Law"). The chapters of the Tax Code signed into law by the President are Chapter 21 - VAT, Chapter 22 - Excise Taxes, Chapter 23 - Personal Income Tax, and Chapter 24 - Unified Social Tax. These four Chapters and the Implementation Law were officially published in Rossijskaya Gazeta on August 10, 2000, and, with few exceptions, will become effective on January 1, 2001. The most sweeping changes introduced into the Russian tax system by this new legislation are as follows: 1. VAT (Chapter 21 of the Tax Code) Although Chapter 21 of the Tax Code does not change VAT rates or the general VAT structure, it contains numerous provisions, which will significantly affect most businesses in Russia. Most notably, Chapter 21 substantially modifies the "place of service" rules, which generally determine whether for VAT purposes a particular transaction has occurred in Russia and is, therefore, subject to Russian VAT. Effective from July 1, 2001, Chapter 21 also will treat export sales to CIS countries in the same way as sales to all other foreign countries, and will exempt them from VAT. On the downside, Chapter 21 will repeal a number of long-standing and important VAT exemptions, including an exemption for license fees for the use of intellectual property (such as, patents, copyrights, and trademarks), and will significantly narrow the VAT exemption for pharmaceuticals. 2. Personal Income Tax (Chapter 23 of the Tax Code)
Chapter 23 of the Tax Code will replace the current progressive tax rates ranging from 12% to 30% with a flat tax rate of 13%. This 13% rate will apply to almost all categories of income earned by individuals who are Russian tax resident. A 30% rate will apply to dividends, and to any Russian source income received by individuals who are not Russian tax resident. A 35% rate will apply to income from gambling, lottery prizes, deemed income from low-interest or interest-free loans, certain insurance payments, and excessive bank interest. 3. Unified Social Tax (Chapter 24 of the Tax Code) Chapter 24 of the Tax Code will replace the existing employersÆ contributions to four separate social benefit funds (which currently are imposed at an over-all rate of 38.5%) with one unified social tax. This unified social tax will have a regressive tax scale from 35.6% to 2% of an employee's salary with the lowest rate applicable to the portion of an employeeÆs annual salary in excess of 600,000 Rubles (approximately US$22,000 at the current exchange rate). It should be noted that under the Implementation Law, as a transition rule, the lower rate of this tax will be 5% rather than 2% during 2001. 4. Excise Taxes (Chapter 22 of the Tax Code) As a countermeasure to reducing rates of other federal taxes, Chapter 22 of the Tax Code provides for an increase in excise tax rates for gasoline and other oil products by almost 300%. It also provides for a less dramatic increase of excise tax rates for tobacco products and certain passenger cars. 5. The Implementation Law a. Turnover Taxes Effective from January 1, 2001, the Implementation Law repeals the Housing Fund Tax of 1.5% and reduces the Road Users Tax from 2.5% down to 1% and completely repeals the Road Users Tax effective January 1, 2003. These taxes are imposed on gross sales and have been among the most onerous taxes on business in Russia. b. Regional Tax Concessions The Implementation Law reconfirms the right of regional authorities to provide tax exemptions for the regional portion of federal taxes retroactive to April 1, 1999. This reconfirmation resolves an issue that arose in 1999 as to whether the regional portion of profits taxes could be reduced pursuant to regional incentive laws. c. Profits Tax Rate Apparently in compensation to local budgets for the cancellation of turnover taxes, the Implementation Law authorizes municipal governments to introduce an additional "municipal" profits tax of up to 5% of a taxpayer's taxable profits. Thus the maximum overall profits tax rate may be increased from 30% to 35%. This report is provided courtesy of the Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) |
Russia's tax system, as you have posted it, should be duplicated here.
But then that would mean we'd be able to dump all the lawyers and CPA's that have made our tax laws incomprehensible to the reasonable man.
Can't happen. Wouldn't be prudent.
This is why whatever comes out of Congress will remain about as voluminous as the current tax 'code'. A status quo system will also assure IRS personnel employed to enforce the Federal Reserve's control over our tax system continued employment.
We will, thanks to a Congress full of lawyers, continue to get screwed front, back, and sideways. Business as usual. Fairtax, flattax, foolstax. The title may change, but rape by any other name is still rape.
Best solution? Scrap the current system of taxes and entitlements. Impose a negative income tax, ala Milton Friedman, to replace the assorted Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, public housing etc. crap. Impose an income tax with few or no deductions.
I have no problem with reasonable progressivity -- and the beauty of a flat tax isn't its flatness, it's the removal of deductions. So have four tax levels or so -- nothing under $35000, 10% between 35000 and 50000, 15% between 50000 and 200000, 25% above 200000. Plenty of revenue, low marginal rates, nothing wasted in compliance, pro-growth.
The Historian for the The Attorney Generals office of the state of Florida has just announced the US income tax to be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on all of his research.
Of the "State of Florida" you say, guess that brings the Florida contingent in Congress right up in line with:
H.R.25, S.1493
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 for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Got hiccups, TT?
I have no problem with reasonable progressivity -- and the beauty of a flat tax isn't its flatness, it's the removal of deductions. So have four tax levels or so -- nothing under $35000, 10% between 35000 and 50000, 15% between 50000 and 200000, 25% above 200000. Plenty of revenue, low marginal rates, nothing wasted in compliance, pro-growth.
I however have a problem with reporting my family finances to the government and that being used as a club over my head by the IRS, not to mention the other negative of the income tax system:
| "As a matter of fact, what the income tax does — and this is the debate that I think we always try to get into in order to let you and him fight, see — and the people of this country are led down a path where the actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government." . . . "The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system." "In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation." |
The Historian for the The Attorney Generals office of the state of Florida has just announced the US income tax to be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on all of his research.
Ohhhh, you mean this guy.
Noted Tax Historian´s Book Declares U.S. Income Tax as Direct Tax is in Violation of Long-established U.S. Supreme Court Mandates "'The New Income Tax Scandal' is about the corruption that lies at the heart of the tax system," said Garrison. "As a result of my legal case against the IRS in 2000, the IRS now privately concedes that, in 1915, after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific that an income tax is an excise tax, and that it is to be enforced as such. An excise is not a direct tax on property, but an indirect tax.
Looks like he overlooked something in his researches. The taxes on income found to be unconstitutionally laid for being a direct tax are those associated with rent from real property and dividends and interest from equity and financial instruments per Pollock:
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
- "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."
- "If that[rents from land] be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress."
- "We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. "
- Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
- Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.
16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.
Too bad, I thought you had something there for a moment.
That is why Brushaber held:
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
- "the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"
And Stanton stated:
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
- "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
Unfortunately that leaves us all liable to taxes on wages and such with no relief in sight
BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124,136 (1929)
- "Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken as direct, this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of our government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.
It is a tax laid only upon the exercise of a single one of those powers incident to ownership, the power to give the property owned to another. . . . The persistence of this distinction and the justification for it rest upon the historic fact that taxes of this type were not understood to be direct taxes when the Constitution was adopted and, as well, upon the reluctance of this Court to enlarge by construction, limitations upon the sovereign power of taxation by Article 1, sec. 8, so vital to the maintenance of the National Government.
280 U.S. at 136; see The Federalist No. 12 (Hamilton) (distinguishing between "direct taxes" and "taxes on consumption")."
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
- "[N]atural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."
- Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191
TP'r : One who's tax evasion sales pitch and argument has the substance of used toilette paper.
Better hang your hat somewhere else TT, something that can actually do the job.
John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25, S.1493
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 for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
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.