Posted on 12/17/2004 4:38:48 AM PST by JOHN W K
ANSWERING A FAIR TAX QUESTION
During yesterday's show a caller asked what would happen to her 401K funds if the Fair Tax bill became law. No income taxes had ever been paid on that money residing in her 401K. If, by the time she starts drawing that money out, the income tax is history, will she have to pay some sort of penalty? One month ago I would have rattled off the answer. No. No penalty. No taxes. You take the money and run. Yesterday, however, I was a bit more cautious. I've spent many hours over the past weeks studying the history of the income tax, the history of withholding, and various schemes for tax reform including, of course, the Fair Tax. I wanted my answer to be dead-on accurate, so I deferred until I could dive into the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at boortz.com ...
i don't disagree with you, i just think opening the door to the welfare like prebate is a worse scenario.
just like in any other situation (contracting, grants, etc.) anytime you receive $ from the government you become completely subject to every nuance of every rule and regulation of theirs.
the fairtax plan as it exists pays government $ to every single person in the U.S. -- it is welfare and control, more than they have today. (but of course you can "not register" for the prebate i hear so it is only unfair to the poor people who can't affort to not register.)
unfortunately in today's world when it has the words "single" versus "married" it is defining family because you have specify what "married" means.
Why don't you read the bill and find out what it actually has to say.
There is no distinction between married and single there as all legally resident adults receive the same amount regardless of their role in a household married vs single has no bearing in amounts of the FCA provided.
Here you go, I highly recommend actually reading it, it is not all that difficult and is well organized:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
`CHAPTER 3--FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE
|
how it is propose and what could actual get passed and how the government manipulates it over the years to come are three distinct and far-separated realities.
just like in any other situation (contracting, grants, etc.) anytime you receive $ from the government you become completely subject to every nuance of every rule and regulation of theirs.
Baloney, if you fear that just don't apply for the FCA. You are expressly allowed that option in the legislation.
All signing up for the FCA accomplishes is to establish how much, where it is to be sent, to whom the check is made out nothing more.
Whether you like it or not you are already subject to any law within the enumerated powers of Congress by the expressed intent of the founders, and interestingly that is one of the few areas where even the detractors of the Constitution agreed with the proponents.
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;"
Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;
- There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.
And is especially seen true as regards Congresses enumerated powers of taxation:
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
And was clearly underscored by the first tax case to come before the United States Supreme Court, four of the judges of which had also been delegates to the Constitutional Convention out of which the Consititution was created.
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states," "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
how it is propose and what could actual get passed and how the government manipulates it over the years to come are three distinct and far-separated realities.
What does that got to do with the legislation authore?
1) any substantive change to the bill by amendment will cause that bill to be pulled by the primary sponsor, Rep. Linder.
2) No member of AFT will support such changes.
3) Every statutue is liable to the same kind of manipulation. It is up to the bill's sponsors to see to the integrity of the legislation in passage. It is responsibility the American people to keep legislation in line with there expections there after.
Your point has no bearing on the issue of whether or not HR25 is appropriate legislation as it stands.
You only address the risk factors that exist in the current system in spades, and the risk of all federal and state law that exists.
It is up to the vigilance of the American people to hold governments feet to the fire. Your objection is nothing more than of argument of status quo and not doing anything for fear of might bes.
We know where we are today:
| "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." |
It is up to us to see the changes through and hold government's feet to the fires of accountablility.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
whatever.
i'm not worried about as the chances of something even close to this ever getting passed are somewhere between zilch and none.
i like the idea of dividing the annual budget by the 435 representatives and handing the bills to the 50 states + dc and saying you deal with it. everyone can move to a state that taxes them the way they like to be taxed, may the best system win.
the population of alaska would shoot up dramatically and no one moving there would be complaining about drilling in ANWR.
i'm not worried about as the chances of something even close to this ever getting passed are somewhere between zilch and none.
That's good, you may go back to sleep now with no concern.
| I discussed the importance of abolishing the income tax because of its tendency to form a habit of servility in the souls of a people that accepts it. Servility of soul is bad not only in itself, it is also an open door through which will soon walk the abuses of ambitious government power. Leaders who find themselves with governmental power over a servile people will be quick to conclude that such a people exist to serve them. |
under the fair tax only new construction would be taxed..buying a home from someone else, a used home, would not be taxed
if you have studied the fair tax then you know about the rebate and you already know the answer to your question..if you have not studied the fair tax, well, then you should have never posted this thread (in the manner that you did) in the first place.
"Do you object to simply going back to our Founding Father’s original tax plan?"
Interesting idea. What's the bill number?
"The truth is, all consumers pay the tax on the basic necessities of life under the so called fair tax. Is he lying?"
How do you figure that? Are you saying that you can define what a specific basket of goodies are that YOU define as necessities? What if my basket of necessities differs from yours? Who determines what "necessities" are?
"......the fairtax plan as it exists pays government $ to every single person in the U.S. -- it is welfare and control, more than they have today."
Have you ever found that when you filed your taxes at the end of the year that you were due a refund for overpayment? Do you consider that "welfare and control"?
".....how it is propose and what could actual get passed and how the government manipulates it over the years to come are three distinct and far-separated realities."
That isn't a concern that is unique to the FairTax proposal, you could say that about ANY tax reform proposal. So is that your position - you are opposed to any fundamental change to the system of taxation? It would appear as I look back at your posts that that is really what this is all about - fear of change.
Every American child gets a prebate for spending up to $3,180 tax-free.
-- In the eyes of the government, family type is irrelevant. Government has no businesses delving into the personal lives of Americans.
"i like the idea of dividing the annual budget by the 435 representatives and handing the bills to the 50 states + dc and saying you deal with it."
Let me see if I understand this. You oppose the FairTax because its chances of passage are "between zilch and none". Then you say that you prefer a proposal that has no bill in congress, no co-sponsors, no economic studies, no one I ever heard of but you who supports it because ...... it is more likely to pass?
You can't really be serious, right?
"....correct me if I'm wrong...companies would no longer be paying wage taxes, SS taxes etc for every employee so this will be a plus for them which would also help with the initial inventory cost problem"
That is correctl I suppose you could consider that a mitigating factor relative to the inventory problem raised before. However, the transition rule effectively deals with that. I described that in another post.
and the difference is... oh a bill in congress-- if it happens, great. the likelyhood is about the same as my proposal.
bye bye H&R block, Intuit, and hundreds of thousands of jobs. certainly not a reason for keeping the IRS around but it is the reason that the IRS will be staying around.
correct me if I'm wrong...companies would no longer be paying wage taxes, SS taxes etc for every employee so this will be a plus for them which would also help with the initial inventory cost problem
You are correct. A point of fact businesses would pay niether income nor payroll taxes of any kind nor would businesses would not be paying NRST on there purchases for business use.
The NRST removes all business level taxation, putting a pure retail sales tax in place collecting only on sales for final consumption.
Perhaps at inception, but unless such a clause is carved in granite as a Constitutional Amendment there are no such guarantees. In previous posts I've pointed out instances where states and municipalities have tiered tax rates and exempt certain items. There is plenty of precedent for doing so and who is to say the Feds won't follow suit?
Besides, I have an instinctive aversion to any bill named to appear good to me. Given Washington's propensity for double speak, by definition anything named FAIR has to be anything but.
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.