You wrote:

The existing proposal to set a sustenance level, below which no tax would be paid, is a more reasonable solution.

So, you support rationed tax free articles and making every American family dependant on a monthly welfare check?

You wrote:

You keep referring to 'our Founding Father's original tax'. Until that is put into the form of legislation, it is not even an option. The options now are the FT or our current income tax.

Oh, but the tax plan I keep referring to is that which was intended by those who framed and ratified our constitution. A fundamental principle of constitutional law requires the legislative intent of a constituion, as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it to be carried out. So, you are very much in error. The fact is, Congress' tax legislation is to carry out the legislative intent for which its taxing powers were granted, and that is the only option, not the so called fair tax which is not recognized by our constitution or any powers granted therein.

A NRST with a demogrant.

Show us.

Your excerpt just says consumption tax. And the index to the book indicates that Chapter (pp. 140-178) is devoid of references to National Retail Sales Taxes, RST or the Fair Tax Act.

It is also interesting to note your selected chapter in that book only mentions demogrants as a way of reducing tax burdens generally for the Social Security taxes specifically, use with the Business Transfer Tax (BTT), a subtraction method VAT:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/December2004/1204Hartman.html

"BTT would establish a tax base that includes all commerce and employers, eventually reaching even employment and purchases in the government sector and employment in the ballooning not-for-profit sector. Although aimed at consumption, the BTT, by collecting from employers rather than from consumers, would offer little justification for allowing exemption, but it would also provide equitable rebates to offset spending on necessities. Such rebates would serve as replacement for exemptions, deductions, and credits, and, if the BTT were adopted as a single flat tax, all taxation of income could be eliminated."

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Hartman/PublicPlunder.html

Many conservative and libertarian economists oppose a value-added tax on the grounds that, in Europe, it led to a runaway expansion of government. However, that was the result of imposing the value-added tax in addition to the corporate income tax instead of replacing the corporate income tax. Those who favor a consumption tax such as the VAT claim that the retail-sales tax is preferable, because it is visible. But the VAT can be legislated to be visible and results in lower rates than a retail-sales tax because of its broader base, since the value-added tax will include taxation of government, whereas a retail-sales tax will not.

A ten-percent value-added tax in the form of a business transfer tax that credits payroll taxes (replacing the 35-percent corporate income tax) would provide a sufficient surplus of revenues to convert the personal income tax to a 15-percent single rate. It could further provide the surplus necessary to eliminate all of the principal discriminatory features of the tax code as well—the “death tax,” the alternative minimum tax, phaseouts of exemptions and deductions, the marriage and married parenthood penalties, and customs duties. The surplus could also be augmented by converting the earned-income credit to healthcare vouchers, providing relief for Medicaid spending. It could further convert the 15-percent single-rate tax to a consumed-income tax, allowing unlimited deferral of income tax on saving for investment until consumed. And all of this can be accomplished on a tax-neutral basis without added deficits.

Over the course of a decade, the increased growth of investment, output, and incomes plus broader definition of the consumed-income tax base could allow a ten-percent business-transfer tax and a ten-percent single-rate consumed-income tax. A 20-percent business-transfer tax, however, would achieve the same tax-neutral results.

Regardless, the paper I quoted did take into account some dynamic results.

Again Show us,

I only find an index reference indicating discussion the method of "dynamic incidence analysis" as it might be compared to "distributional analysis". Hardly providing "dynamic analysis results", except the comparison of methods I guess is an analysis, and a result allowing the use of "some" in your phraseology. I guess it pays to look into the things like what

"the meaning of is, is."
-- B.J. Clinton.

LOL. I think I will save my $75 and go find a better sources of info on National Retail Sales Taxes than that particular chapter. Nice try though.

I'll check on the book the next time I'm in a library.
I'm sure the read will be enlightening about the Business Transfer Tax(BTT) and Armey/Shelby Flat Tax variants of "consumption" taxes and I'll save a bunch for better things.

Seems that chapter you quote out of leaves few questions to be answered, the least of which concern your favorite "consumption" (i.e VAT/Flat Tax) tax:

"the Hall-Rabushka flat tax is simply a subtraction-method, origin-based value-added tax. Their proposed flat tax is neither more nor less progressive than the traditional, European-style value-added tax, or a subtraction-method value-added tax (also known as a business transfer tax), just because a portion of the taxes are remitted by individuals. By excluding investment from taxation, the Hall-Rabushka flat tax will have the same incentive effects as the value-added tax, and the same impact on the Consumer Price Index. Its most substantive difference from the destination-based value-added tax is that it does not tax imports or give a rebate for exports."

So, is it in the constitution? So, is it being proposed as a constitutional amendment. If so, I would have to read it first to give you a truthful answer.

Are you aware that the GST in Canada was on top of their already obscene levels of taxation???

The Canadian GST is a VAT, and yes VATs generally are on top of already obscene levels of wage taxes and other excises.

GST introduced (January 1991) historical context, economic impact and related links

January 1, 1991 - GST Introduced: A new tax on consumption

The 7% Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a relatively new tax that came into effect in Canada on January 1, 1991. It replaced the out-dated 13.5% Manufacturers’ Sales Tax (MST), which had been in effect since 1924. The MST was generally levied at a rate of 13.5%, but was also highly complex in that it was subject to no fewer than 22,000 special provisions and administrative arrangements.

The GST is a simpler, fairer and more visible tax than its predecessor. It is a multi-stage value-added tax levied on a broad range of goods and services Businesses are entitled to receive a fully refundable credit (i.e., and input tax credit) for the GST they pay on the goods and services they purchase as inputs into their production and distribution processes. For this reason, the tax is said to apply only to the value added by a business. The GST applies to a broad range of goods and services; it doesn’t apply to items that are “zero-rated” or exempt, such as basic groceries, most medical services and devices, prescription drugs and residential rents. To offset the regressive impact of a broader taxation base on low-income Canadians, the GST credit, a refundable income tax credit, was introduced along with the tax.

It is a full fledged European Style credit-voucher Value Added Tax.

Definition [ http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13330.html ]:

value-added tax
levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production of a good or service, and based on the increase in price, or value, added to the good or service by each level. Because all stages of a value-added tax are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, it has been described as a hidden sales tax. Originally introduced in France (1954), it is now used by most W European countries.

OTOH, The National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) of HR25, is only collected from the consumer on final sale for use or consumption (i.e. retail level only) and replaces all federal business income and payroll taxes.

Business do no pay the NRST on purchases of materials or services for business use or resale.

You Wrote:

The options now are the FT or our current income tax.

ANSWER:

Is that so? No more imposts, duties and excise taxes. No more direct taxes?

Oh BTW where in the constitution do you see the phrase "income tax"? And while your at it, what is the constitutional definition of income? Hint, see: EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

And, how can a tax be calculated from income in a constitutional fashion? Give us an example. Hint, see: FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

not the so called fair tax which is not recognized by our constitution or any powers granted therein.

The National Retail Sales Tax is an inland impostion on retail sale of goods and services collected from the purchaser of such products and remitted by the seller to state government tax authorities that the states may administer the tax and pass on federal portion of their collections to the United States Treasury.

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;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

And in accord with the first tax of the United States Supreme Court under the Constitution, the majority of Judges of which had also been delegates to the Constitutional Convention:

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."

a close examination by Congress of each particular article in question is necessary. Surely there is a clear enough distinction between such foods as caviar and chicken eggs, between wine and milk, between silk and cotton underwear, to truthfully say one is used as a luxury and the other a necessity.

Just as I thought. You have said that Congress should decide what is a luxury and what is a necessity.
One person's perception of luxury is another persons perception of necessity. Surely there is not a clear distinction between filet mignon and round steak to decide what is a necessity or a luxury. Is the determination on the cost or necessity to sustain life? Or maybe where it is prepared. A hamburger at home is ok but is taxable at a restaurant? How about take-out because you can't cook?
How about alcoholic beverages if prescribed by a physician? Ridicule this if you wish and then check the facts. That happened all during prohibition. It was a running joke that the flask was for "medicinal purposes".

Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

For Congress to be fair and to not unduly reward the more affluent, the decision must be based on the diet of the least least affluent or possibly those at the poverty level.
Would you have a method by which someone could appeal the menu determined by Congress?

Does any car to get you to work qualify or only certain models? What options are taxable and which are taxfree.
How do we decide on housing?Square feet per person?
Is a telephone or television taxable?

Oh, I know Congress will decide those things and if they want more money to spend they will just remove some of the exemptions from the list.

Well, since we each only get one vote, mine will cancel yours and I will rely on my fellow Americans to soundly reject your proposal if it should ever make it to a vote.

Oh BTW where in the constitution do you see the phrase "income tax"? And while your at it, what is the constitutional definition of income? Hint, see: EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

You mean this one?

Eisner v. Macomber(1920), 252 U.S. 189,207
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189#207

"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), ... , 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals;

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill

As also applied in:

Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:

"'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."

Easily:

And, how can a tax be calculated from income in a constitutional fashion? Give us an example.

Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

"The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."

"There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "

U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)

" The United States has the power to levy excises upon occupations, and to classify them for this purpose; and need look only to the fact of the exercise of the occupation or calling taxed, regardless of whether such exercise is permitted or prohibited by the laws of the United States or by those of a state. The burden of the tax may be imposed alike on the just and the unjust."

For they were all a result of this:

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

"[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."

this:

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 a r 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.

And this:

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107

"This tax, it is expressly stated, is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year, this is the measure of the tax explicitly adopted by the statute." *** In other words, the tax is imposed upon the doing of business of the character described, and the measure of the tax is to be income, with the deduction stated, received not only from property used in business, but from every source."

"The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."

"As we have seen, the only limitation upon the authority conferred is uniformity in laying the tax, and uniformity does not require the equal application of the tax to all persons or corporations who may come within its operation, but is limited to geographical uniformity throughout the United States. This subject was fully discussed and set at rest in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, and we can add nothing to the discussion contained in that case."

"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable.

For the actual definition used by intent of Congress has been clearly stated:

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

Activities like:

Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:

The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.

"But natural 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

Your argument is that you do not support the founding father's original tax plan. So, now we know.

the real problem as I see it is a Congress in rebellion to the legislative intent of our Constitution

And this is the Congress that you want to enumerate the non-taxable items. You have a lot of faith in this rebelious lot

So, you support rationed tax free articles and making every American family dependant on a monthly welfare check?

If I paid the tax on all my purchases, I see it as a refund of my money, whereas you see it as the Government's money.

We can never agree as long as you consider my money as belonging to the Government.

Yes, now we do know. You have failed to provide any response to valid points and use your circular logic to always come back to your only point.

I always disengage from discussions when there is no real effort to exchange ideas , but only to attempt to further an agenda.

Goodnight all!

You wrote:

And this is the Congress that you want to enumerate the non-taxable items. You have a lot of faith in this rebelious lot

ANSWER

Only if they are confined to the legislative intent of all the provisions of our constitution, which they are not!

Your argument is that you do not support the founding father's original tax plan.

You mean this plan?

Federalist #12:

"A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."

"It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

Federalist #21:

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. ... 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. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference.

Federalist #31:

"A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."
"As revenue is the essential engine by which the means of answering the national exigencies must be procured, the power of procuring that article in its full extent must necessarily be comprehended in that of providing for those exigencies."
"As theory and practice conspire to prove that the power of procuring revenue is unavailing when exercised over the States in their collective capacities, the federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes. "

Federalist #34:

``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention
4 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:466--68

No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption. The price of the commodity is blended with the tax, and the person is often not sensible of the payment But would it have been proper to rest the matter there? Suppose this fund should not prove sufficient; ought the public debts to remain unpaid, or the exigencies of government be left unprovided for? should our tranquillity be exposed to the assaults of foreign enemies, or violence among ourselves, because the objects of commerce may not furnish a sufficient revenue to secure them all? Certainly, Congress should possess the power of raising revenue from their constituents, for the purpose mentioned in the 8th section of the 1st article; that is, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

You posted: So, you support rationed tax free articles and making every American family dependant on a monthly welfare check? If I paid the tax on all my purchases, I see it as a refund of my money, whereas you see it as the Government's money. We can never agree as long as you consider my money as belonging to the Government. ANSWER My, my, you are rather presumptuous aren't you, or, have you been relying upon 1-800-call Cleo for your answers?

And what is your interpretation of what you posted?

You wrote:

Yes, now we do know. You have failed to provide any response to valid points and use your circular logic to always come back to your only point. I always disengage from discussions when there is no real effort to exchange ideas , but only to attempt to further an agenda.

ANSWER

Valid points? No. I haven’t failed to provide any response. What I have done is refused to engage in a silly argument which you seem to be provoking.

I stated my position very clearly in my post 195

. You apparently disagree with the founding father’s original tax plan which I explained in post 195.. Good for you! It is your right to disagree with the founding father’s plan.

Sleep tight!

I have the Jorgensen study on my hard drive. Would you like me to send it to you

Post the link.