Wonder where Speaker Hastert stands on the FairTax? Wonder no more.

E-mail | January 6th, 2005 | Americans For Fair Taxation

[rwrcpa1]

The article says that Linder reintroduced the Fair Tax in the House today. Does anyone know anything about that? H. R. # or anything?

[rwrcpa1]

My apologies. I didn't mean that you specifically had made negative comments. I meant anyone else reading this thread in the future. You know the guy who says "I don't think a sales tax would be good. I already pay a lot of income tax."

[simhomer]

It's not how you tax, it's the AMOUNT you tax.

Any system can be good or bad depending on the RATE at which your $$$$ are extracted.

A new tax system is meaningless unless SPENDING is reduced.

New system + higher spending = more taxes under new system.

It's not the system, it's the spending.

[Badray]

Good news ping

[Paperdoll]

>it is not disimilar to a 21st Century eco-feudal system where the corporate aristocracy invest and expand their property holdings completely tax-free, while the serfs are overburdened with the excessive taxation on consumption....
supposedly "fair".... taxes are redistributed through the formal social welfare system<

Starkly clear sighted and absolutely correct.

(I can hardly wait to see how the corporate elite react when the Communists nationalize their holdings in China!
For greed the price must always be paid.)

[rwrcpa1]

Agreed. First things first. When people see the sales tax rate they say "Whoa! That's too much." But what that means is that spending is too much. When they see that tax on their sales receipts every day they might get a clue how intrusive the government is into our everyday lives.

[Badray]

Willie,

You are just plain wrong.

Are you defending the current system or do you support another plan?

If not another plan, would you explain the vested interest that you have in keeping the current system?

[Quest10]

I believe part of it is the how as well. Americans spend so much money every year just trying to get thru the system so they don't get audited by Big Revenue. Granted, the amount is far more important, but the how should not be ignored.

[rwrcpa1]

You are a true patriot! /sarcasm off

[Paperdoll]

That didn't take you very long, did it?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Wonder where Speaker Hastert stands on the FairTax? Wonder no more.

He is for it as he stated in page 272 (I think?) of the book he wrote.

[ancient_geezer]

It's not how you tax, it's the AMOUNT you tax.

Any system can be good or bad depending on the RATE at which your $$$$ are extracted.

Hmm, seems to me how, has alot more to do with your exposure to abuse by the system both in its aspects for control as well as the ultimate cost that can be imposed upon the citizen.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

• "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

 

[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

• "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
  --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

 

Federalist #21:

"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."

 

"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.

 

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.

Alan Keyes 1999

[Badray]

Welcome to Free Republic.

Please check out the links in Ancient Geezer's posts above.

The FairTax is marvelously simple, fair, and visible and will free up untold manpower and capital resulting in unbelieveable growth.

There's one rate for everyone, no exemptions, no deductions, no hoops to jump through and there is a mechanism to help those at the lower income levels. The tax structure will be a great incentive to work and save for everyone, not just the rich.

There will no longer be any federal withholding for taxes. You will take home your entire paycheck except for state, local, and voluntary deductions.

And with the passage and enactment of the bill, prices will fall as the imbedded cost of our current inefficient system are removed from the cost of all goods.

I supported a flat tax for years, but this has it beat. I hope that you take the time to check it out.

[SolidSupplySide]

It's not how you tax, it's the AMOUNT you tax.

This is false. How you tax is the driver of economic growth. The lower the marginal rate, the better. That is why supply siders prefer the flat tax.

[Badray]

The flat tax still requires that you report your income to the IRS which will still exist. The total rate will also be higher because none of the flat tax proposals include the FICA.

With the IRS still intact, how long do you think that the 'flat' tax will be 2 or 3 or 23 different rates again with all of the convoluted exemptions and deductions that are part of the current mess.

The FairTax eliminates all of that.

Please take some time to look at the advantages of the FairTax.

[Willie Green]

You are just plain wrong.
Are you defending the current system or do you support another plan?

As you are well aware, I support a variety of reforms to the current tax code.
However, I do NOT support the NRST.
It is a convoluted sham that's being ramrodded through Congress under false and fraudulent pretexts.

[Paperdoll]

In view of the vitriolic presidential campaign we've just been through; the limp writsted GOP cave-in to Arlen Spector on the Judicial committee, among other things; the blatant vote fraud in the gubernatorial race in Washington state; the fleecing of America currently going on; the outsourcing of manufacturing and jobs; the open border crisis in times of a war on terrorism and loss of jobs to Americans because of the huge influx of illegal aliens does lead one to be distrustful of change, Badray.
(Deep breath).

[Dead Dog]

The NRST is an inherently regressive form of taxation that is truly despotic. .... It is not dissimilar to a 21st Century eco-feudal system where the corporate aristocracy ....

Willie, your posts are starting to read like Marx/Engles.

[ancient_geezer]

. That is why supply siders prefer the flat tax.

Hmm, including the fact that the "flat tax" does not get rid of the income tax, IRS or anything else, and assures by its larger personal deductions that large segements of the electorate continue to support even more government than they do now?

We first income tax was a "flat tax" not unlike the Armey/Spector bill. Didn't stay flat beyond even one session of Congress and grew into the monstrosity we have today.

 

 

Source: CCH Inc. Number of pages in the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, as found on Cato website.

Somehow I just see the "flat tax" as more trimming around the edges and several steps closer to a VAT plus income tax regime of the EU, especially considering it retains SA/Medicare taxes besides.

 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm

"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"

"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."

 

FLAT TAX, VAT TAX, ANYTHING BUT THAT TAX; Duke Law Magazine, Spring 96:

• "The flat tax is essentially a VAT, with a personalized element for wages. Thus, the business tax allows deduction of all purchases -- as does a VAT -- but also allows deduction of wages. The wage income that is taken out of the VAT base, however, is also taxed, but is assessed against the individual wage-earner, not against the business."

[Badray]

"It's not the system, it's the spending."

You are right that spending is out of control, however, with approximately 40% of people not paying into the current system (embedded taxation notwithstanding) there is no incentive for them to pay. They are convinced that you are buying their lunch so that don't care how much it costs.

For them to care, and help in reducing the cost, they have to see that they are indeed paying for their own lunch. The FairTax will do exactly that. If the percentage ever hits the 50% range -- and the pols seem to be working overtime to exempt more and more people -- we will never be able to control the costs. Once the payers are outnumbered by non payers, we're done for.