Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tax Changes on the Horizon
Bella Online ^ | November 4, 2005 | Buzz Timothy, BellaOnline's Accounting Editor

Posted on 11/05/2005 4:42:13 PM PST by ancient_geezer

Tax Changes on the Horizon
Buzz Timothy, BellaOnline's Accounting Editor

The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform finished its ten month investigation and research and has submitted its two best proposals to the US Treasury Department. The Treasury Department has said it will make its own tax reform proposals by the end of this year. Congress is scheduled to begin the tax reform debate next year.

But, what does tax reform really mean? Well, the tax reforms that have been put forth so far are at best disappointing, at worst they are nothing more than tweaks to an outdated, enormously confusing and cumbersome income tax system. The basis of both of the Panel's proposals is to reduce or eliminate deductions, thereby seemingly to simplify a cumbersome tax code.

However, if you look a bit deeper and really read the proposals, one finds that the panel has missed a great opportunity to come up with a tax system we could all live with. A tax system that is fair accross the board and fixes the one fundamental flaw in our current tax system, that is changing it from an income based to a use based system. Although one of the proposals is being touted as a Use or Consumption Based Tax, it is really not, it is truly an income based system being disguised.

The Tax Reform Panelists should have taken a blank piece of paper and devised a completely new, equitable and simple tax system. Instead they chose the politically easy choice of starting with the existing system and trying to change it, rather than fix it, when in fact, looking at their proposals, they have done niether they have only tweaked it.

What we need is a flat tax that is based on use. We already have this in place when in comes to gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes, why is it so difficult to think that this couldn't be expanded to all "used or consumed" items and completely do away with the income based system. As long as we live with an income based system individuals and businesses will always try to find ways to limit their incomes to hide from the overzealous tax code. However, if you change the focus of our tax system to a use based system then, "if you use it you pay". It really is that simple, and shouldn't that be our ultimate goal.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: scam; scientology; taxes; taxfraud; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

1 posted on 11/05/2005 4:42:14 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Conservative Goddess

Here's one for you!


2 posted on 11/05/2005 4:42:38 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taxman; pigdog; Principled; EternalVigilance; rwrcpa1; phil_will1; kevkrom; n-tres-ted; Zon; ...
A Taxreform bump for you all.

If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.

H.R.25,S.25
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:


3 posted on 11/05/2005 4:43:32 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
That's it - distract the sheeple w/ talk of tax reform.

What B.S. in light of uncontrolled/record breaking spending.

4 posted on 11/05/2005 4:55:02 PM PST by TheOracleAtLilac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

Nah, too simple. It would never work. People would be confused. The wouldn't know what to buy so they would sit home in a quandry and bring the econmy to a stand still. It would be a quagmire. Bring to troops home now.

Oops, wrong forum. Sorry.


5 posted on 11/05/2005 5:02:20 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheOracleAtLilac

When we stop government from stealing our money we can stop them from spending it. Put the horse before the cart.


6 posted on 11/05/2005 5:04:22 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheOracleAtLilac

What B.S. in light of uncontrolled/record breaking spending.

Of course there is the little problem that over half the electorate see all the spending as a freebee to themselves.

Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill. That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating even more participants from the Federal Individual Income Tax rolls as proposed in the tax reduction proposals through changes in personal exemption limits, modification of tax bracket rates and other mechanisms such as the EITC.

Bush touts relief as tax day looms

Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.

That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, figuring someone else foots the bill.

"It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
--- Walter Williams

The Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal and economic jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.

If we expect to see control of government spending, we had best look to make the burden visible to the whole of the electorate, not just the few designated as the token guy behind the tree.

That my friend is one of the bottomline purposes of going to an NRetail Sales Tax, make the cost of largess perceptible to the entire electorate, even the lowest most rungs of the economic ladder.

7 posted on 11/05/2005 5:24:37 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

A sales tax is no better than a flat tax.

Remember, the changes Bush does will only be TEMPORARY. The democrats will eventually UNDO everything. It's only a matter of time.


8 posted on 11/05/2005 5:45:21 PM PST by blueberry12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12

Don't bother vacuuming your carpet, either... It's just going to get dusty again. :o/


9 posted on 11/05/2005 6:34:08 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12; OHelix

The democrats will eventually UNDO everything. It's only a matter of time.

The grass root method if engaging the masses to force congress to implement the fair tax, abolish the IRS and repeal the 16th amendment doesn't stop there. The upper hand, as it should be, will be with the people.

The carpets will be in perpetual clean mode and thus there will be no step backwards. The masses, as they will have demonstrated their power, will scream, "get the dirt before it hits the carpet". 

10 posted on 11/05/2005 6:48:24 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Oh, yes, the masses will rise to the occasion. Did the masses rise to the occasion when the gold standard was abandoned? How about the silver standard? That was the government's way of controlling and hording precious metals. It also made the dollar worth nothing. What about the implementation of the income tax? No one rose then.

Did the individual citizens of their respective states balk when state governments relinquished their control to the federal government? No. What about all of the sideline taxes (gas, cigarettes, alcohol, etc...)?

By the way, eminent domain has been an issue for years. Did the nation rise up against the Supreme Court? No. How about the people within the affected communities/states? Hmmm...People gripe about governmental policies/laws that threaten their liberty but they won't even take the time to telephone or write to their representatives.

The only real statesman is Ron Paul. As far as established (corrupt) politicians are concerned, Representative Paul is radioactive. Read his weekly alerts on his web page. You will see for yourself that he is truly devoted to the Republic.

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is suicide as opposed to terminal illness.
11 posted on 11/05/2005 7:07:45 PM PST by Seizure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12
Washing your stinky A$$ is only temporary to! It's gonna get all stinky again REAL quick!

Might as well give up on that as well!

12 posted on 11/05/2005 7:16:17 PM PST by Bigun (IRS sucks @getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

...the movement for consumption-based taxation has been hijacked by a group of extremists whose principal interest is abolishing the Internal Revenue Service.21 They believe that if virtually all federal taxes are abolished and replaced with a retail sales tax like those in the states, then the states can simply collect the federal government's revenue for it, thereby allowing for abolition of the IRS...

21 The Church of Scientology originated this legislation as part of a campaign against the IRS because it refused for many years to allow gifts to the church to be deducted as legitimate charitable contributions, on the grounds that it was not a true church. The IRS eventually relented. See Davis (1997) and Starobin (1995) for discussions of the Church of Scientology's role in the sales tax campaign.

Davis, Bob. 1997. "CATS Out of the Bag." World, 12:9 (May 31/June 7).
Starobin, Paul. 1995. "No Returns." National Journal (March 18): 666-671.

source
13 posted on 11/05/2005 7:18:58 PM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizure

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is suicide as opposed to terminal illness.

The grass roots movement doesn't have a political axe to grind. 

By the way, eminent domain has been an issue for years. 

Thanks to the internet there's allot of discussion that is moving toward rectifying abuse of eminent domain. As to other histories you mentioned, they were all before widespread Internet.

Despite a severely biased MSM amid shrieking celebrities the move towards honesty elected George W. Bush President. Of course, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are credited too, aided by the Internet.

14 posted on 11/05/2005 7:22:08 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
As long as we live with an income based system individuals and businesses will always try to find ways to limit their incomes to hide from the overzealous tax code.

I agree in principle, but what is to stop people from "hiding" consumption... aka, a new black market?

15 posted on 11/05/2005 7:22:49 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12

What do you mean a sales tax is no better than a flat tax?

Income taxes are in and of themselves un-Constitutional and inherently evil.

Not to mention our current income tax system is fraudulent from its inception.

Message to Republicans running for national office: Rid the nation of the Gestapo IRS and you'll probably get all of my support (unless you're a pro-abort gun-grabber).


16 posted on 11/05/2005 7:26:40 PM PST by Whitewasher (Would u like America to be a goat nation in the millennium to come? Keep pushing the "Roadmap" bull!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

In your mind, how is that relevant? Are you implying that the Church of Scientology spent millions of dollars researching methods of taxation and wrote HR25? Consumption tax idea has been around longer than the Church of Scientology. Be honest or proceed at your own peril.


17 posted on 11/05/2005 7:28:17 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
BTW, your source link is a 404 file not found
18 posted on 11/05/2005 7:29:50 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All

Might be worth pointing out something:

If you have a complex tax system with deductions and methods for avoiding taxes, then eliminating those methods and complexity punishes the smart.

Simply that. If the smart have an advantage now and you take it away from them, that's punishment.

Can rich dumb people pay accountants? Yes. But over the long run those accountants may cost them more than they save.

It is not clear to me there is value in simplifying the tax system.


19 posted on 11/05/2005 7:32:00 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Zon

I appreciate the tool that the internet has provided regarding communication and exposure; however, the internet isn't required for the public to have knowledge of state/federal programs/policies/laws. Those are all a matter of public record. Before the internet, I sent a written request for information regarding proposed/enacted federal documents. There was also the telephone and snail mail. Also, I think the public was aware of the income tax, sideline taxes, and the elimination of the gold and silver standard before the internet. Again, by and large, the citizenry chose not to take the action that is required of them if they wish to maintain liberty.


20 posted on 11/05/2005 7:40:11 PM PST by Seizure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Whitewasher

You are correct that the federal income tax is illegal. The only tax that the federal government is allowed to impose is 10% on interstate trade for the purpose of maintaining a common defense. The states, however, can tax on anything.


21 posted on 11/05/2005 7:42:49 PM PST by Seizure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Owen
Seems to me smart people have spoken below: They represent stock holders, most of them anyways.

Rep. Bill Archer, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee:

"A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America." 


22 posted on 11/05/2005 7:43:36 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zon

"...around longer than the Church of Scientology."

Is Mary Baker Eddy still around? lol


23 posted on 11/05/2005 7:45:07 PM PST by Seizure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Zon
BTW, your source link is a 404 file not found

Thanks. Here is an alternate source for the same document.

24 posted on 11/05/2005 7:46:09 PM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

I agree in principle, but what is to stop people from "hiding" consumption... aka, a new black market?

Just what would be new about such a black market?

If evaders hide income through cash transactions today, they can continue to hide sales the same way though at greater risk as the purchaser becomes a part of the evasion if such is taken advantage of in any meaningful manner. Where, in a self assessing income tax situation, it only takes one not reporting income to sucessfully evade, in a sales tax situation it takes customers gaining a benefit to attract them from legitimate venders, as well as the seller that fails to collect and remit a tax from his customer. That makes for much higher visibility of the activity and subsequent risks of exposure and prosecution of the seller. Under the system proposed it is the seller at liability for the remittence of taxes required to be collected from customers.

Those that are engaged in cash economy now to avoid income and SS/medicare taxes must and will take a substantive portion of their incomes and spend them at legitimate businesses under a sales tax system that does collect the NRST from them right along with every other person entering their establishments.

Don't mistake one bottomline fact, there will be tax evasion and fraud in any tax system no matter how onerous or tight it may considered to be. Tax evasion however will be no greater and for many reasons can be less under a retail sales tax system than an income tax system at the same marginal rates. In broadening the taxbase, reducing the maximum marginal rates impressed on the individual coupled with the increased risks taken by the sellers, less not more tax evasion behaviour tends to be promoted.

25 posted on 11/05/2005 7:47:44 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Seizure

the internet isn't required for the public to have knowledge of state/federal programs/policies/laws. Those are all a matter of public record.

The masses received their view of the public record via a severely biased MSM, liberal college professors and screeching celebrities. Somehow, prior to the Internet you overlooked where the masses got their information.

26 posted on 11/05/2005 7:49:04 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Seizure

You've done some homework! The smoke and mirrors used in the Infernal Revenue Code to coax Americans into participating in the Federal fraud is, to say the least, bordering on sorcery.


27 posted on 11/05/2005 7:50:15 PM PST by Whitewasher (Would u like America to be a goat nation in the millennium to come? Keep pushing the "Roadmap" bull!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12

A sales tax is no better than a flat tax.

Remember, the changes Bush does will only be TEMPORARY. The democrats will eventually UNDO everything. It's only a matter of time.

By that kind of thinking, we will still be British colonials paying tea taxes to the King of England.

Sorry, I take what I can get in change, then make them fight to undo what has been accomplished.

Conditions are never just right. People who delay action until all factors are favorable do nothing.
--William Feather

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato -

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-John Philpot Curran, 1790.

Remember once one has sufficient backing by the electorate to make a change in the tax system as proposed under the NRST, going back to an income tax will be a politically dead issue for generations to come. For the institutions that work to maintain status quo then work in favor of maintaining the tax reform accomplished and against those that would return to the systems that were replaced.

28 posted on 11/05/2005 7:59:18 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Although one of the proposals is being touted as a Use or Consumption Based Tax, flat tax that is based on use, it is really not, it is truly a federal sales tax being disguised.

There, I fixed it.

29 posted on 11/05/2005 8:13:46 PM PST by Protagoras (To keep freedom, you must give it away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zon

Since when did the public have to rely on the MSM? Are people completely incapable of researching what Congress is doing? Again, the media is not required to do one's duty as a citizen. I think people choose to rely on the MSM to relieve themselves of their responsibility as citizens. Lambs leading themselves willfully to the slaughter.


30 posted on 11/05/2005 8:26:00 PM PST by Seizure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Seizure

Thanks you're affirming, as is everybody on this forum that there is an alternative to the MSM and people are finally waking up. It was just a matter of time until convenient communication met frustration of dinosaur media. Internet, a product of science and business. As it should be, lifting up the masses.


31 posted on 11/05/2005 8:32:18 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Zon

Which is why the world is using the completely evil United Nations to try and take over the Internet. Just watch watch the Democrats do when they next take power (which they will someday, maybe sooner than we can handle).


32 posted on 11/05/2005 8:34:30 PM PST by Whitewasher (Would u like America to be a goat nation in the millennium to come? Keep pushing the "Roadmap" bull!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Whitewasher

The pendulum has changed direction. Away from irrationality and dishonesty. Momentum is gained as it rolls over democrats on it's way to rolling over republicans. The accrued momentum favors science and business obsolescing politics and religion. History shows that at worst science and business have been usurped by political and religious leaders to kill innocents and destroy values. Otherwise business and science would have done nothing but benefit the value creators, consumers and society. And resolving trivial problems such as buggy-whip makers rendered obsolete.


33 posted on 11/05/2005 8:46:16 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Although one of the proposals is being touted as a Use or Consumption Based Tax, flat tax that is based on use, it is really not, it is truly a federal sales tax being disguised.

There, I fixed it.

Lets see the "Flat Tax" which is a tax on employee's wages and coroporate profits is "truly a federal sales tax being disguised."

Yep you fixed it alright, for the "Flat Tax" is being touted as a federal sales tax being disguised.

A type of VAT, as a matter of fact, as the originators of the "Flat Tax" and others describe it.

 

The Flat Tax; Chapter 3, by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka

  • Here is the logic of our system, stripped to basics: We want to tax consumption. The public does one of two things with its income—spends it or invests it. We can measure consumption as income minus investment. A really simple tax would just have each firm pay tax on the total amount of income generated by the firm less that firm’s investment in plant and equipment. The value-added tax works just that way. But a value-added tax is unfair because it is not progressive. That’s why we break the tax in two. The firm pays tax on all the income generated at the firm except the income paid to its workers. The workers pay tax on what they earn, and the tax they pay is progressive.
  • To measure the total amount of income generated at a business, the best approach is to take the total receipts of the firm over the year and subtract the payments the firm has made to its workers and suppliers. This approach guarantees a comprehensive tax base. The successful value-added taxes in Europe work this way.
  • The other piece is the wage tax. Each family pays 19 percent of its wage, salary, and pension income over a family allowance (the allowance makes the system progressive). The base for the compensation tax is total wages, salaries, and retirement benefits less the total amount of family allowances.

 

 

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

 

Concerning Proposals for a Flat-Rate Consumption Tax
Before the Joint Economic Committee, Statement of Robert S. McIntyre
Director, Citizens for Tax Justice May 17, 1995


34 posted on 11/05/2005 9:44:09 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TheOracleAtLilac
The next President will have to tackle this one, it takes lots of guts to tackle every vested interest on K street and tell them all to go to hell. Where is Reagan II when we need him.
35 posted on 11/06/2005 4:46:01 AM PST by rodguy911 (Support Able Danger and Lt.Col Shaffer,Condi Rice/VP in 08--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12
A sales tax is no better than a flat tax. Remember, the changes Bush does will only be TEMPORARY. The democrats will eventually UNDO everything. It's only a matter of time.

If your line of thinking is extended then why bother living? Life is only TEMPORARY. Eventually death undoes life. It's only a matter of time.
36 posted on 11/06/2005 5:40:11 AM PST by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zon
In your mind, how is that relevant? Are you implying that the Church of Scientology spent millions of dollars researching methods of taxation and wrote HR25?

For years now, the American government has established state religion. No, it's not evangelical Christianity. It's Scientology.

Because of a 1993 secret deal with the Internal Revenue Service, members of L. Ron Hubbard's Church of Scientology are allowed to write off costly Scientologist "auditing" and "training" services as charitable gift deductions. Anyone who sends their child to religious school, however, is banned from writing off tuition.

What exactly are Scientologists writing off? Thousands of dollars worth of pure baloney. As authors Andrew Breitbart and Mark Ebner detail in their fascinating book, "Hollywood, Interrupted," Scientology itself is a load of psychedelic babble, and an expensive load at that. It costs over $300,000 to reach the top levels of this cult. "Auditing" -- the service that the IRS allows Scientologists to write off -- is a method of purging "thetans."

(From: L. Ron Hubbard has better lobbyists than God )

Spearheaded by the "church" of Scientology, the cynicaly misnamed "Fair Tax" [John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25)] is actually a fraudulent proposal intended to sidetrack and derail true efforts for tax reform.

37 posted on 11/06/2005 7:17:09 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; All

It is too bad that real tax reform will NEVER happen! There are way too many laywers it the middle of this for our own sake. We may need another revolt, to fix things back to the way they should be!


38 posted on 11/06/2005 9:05:00 AM PST by TMSuchman (2nd Generation U.S. MARINE, 3rd Generation American & PROUD OF IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

So you're applying guilt by association. Thanks for clearing that up.


39 posted on 11/06/2005 9:10:22 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TMSuchman

There are way too many laywers it the middle of this for our own sake. We may need another revolt, to fix things back to the way they should be!

Hmmm, if'n we strung all them lawyers up on the nearest lampposts, would we still have a quorum in Congress to enact legislation to fix things up?

40 posted on 11/06/2005 9:41:59 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zon
So you're applying guilt by association.

There are many situations, such as organized crime and the Mafia, where guilt by association is valid.
This is one of 'em.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

41 posted on 11/06/2005 10:06:36 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Ends justify the means, eh? Atta boy. Thanks again for making that clear.


42 posted on 11/06/2005 10:18:13 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Zon

Well, it's wonderful that we're STILL talking about it using a new means of information sharing and exchange. What I want to know is, since we're an official band of burned up brothers, what are we going to do about it?


43 posted on 11/06/2005 10:35:35 AM PST by Seizure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zon; Willie Green
Interesting that Willie green has tied his horses to a not so novel rhetorical tactic used first by Bruce Bartlett, (a Flat Tax/VAT advocate) in his attempt to discredit proponents of the FairTax Act. An adhominen attack by any standard.

One would think Willie could have come up with something novel for his attacks rather than brushing off the serial numbers and using this guilt by association tactic of Bruce Bartlett's.

Seems Congressman Linder, the actual Congressional sponsor of the FairTax Act, first introduced in Congress in 1998 as HR2525, has had abit to say about such tactics:

http://www.salestax.org/library/bartlett.html

Sponsor defends national sales tax bill
by Rep. John Linder
The Washington Times, January 12, 2000

In his Dec. 29 commentary, "Sales tax detour for tax reforms," Bruce Bartlett expressed his opinion that efforts to replace the current broken tax system with a simple, fair, pro-growth national sales tax are "Quixotic" and "led by the 'church' of Scientology." Mr. Bartlett evidently lacked rational arguments against the sales tax and thus resorted to religious animus.

As a sponsor of H.R. 2525 (Fair Tax Act of 1999), I confess that I have never been introduced to the "church" of Scientology. I doubt that my co-sponsor, Rep. Collin C. Peterson, has either, though the subject has never come up. Nor have we asked the more than 250,000 members of Americans for Fair Taxation, the many thousands of Americans who have attended FairTax town hall meetings, academics from Harvard to Stanford, editorial boards across the nation or the many other groups that back the plan - including the National Taxpayers Union and National Small Business United - what their religious affiliations are. We do share, however, the excitement that our goal is reachable. I suspect Mr. Bartlett is confusing our bill with another because he seems so confused about other "facts."

Most observers know that Mr. Bartlett is biased in favor of a flat tax on income and thus is prepared to produce a screed against any realistic proposal that competes with his idea. Even at that, it is fair to expect him to keep his facts in line. For instance, if the sales tax were imposed at a rate of 60 percent, the flat tax would have the same rate. Both plans tax income (or spending) once and exempt savings and investment. Nearly all economists, of every ideological stripe, agree that a broad-based sales tax and a flat income tax have virtually the same tax base (and thus would have the same tax rate).

Mr. Bartlett must know this. Yet he quotes a virulent opponent of both the flat tax and the national sales tax, economist Bill Gale, to the effect that a sales tax rate would need to be 50 percent. This, of course, is pure fiction. Mr. Gale did not analyze the FairTax but instead manufactured his own version of the sales tax that achieves this high rate by exempting most things from the tax. Those economists who actually have examined the FairTax (including academics from Harvard, Stanford and Boston University) agree that 21 percent to 25 percent is the right range.

As for the merits of wholesale tax reform, both the flat tax and the sales tax are simpler than the current tax system, and both are neutral toward savings and investment. I support a national sales tax over the flat tax because the sales tax achieves these goals as well as others that the flat tax does not.

The sales tax more visibly discloses the true cost of government than does the flat tax, by showing the tax every time a good or service is purchased. Additionally, research out of Harvard argues that we already pay a 22 percent sales tax on top of our income and payroll taxes. That is the estimated embedded cost of the current system at retail.

Every company that touches any product or service that we buy has income taxes, payroll taxes and attorneys and accountants to help it avoid the taxes. These dollars do not come out of a secret drawer; they are reflected in price, and you and I pay it. That burden would be eliminated with a sales tax but perpetuated by the flat tax because the flat tax leaves corporate income taxes and payroll taxes in place.

The sales tax relieves most Americans from the aggravation of having to file tax returns or keep tax records. April 15 would be just another spring day. For businesses, the cost to comply with a sales tax would be a fraction of the cost today. While the FairTax would dismantle the income tax apparatus, with the flat tax, all of the income tax apparatus would remain in place, and unfortunately, it would be relatively easy to regress to our current state. (Remember the much-vaunted 1986 tax simplification that reduced the income tax burden to two levels with the top rate being 28 percent? It has since been amended nearly 6,000 times and expanded to five levels, with the top rate being 39.6 percent. Only on the top 1 percent, of course.)

The FairTax also levels the playing field in the global economy. Imported goods come to our country with the majority of their tax component rebated to compete with our domestic competition, burdened with a 22 percent tax component. That would be eradicated under the FairTax, and imports to our shores would be taxed exactly the same as domestic products at the checkout counter. That would not be the case with the flat tax.

The FairTax would send our exports overseas with no tax burden on their shoulders to compete in the world market. That would not be the case with the flat tax.

The FairTax would make all Americans voluntary taxpayers, paying exactly as much tax as we choose when we choose. No government agency would know or care how much money we make or how we make it. That would not be the case with the flat tax.

Finally, the flat tax was introduced about two decades ago and has been promoted aggressively since then. It has failed to capture the imagination of the broader public. The FairTax was introduced just six months ago, and we have found that it already has attracted more support than the flat tax in the areas Mr. Peterson and I have visited. In short, the FairTax is more likely to be passed.

Sales tax proponents and flat tax supporters should direct their fire toward the common enemy, the current tax system. Either approach is better than the current system. Unfortunately, the effort to achieve fundamental tax reform is ill served by unfounded, ad hominem attacks by the Bruce Bartletts of the world - who misrepresent the facts for their own purposes.

Rep. John Linder
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington


44 posted on 11/06/2005 10:55:42 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Seizure

It's about individual freedom .Independent: what am I going to do about it? Many people have chosen to educate themselves and some go on to educate others. Letter campaigns, town hall participation from constituents to elected official


45 posted on 11/06/2005 10:59:12 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
[ why is it so difficult to think that this couldn't be expanded to all "used or consumed" items and completely do away with the income based system. ]

Thats an easy one Geez....
Not all the players are corrupt BUT ALL the umpires are..
ANY decisions by THEM will be jaded ultimately FOR the wrong TEAMs benefit..
Really Geez do you used face paint when you go to these games.?..
and a silly hat.?.

46 posted on 11/06/2005 11:10:45 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

You have just laid out good and sufficient reasons to replace the umpires.

After all we are the ones who put and keep these dunderheads in office, time to take the effort to remove them from the game. So it would seem to me.

And by the way, I don't wear funny hats nor paint my face for games, though my ancestor's have when the times warranted such. (Boston tea party was a grand time donch'ya think?)


47 posted on 11/06/2005 11:23:24 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Zon
I have done my homework on many federal issues that endanger our liberty and the framework of the Republic. Two wonderful friends of mine and I did combine our research. We spoke to local citizens about the foundation and reformation of the public school system. We demonstrated a path by which states relinquished the right to govern themselves in exchange for grants. We provided examples of the pervasive nature of the social engineering taking place in the classroom. How did parents react? "WELL, WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO???!!!"

I thought these parents would be genuinely concerned about the conditioning of their children. NO, the parents were indignant, pouted like children, and shot arrows at us. That demonstrated to me that they did not give one whit about their children. They cared about themselves...me, myself, and I. Their offspring were no more than a pair of shoes or a handbag, except they couldn't be crammed into a closet.

There are people who actually fight with more than telephone calls and letter campaigns. We jumped into the trenches to expose the atrocity. People looked at us like we were vermin. Those who I thought were friends no longer spoke me. Parents made fun of us..."did you see any black helicopters?"

Interestingly enough, after I began to homeschool my daughter, I saw these same parents during our harvest candy expedition. The same parents who shot arrows at and ridiculed me approached me and said, "Those things you said during the school year...well, our kids began to tell us things over the summer that they were taught in school. You were right." Guess what? They took their children out of the public school system.

What else surprised me was that my fellow Christians reacted with the most venom because they realized they fell down on the job. It didn't matter that most of them were Republicans, who more often than not react with the same harsh attitude. I forgive them. It is a bitter pill to swallow. Who ever thought the American government would gladly march us toward disaster?

As far as the town hall forum is concerned, it is governed by Hegelian dialectic. When you watch the town hall forum during critical elections remember that the questions are submitted and approved by both parties before the forum takes place. That way the machine behind the candidate has time to gear up for an orchestrated response. Participants are also told that if they attempt to ask a question different from that which was approved, question the candidate further, or make a statement the microphone will be turned off (then they will be escorted out).
48 posted on 11/06/2005 11:44:16 AM PST by Seizure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
[ After all we are the ones who put and keep these dunderheads in office, time to take the effort to remove them from the game. So it would seem to me. ]

You don't read history good do ya...
"We've" tried that for over two hundred years..
and "we" havnt removed them yet..

The founders of this here republic foresaw this problem..
and gave us the 2nd amendment..

What they didnt foresee is that we lost the cold war with socialism and are presently being socialized, quickly, by REPUBLICANS YET, currently.....

Proof: the second amendment has become NOW is just for doing target practice and artifact ownership.. Not for the orginal purpose of it.. which was to make revolution LEGAL...

Americans don't have much stomach for revolution these days.. would ruin the beer drinking and football games.. not to speak of stopping them precious SSI checks.. No America is way too soft for using the 2nd amendment to way it was orginally intended..

Admit it.. Geez.. the only balls left in america are in Iraq or on folks too old to even feel them anymore.. The geldings whinny is just for food anymore..

Pretty smart of Bush and others to move Americas balls to Iraq and Afganistan.. The chances of a revolution then are pretty remote.. A revolution of geldings would be quite funny.. if it happened at all.. it would merely be a riot anyway.. not a balls to the wall revolution..

The Fair Tax is the/a geldings anwser to the 2nd amendment.. FREEDOM ALWAYS costs BLOOD.. always.. Fiduciary tricks are a cowards gambit..

49 posted on 11/06/2005 11:49:38 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; ancient_geezer
Barbara Streisand.

The FairTax is not being promoted by the Church of Scientology. The "church" of Scientology was persecuted by the IRS. That much is true. I looked for the case on Findlaw, but I didn't find it. Please see, http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg045.html for a summary.

If memory serves, the case clearly showed that the IRS thought it was within its purview to consider whether the "Church of Scientology" was a legitimate church, and whether the "contributions" were deductible as contributions or whether the followers were really purchasing services.

Regardless of your thoughts on Scientology, Anyone who loves liberty should be outraged by the mere suggestion that the IRS should have the power to decide which churches are legitimate and which are phony. That is within the exclusive purview of the individual. The power to rescind the tax-exempt status is the power to control; the power to muzzle our Priests, Ministers and Rabbi's---never allowing their messages to be heard.

ENOUGH! Time to remove this arrow from the Government quiver by enacting the FairTax.
50 posted on 11/06/2005 8:19:40 PM PST by Conservative Goddess (Politiae legibus, non leges politiis, adaptandae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson