Posted on 04/20/2006 3:42:11 AM PDT by Man50D
Think of an April without filling out a federal tax return.
Instead of worrying about taxes due, you’ve already paid a share to Uncle Sam each time you made a purchase, be it a new sweater, SUV or a bottle of soft drink.
All those feared Internal Revenue Service agents are history.
This is the America envisioned by Rick Snuffer, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate — a government that relies almost exclusively on a national sales tax.
“What the Fair Tax Act does is change from what we’ve got now,” he says.
“There are 100,000 IRS agents harassing honest, hard-working Americans for the most part, and the Fair Tax Act sends them home.”
Under such a plan, not a penny disappears from a worker’s paycheck and goes to Washington.
“You bring home your entire paycheck,” the candidate said.
“No federal taxes are taken out of it. It totally untaxes the poor. This is something you’d think the liberals would sponsor because it taxes those who make more at a rate higher than those who make less. It does it in a fair way. It only taxes them more because they spend more. In a sense, it’s a voluntary tax.”
Snuffer says the proposal — a key item in his campaign to unseat Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd — would provide enough cash to offset the income tax, even if the economy turns sour.
As proof, he turns to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the economy slowed.
“Personal income went down and spending went up,” he said.
“In times of recession, when people are bored, spending goes up. The base for the gross national product has always climbed every year, even though incomes come down. People either pull money out of their savings or use their credit cards.”
Such a revolution in tax collection would benefit the business community, Snuffer says.
A study showed 80 percent of the Fortune 500 companies would move businesses back to America under such a tax and 20 percent would bring corporate headquarters to this nation.
“It does away with outscourcing of jobs,” Snuffer said. “It brings good, high-paying jobs back. It will be a workers’ market.”
Snuffer’s biggest issue with Byrd centers on his votes to confirm judges in the federal court system.
In fact, he says, Byrd has responded to only one candidate — him — and that was after his criticism of the senator appeared in a Register-Herald interview.
Republican rival John Raese talks about restoring capitalism, but Byrd never answered, and when another hopeful, Hiram Lewis, faulted the senator on his opposition to the war in Iraq, he, likewise, was greeted with silence, Snuffer said.
“We know we have the only message the senator will respond to,” Snuffer said. “We knew we had gotten to Byrd’s campaign with our message when he told President Bush on the phone over Judge Roberts, ‘I’ll shout praises to your name from the rooftops.’
“Actually, he’s been very consistent until the last two votes. He supports liberal judges who oppose the things I think he stands for.”
Snuffer takes issue with the Republican National Senatorial Committee that sought to show Byrd favors flag-burning and abandoning “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Yet, he has voted to seat judges who held those positions on constitutional grounds, Snuffer said.
“So, on the things he says he stands for, and the values he says he holds, he votes to confirm judges that oppose them,” Snuffer said.
Snuffer says the initial “C” in Byrd’s name stands for “constitutionally challenged,” contending the eight-term senator simply doesn’t understand the very document he holds dear.
“The Constitution says the Second Amendment provides the right to keep and bear arms and there shall be no infringement,” he said. “Now, no infringement means none. Yet, the senator has an ‘F’ rating with the National Rifle Association. So he doesn’t believe that part of the Constitution.
“There is no constitutional right to abortion. None whatsoever. Yet, Sen. Byrd has a horrific record on life issues and votes to confirm judges who use the Constitution to assault the right to life.”
Snuffer formed his own firm this year, Snuffer Communications and Consultant, to make a stab at Byrd’s seat, the second time he has taken on a longtime Democrat. Two years ago, he carried only the home county of Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., in a failed bid to upend an incumbent.
Snuffer maintains the demographics are different, however, in a statewide race, where Democrats outnumber GOP voters 2-1, and in Rahall’s 3rd District, where the ratio is 8-1. Plus, he won’t have the Bush-Cheney ticket pushing some 60,000 first-time Democratic voters to the registration book as in 2004.
Byrd and Snuffer are at odds on another issue — the war in Iraq — and the challenger emphasized he doesn’t view the incumbent’s strident anti-war stand as unpatriotic.
“I think he loves his country,” Snuffer said. “He is wrong.”
Snuffer said Byrd was among Democrats who wanted President Clinton in 1998 to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and “they’re very against it now.”
Speaking out against the war isn’t unpatriotic, but Snuffer added, “Ask our soldiers in the field if it helps them when our leaders are trashing them. It’s not.”
Snuffer figures he will have to spend $40,000 to win the primary, one that he says will be decided by 26,000 to 35,000 votes.
Recently, he said, the White House asked him for a résumé, leading him to believe key Republicans want him out of the race, but never offered a job. Snuffer said he senses a belief by national Republicans to make Raese look stronger with a big primary victory margin.
A former pastor, Snuffer says he takes his marching orders from the Lord and has no intention of leaving the race.
“If He asked me to do it, I’d charge hell with a squirt gun if that’s what He wanted me to do,” he said.
Snuffer said many evangelicals feel an estrangement from the Bush administration — not the president, but those around him — over what is perceived as being used to win the 2004 election with “values” issues, then abandoned.
As evidence, he points to several Christians who are being discouraged from running for office.
“They like us to come out and vote for them, and support their candidates, but they’re not comfortable with us running for office,” he said.
“They’re trying to get Christians out of races.”
Fair Tax Ping!
I think this is a good idea and would also make sure the Illegals pay their share of taxes. (tax the money sent back to Mexico too)
It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy past time for that old fossil Byrd to retire! Hope the good Rev. Stuffer can send him home!
No surprise there!
The Fairtax still funds the welfare state. Genu-cons (Genuine Conservatives) support a return to tariffs. Globalists favor the NRST over tariffs because the US will still subsidize socialist countries that rely on equal access to the American consumer.
Proposed 1909; Questionably Ratified 1913
< The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
This needs to be repealed BEFORE any national sales tax or VAT tax is ever enacted.
I beg to disagree! TRUE conservatives realize that we can only slay one dragon at a time and getting rid of the communist inspired income tax is the foremost dragon on the list!
Likely lost on the true believers.
And how do you propose getting that done without a replacement tax in place first?
The fairtax repeals the income tax and requires the destruction of all IRS records. With that in place, repeal of the 16th will be any easy matter.
Simple. Write the law, and structure the transition, so that the National Sales Tax does not take effect until the 16th is repealed.
Excellent points. The Fair Tax is gaining ground, despite the naysayers.
bump^ the NRTX is gaining supporters!
I'm sure I'm missing something here, but how can this be true? The "poor" seldom end up paying any income tax; but with a new system, what happens if they buy a new car, for example? Ten percent on top of 20K would equal 2000 bucks - upfront, even if the vehicle is financed over several years.
Given little instances such as this, I'm fairly certain we'd end up with such complicated exclusions and exceptions that the system might remain about as mucked up as it is right now...
If we put in place a NST or VAT then it must contingent on the repeal of 16th Amendment. You can't have both in place simultaniously. The democRATS would love to have a NST/VAT and income tax simutaniously.
,,, and here's another who listened to Dick Armey spout off about the 16th with his attempt to forestall the FairTax and push his flat tax notion.
Obviously the 16th cannot be eliminated first. Doing so would leave us with no operaating tax revenue law and no Congressman is dumb enough to do that (well - at least not enough of them). It would be economic chaos.
Passing the FairTax eliminates the income/payroll tax (and others), the IRS, and requires the income tax records to be destroyed. The FairTax actually gives us some protection from having both.
I am truly tired of "the poor". Everything hurts the poor. They can't afford food, or cars or housing or lawyers, or whatever. Of course they can't afford these things...they're poor! But yet they are the ones who commit most of the crimes, are most likely abuse drugs, and have children they cannot afford to support. They don't pay any taxes now and it's high time that they start paying taxes. A NRST or a VAT should not exempt the poor. It should apply to all, with no exceptions. You want to buy a car? Then you had better have the money to pay the taxes too. Because if you can't afford the taxes then you can't afford the car, or plasma TV, or whatever.
the FairTax opponents are always trying to come up with schemes to prevent the passage of the FairTax. In this case by a conditional repeal bill pushed so far into the future that it is forgotten.
Nice try. Won't work. As it is the FairTax rids us of that unnecessary tax system and protects us from having it again. YThe taxpayers of this country have been through the income tax mess twice now. There will not be a third time for several of our lifetimes. People really are not THAT dumb. Nor are politicians willing to risk their vaunted positions (and pensions).
My point here is that you cannot trust a democRAT....ever!!! The 16th has to be repealed, either before or at the same time as the NRST/VAT is enacted. To have the 16th continue to be in place is asking for more of the same BS that we have now PLUS a NRST/VAT, which is unacceptable. It's an either, or, situation.
Do you trust the democRATS to vote to repeal the 16th after the NRST/VAT is enacted. I don't. There has to be some condition on which you trade one tax scheme for the other and not have both in effect at the same time. I can just hear it now....We can't repeal the 16th because we don't know what the revenue will be...Oh, we can't repeal the 16th because the NRST/VAT didn't raise enough money so we need to tax your income to cover the difference. only we need 1%...then 5%, then 15% and so on.
Without some guarantee of repeal of the 16th the NRST/VAT is dead.
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.