[xcamel]

TANSTAAFT!

(There aint no such thing as a FairTax)

Double digit taxation for single digit IQ's

*pinglist*

If H.R. 25 was enacted into law tomorrow, and a future Congress followed its language to the letter, would that future Congress have authority to calculate a tax from corporate income as upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)? The answer is, YES! Our socialists in Congress would still be able to lay and collect a tax calculated from income just as is now calculated under the Income Tax! This is what the FairTax Con Artists don`t tell you.

Freepmail me to get on or off.

[Prime Choice]

This is what the FairTax Con Artists don`t tell you.

That and their fraudulent claims that "fair tax" is 23% when it actually starts at 30%...and it'll only go up from there.

[ancient_geezer]

It is interesting to note what you have failed to state:

The only thing that has ever prevented Congress from levying both income and retail taxes at the same is the same thing preventing them under the current income/payroll taxes system and would be preventing them from doing so under a retail sales tax only system.

The American electorate would politically hang any politician so foolish as to try such a dumb move.

 

The portions of the income tax that was upheld as valid by Flint vs Tracy was held to be constitutional by Pollock v. Farmers as well and would continue to be Constitutional even if the 16th amendment were repealed tomorrow.

 

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.

[KoRn]

Its my understanding that part of the Fair Tax includes repealing the 16th Amendment that allow for income tax. I wouldn't support the Fair Tax either if that isn't done.

[groanup]

You really should keep your x-rays private. And I see your ping list is not growing. LOL.

[JOHN W K]

A message to fair tax rally participants!

So, you have fallen for the propaganda Neal Boortz and others have told you about H.R. 25? Lets get down to understanding what H.R. 25 really is!

WILL H.R. 25 END EXISTING PAPERWORK AND RECORD KEEPING? NO!

TAXING CONSUMPTION__THE FOUNDER’S WAY

H.R. 25`s $600 billion a year family consumption entitlement gimmick

REVENUE NEUTRAL MEANS: let’s fund existing big government without a moment of accountability

Another observation concerning H.R. 25___ from each state according to its ability

TAX GATHERS INCREASE IN NUMBER___ self employed converted into federal tax gathers

H.R. 25 CREATES NEW RULE BOOK IN ADDITION TO RULE BOOK FOR TAXES CALCULATED FROM INCOME

Neal Boortz / Rep. Linder___ documenting lies and misleading information

Does Sean Hannity support H.R. 25, an alleged fair tax

An answer to the Steve Forbes flat tax(the founder’s fair share formula!)

SURPRISE, H.R. 25 is not a consumption tax

Regards,

JWK _a proud supporter of our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX REFORM PLAN

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ___ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

[jslade]

bttt

[editor-surveyor]

"The answer is, YES! Our socialists in Congress would still be able to lay and collect a tax calculated from income just as is now calculated under the Income Tax! This is what the FairTax Con Artists don`t tell you."

And you seriously expect one of these gravy train commuters to vote to end the ride? Did I ever tell you about my great real estate investment opportunities...