Replies

JaneNC,

The Flat Tax is still an ‘Income’ tax.

Do you know what is wrong with an ‘Income’ tax in any form?

It is its definition.

Is ‘Income’ the same as ‘Revenue’?

You would not believe what people thought 100 hundred years ago or even 80 years ago when it came to discussing an Income tax. Most people did not care because they never saw it. It applied only to the top .5% of the American population.

It has since spread to the middle class and the way it spread was a slow, clever and deceitful manipulation of the word ‘income’.

This is why billionaire Warren Buffett pays a 17% tax rate and his secretary pays a 25% rate. He admitted to that. You see, Buffett is able to get loopholes by having Congress define ‘income’ to be gains, exempt revenues or deductible or equivalently get Congress to define revenue as non-taxable income and so forth.

This is the root of the who problem. ‘Income’ can be anything the IRS decides it will be or not be. That is why good people learn the IRS is a KGB like organization in America. Good people that always paid their taxes suddenly get an audit notice and are told they owe thousands in taxes and thousands more in penalties and interest because they did not fill their taxes out correctly because they did not understand ‘income’. And there is no due process in court, they must pay or else. The Constitution does not apply in Tax Court.

If you have a high speed internet connection, watch this film:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

I am not saying don’t pay your taxes. Please do pay your taxes but be aware of the system we have and why we it needs to be changed. The FairTax is the only way to get us back to the Constitution.

I hate the income tax and IRS (and its infernal snoopiness) with a passion but the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to lay a tax on incomes from whatever source derived. Thus, q.e.d., the income tax, however despicable, is nonetheless quite constitutional.

Prohibition of sale of alcoholic beverages was once constitutional as well. Then, by popular demand, another constitutional amendment repealed the one allowing prohibition.

Is it not true that restoring the constitution as it was prior to the 16th Amendment as to income taxation would also require a constitutional amendment??? You would think that we would care at least as much for protecting our earnings and privacy as we would for protecting our right to guzzle booze.