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

Skip to comments.

Repeal That Infernal Tax Code
Townhall.com ^ | April 17, 2012 | Paul Greenberg

Posted on 04/17/2012 5:28:08 AM PDT by Kaslin

"April is the cruelest month. . . ."--T. S. Eliot, The Waste Land

Ronald Reagan said it back in 1983: "Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive . . . (it) reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American . . . it has earned a rebellion, and it's time we rebelled."

But what politician today would speak so eloquently, and all too accurately, about the country's irrational, insufferable, infernal Internal Revenue Code? (Except maybe for purely ceremonial purposes during an election year.)

Those in Congress who have made distinguished careers sneaking tricky little passages into the tax code to favor the special interests they represent, or just hope to solicit for a campaign donation, aren't interested in undoing this elaborate trap for the average taxpayer.

Why would politicians seriously challenge a system that so richly rewards them for their expertise in an arcane specialty?

Lest we forget, and so many do, that this republic was born of a tax revolt -- indeed, a mounting succession of them that climaxed in the Spririt of '76. Gosh, maybe that's why they call it the Tea Party.

But we the people long ago lost touch with our Revolutionary, and still revolutionary, roots. We've become inured to the injustice, inefficiency and general incomprehensibility of an encyclopedic tax code that by now passeth all understanding.

A whole priesthood of CPAs has multiplied to translate this gnostic creed, with all its daunting commandments and special dispensations.

Most of us don't object to paying our taxes. Living in the United States of America is not only a blessing but a great bargain. What we object to, or should, is how hard, how complicated, how expensive and sometimes just how plain hopeless it is to try to figure out how much we owe.

Awash in a sea of paper, or rather an ocean of electronic impulses in this internetted age, the American taxpayer needs . . .

HELP!

But every sweeping new tax law Congress enacts -- always called a "reform" -- makes reform only more complicated and, if possible, more confusing. And makes the tax code longer. By now, it has grown as indecipherable as Hammurabi's. It might as well be on clay tablets.

Despite the perennial foofaraw in Washington about whether and how much to cut taxes, what really drives people nuts is the paperwork, the record keeping, the uncertainty.

Even if folks have an accountant, and by now an estimated 80 percent of us use a tax preparer, or at least some software, to figure out how much we owe, it's still a wearing process.

For the average American family, filling out a tax form has become like attacking a puzzle to which, often enough, there is no right answer. But we're all supposed to swear, on penalty of perjury, that we've done our best to find it.

What to do? Don't mend it, end it. Abolish the tax code and start all over. Think about it: Would anybody starting from scratch come up with a system so byzantine, so counterproductive, so insane as the one we're stuck with? Well, maybe Rube Goldberg.

So why not opt for a clean break with the past?

Yes, kill the monster. Drive it through. Abolish the Internal Revenue Code and begin anew.

Put this thing out of its misery and the taxpayer's. By a date certain. Say, December 31, 2013. The government would have until then to come up with a simpler, fairer substitute.

At this point, it would be easier to junk the U.S. tax code and start all over than to fix it, and certainly to understand it.

To rephrase a thought from Dr. Johnson, nothing so wonderfully concentrates the mind as the prospect of having to file your taxes by midnight tonight. Or get an extension and so succeed only in prolonging the pain.

First kill the Internal Revenue Code, and the way to create a simpler, fairer system might become clearer to all those politicians, bureaucrats and other unimaginative types who now say it just can't be done. But it can be.

There is no time like the present to abolish the Internal Revenue Code. Which is pretty much what I wrote on Tax Day in 2004 and 2006 and 2008 ... and just about every year since. And now have said so again on this Tax Day.

Never. never, never, never give up. Don't believe those who can always be counted on to do nothing about even the longest-running outrages. Just abolish the old tax code and the politicians in Washington would have to devise a new, better, simpler one. From scratch. They'll want to get paid, won't they?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: irs; taxcode; taxes; taxrelief
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

1 posted on 04/17/2012 5:28:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here’s the solution:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq


2 posted on 04/17/2012 5:31:44 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Actually, I believe the solution is in front of the Supreme Court at this very moment. Should the USSC follow the Constitution and declare that Government CANNOT FORCE any citizen to purchase a “product or service”, they will be in effect declaring ALL LAWS that cannot be read and Understood by the average person of average means without the assistance of a “Government approved and licensed attorney or accountant” shall be immediately NULL and VOID. The government should not be allowed to force everyone to HIRE an ATTORNEY or an ACCOUNTANT just to understand and follow a LAW they ARE REQUIRED TO OBEY. Which is incidentally why we passed the Original 13th Amendment.


3 posted on 04/17/2012 5:45:44 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
It's not the "tax code" per se that's the source of the problem ~ rather, it's the 16th amendment that says "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. "
4 posted on 04/17/2012 5:49:52 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Repeal of the 16th, which solves the problem, will ALSO eliminate the ability for the federales to impose the equally onerous "Fair Tax' and permutations thereof.

A return to apportionment by state will, of necessity, create an incentive in Congress to not pass tax measures!

5 posted on 04/17/2012 5:56:21 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Repeal of the 16th will eliminate the income tax.

Excise tax is still on the table.

If I had to choose income or excise, I choose excise.


6 posted on 04/17/2012 6:27:14 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Kaslin; Chunga85; LibertarianInExile; All; Lurker; FromLori; azhenfud; Wolfie; ...

http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap4.html

Chapter 4 of the TRUTH!
The TRUTH About Income!

In the last chapter we learned the truth about income tax. In this chapter we will learn the truth about the real definition of income itself! Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is income defined.

So the big question becomes, what IS income? And did you have any that was taxable?

The word “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, as the court stated in U.S. v. Ballard 535 F.2d 400 at 404, but the Supreme Court has defined it for us in numerous cases.

Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399 (1913) “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, . . .”

“As to what should be deemed “income” within the meaning of Sec. 38, it of course need not be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the 16th amendment not having been as yet ratified) income was not taxable as such by Congress without apportionment according to population, and this tax was not apportioned. Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government.”

The Supreme Court defines “income tax”, as an excise tax “imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form”. If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an “excise income tax.” This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual’s income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.

The above case applies to corporations, so if you are not a corporation, then the Corporation Excise tax does not apply to you. The important thing here is the clarification that the income tax is an excise tax, imposed upon the doing of business in corporate form. An the tax is determined by how much income is received. But WHAT is income? The Supreme Court again tells us:

Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920) The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.

In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitations upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted: . . . As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not “income’, as the term is there used;
After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation (Excise) Tax Act of 1909
(Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert 231 US 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 US 179, 185)

“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined”, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case pp. 183, 185.

“Derived — from — capital”; — “the gain — derived — from — capital,” etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being “derived,” that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the Taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.

That Congress has power to tax stockholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question; and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

Clearly, the definition of corporate income means a gain or profit received from an excise taxed activity. But does this same definition apply to individual income tax?

To the Supreme Court again:

Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) “It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word “income” has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of “income” which was applied was adopted from Strattons’ Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include “profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,” there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”

The word “income” has the same meaning in ALL the income tax acts of Congress. That meaning has been declared to be corporate profits and gains and has been definitely settled by the Supreme Court. So, did you have income that is taxable? Did you have a gain or profit from a corporate activity? Remember that the income tax is an excise tax on the doing of business in a corporate capacity. That is the ONLY way that you can receive taxable income, as legally defined by the Supreme Court.

If you relied on these never overturned Supreme Court rulings in your beliefs, does your reliance on these plain rulings constitute a frivolous position? The IRS says it does!

So, if you had NO corporate income tax liability for this year, you had zero “income” as legally defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. A corporation is NOT taxed on ALL its income, from whatever source. It is only taxed on it’s profit. If that is the case then why are YOU taxed on ALL your income from whatever source? You are also allowed to deduct SOME expenses. Does that mean that if you work for a corporation and you exchange 40 hours of your labor for $600, that you had $600 of profit, minus deductions? If a corporation exchanges $600 for 40 hours of your labor, did they also have a profit? NO! They can claim ALL your labor as a deductible operating expense. So why is it that why you exchange one property (your labor) for another property ($600) that in that exchange, you had a profit and the corporation had a deduction? Why is it a profit for you but not for the corporation? The answer is that it is not a profit for EITHER of you! And therefore it is not taxable income, as defined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has ruled:

Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920): “ The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. . . .taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property (labor) were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, . . . that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states”

The Supreme Court has plainly stated that an individual’s income cannot be taxed directly: But an individual’s income CAN be taxed with an excise tax, IF it was received in a corporate activity. More on this later.

Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399 (1913) “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.

Corporate “income” (profits and gains) CAN be taxed with an excise tax, but the income itself is not taxed because it is property. Therefore income tax is not on income, it is on profits. It is not an income tax law, it is a profits tax law. Are you engaged in, or did you receive income in connection with, any corporate activities? Receipts received from labor or private investments are not corporate “income” and therefore do not fall within the legal definition of “income” as defined by the Supreme Court.

SUMMARY
“Income” is legally defined as a corporate gain of profit in the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is there any different definition.

The definition of income used in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition used in ALL the income tax statutes.

“Gross income” would then be the total income of a corporation, from all sources.

“Taxable income” would therefore be corporate gross income, minus allowable deductions. Also known as profit. If a corporation had no profit, then it had no taxable income. If you are an officer of a corporation, then you had individual income that is taxable.

Anytime the Internal Revenue Code mentions the word “income” it is talking about corporate income.


7 posted on 04/17/2012 6:32:25 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The FairTax does not need the 16th Amendment to be constitutional. It is fully constitutional under Article I Section 8.

The FairTax Rebate is also uniform and allows for the FairTax rate to be applied uniformly above a certain amount of spending, hence constitutional.

I know the architects of the legislation and they designed the FairTax to exist without the 16th Amendment and they did not design it in a vacuum but with input from hundreds of constitutional scholars and experts.


8 posted on 04/17/2012 7:46:50 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

REPLACE IT WITH A 10% FLAT TAX

*EVERYONE* PAYS

no tax on government employees, who are already being paid FROM taxes

no tax on any government income (Social Security, unemployment, etc)

AND THE GOVERNMENT *MUST* ONLY SPEND WHAT IT TAKES IN EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY DEFENSE EXPENDITURES!

And I am going to give a beating to the nest “fair” tax person who tries to explain why the ‘tax-inclusive’ rate is good)


9 posted on 04/17/2012 7:57:54 AM PDT by Mr. K (If Romney wins the primary, I am writing-in PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

REPLACE IT WITH A 10% FLAT TAX

*EVERYONE* PAYS

no tax on government employees, who are already being paid FROM taxes - and their salaries are FROZEN for the next 10 years (then they cannot exceed private sector annual salary)

NO MORE ‘20-and-out’ - paying people full retirement from government jobs after 20 years is insane. they can ‘retire’ at 65 like the rest of us.

And your retirement pay CAN NOT exceed your base pay.

SOCIAL SECURITY is optional, if you have a retirement account.

no tax on any government income (Social Security, unemployment, etc)

AND THE GOVERNMENT *MUST* ONLY SPEND WHAT IT TAKES IN EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY DEFENSE EXPENDITURES!

And I am going to give a beating to the next “fair” tax person who tries to explain why the ‘tax-inclusive’ rate makes sense)

[anything else I can solve while I am here?]


10 posted on 04/17/2012 8:00:44 AM PDT by Mr. K (If Romney wins the primary, I am writing-in PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! and AMEN!!!!

http://www.fairtax.org


11 posted on 04/17/2012 8:01:43 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

If you are talking about a flat rate income tax forget it!

ANY form of income tax is fatally flawed in that it preserves the ability of politicians to define exactly what is, or is not, “income”. That seemingly small thing is at the heart of all that is currently wrong in Washington and we MUST fix it!!


12 posted on 04/17/2012 8:08:09 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

The FairTax (and other sales taxes) is seductively simple.

The problem I have with it is it injects the federal government into EVERY purchase made. In our age of instant data mining, the possibilities of manipulation are staggering. The FairTax theory is: you swipe a debit card to buy a Coke, you pay a 20% (or whatever) sales tax. The ugly likelihood (once Congress gets busy on the tax code): you swipe a debit card, you scan the Coke, the transaction _starts_ with a 20% sales tax, but then because you used “plastic” knows who you are, notices from your tax history you’re in a higher tax bracket, ups that to 30%, notices you’re buying an “plus unhealthful” product, ups tax to 35%, checks your Obamacare (it’s not repealed yet, guys!) records and sees you’re borderline diabetic, ups tax to 45%, cross-references with criminal databases, notices an unpaid parking ticket, alerts security, and just as you’re opening the can walking out the door a cop arrests you for missing the court date you received in the mail but your toddler fed to the dog before you got home.

Do you _really_ want to give the feds that much monitoring capability?

Before you say “can’t happen”, remember that the IRS is leveraging border security to prevent tax-owing citizens from leaving. Fences block transit both ways, and point-of-sale taxation can be mined for a lot more information and abuse than you can imagine.


13 posted on 04/17/2012 8:41:22 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Any tax, even a rebate on a tax, that is not apportioned among the states is UNCONSTITUTIONAL on that ground alone ~ and you will find that ALL the arguments the tax geniuses use to show that the FAIR TAX meets constitutional muster were previously developed to use to justify the Income Tax (both corporate and personal) prior to the passage of the 16th amendment.

When it comes to taxes there's never anything new, or fair about them.

14 posted on 04/17/2012 8:56:20 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Well you are wrong about that in regards to Rebates. As long as rebates are uniform they represent a tax reimbursement which is completely constitutional.

The goal for the FairTax with regards to the Rebate is simple:

THERE IS NO FEDERAL INDIRECT TAX APPLIED TO INDIVIDUALS BELOW A CERTAIN SPENDING THRESHOLD OF ESSENTIALS.

To implement the above the government can choose business to choose to monitor spending of all consumers, a ridiculous and impractical proposition. Or the government can rebate/reimburse taxes already paid up to that threshold.

The income tax has always been constitutional as an indirect tax under the historical provisions of the Constitution as long as it was uniformly applied in the same manner as an excise tax. It is the graduated income tax which is not uniform for which the 16th was created. The 16th allows for confiscation of wealth and for targeting which wealth groups get taxed.

The original income tax was signed into law in 1862 by President Lincoln and was 1% on all incomes. It was constitutional and never challenged. It was Congress that in only two years time after Lincoln signed the original law that they started to create tax brackets that led to a graduated income tax. This graduated income tax was challenged in court and was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS later in the 1860s. The 1% tax was recuscitated in the 1870s and sunsetted in one year’s time but there were again members of Congress wanting to make it graduated despite the SCOTUS precedent. The income tax was again brought up in 1894 and shot down. This was the history leading up to the 16th.

So as long as the income tax was applied to incomes uniformly this form of taxation was considered constitutional. Ever today some IRS supporters use twisted logic to say the income tax is uniform by saying that within each bracket it is uniform. You can bet that they will try to use that argument should the 16th be repealed.


15 posted on 04/17/2012 9:20:55 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

You are having paranoid fears understandably because you have lived under the behavioral practice patterns of the 16th Amendment all your life.

I spent a great deal of time in Suzzalo library in the microfiche department of periodicals where I read countless newspapers and editorials from late 1800s leading up to 1913 and beyond. The people I read about and the news articles and editorials I read were from people that never saw the result of a society living under the 16th Amendment for generations.

When we repeal the 16th we will go back to the original tax provisions in Section I of the Constitution. The key thing to understand is that taxes must be uniform, not uniform within certain categories, but uniform in spending and with the FairTax it must be uniform in RETAIL, END-USER, CONSUMER spending across the board.

If Congress tries to pass a law that says it can tax retail sales of apples different from retail sales of oranges, it will violate the uniformity clause and be unconstitutional on its face.

There is a lot of history on taxation before 1913. All of that history was well worked out with respect to indirect taxes, excises, duties and imports. All of that history and case law comes back to center stage when the 16th is gone.

When you study it you will see clearly that your concerns are overblown. Taking away the 16th gives power back to the people and starts the process of decentralizing the federal government which is badly needed.


16 posted on 04/17/2012 9:35:35 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
ANY form of income tax is fatally flawed...
The Fairtax specifically taxes the gross income from sales and services...
17 posted on 04/17/2012 9:36:59 AM PDT by lewislynn ( What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in commom? Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

Looie as usual you are just plain LOONIE and haven’t the faintest idea as to what you are talking about!

It does no such thing! no form of “income” would be taxed under the fairtax. Only PERSONAL consumption is.


18 posted on 04/17/2012 9:44:01 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
The FairTax Rebate is also uniform and allows for the FairTax rate to be applied uniformly above a certain amount of spending, hence constitutional.
That's not at all true.

Go to their own rebate chart and you'll see that a family of four, husband and wife with 2 kids will receive MORE than a family of four with a single mom and 3 kids.

The Fairtax is a fraud beginning with the way the rate is being sold.

19 posted on 04/17/2012 9:47:46 AM PDT by lewislynn ( What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in commom? Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Do you _really_ want to give the feds that much monitoring capability

No, That's why I use cash for everything.

You are on to the real problem though. The tax system is not about operating funds for the government it is about control and intelligence gathering. Just to prove that you have paid enough tax you are compelled to provide to the government how much you make, where you made it, how much profit you made if you sell something. They have to know where you live, where you work, and how you get from one to the other. They know how many kids you have and where they go to school, Where you go to church and whether or not that church is an "approved" nonprofit. they even know which bank you keep your accounts in.

They knew about this when they passed the 16th amendment. (I think Bryant wanted the dictatorial power that would result) In the words of Virginia House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, who in 1910 predicted what the income tax would do.

"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 inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hailed 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 . . . Who of us who have had knowledge of the doings of the Federal officials in the Internal Revenue service can be blind to what will follow?"

20 posted on 04/17/2012 9:55:41 AM PDT by Cowman (How can the IRS seize property without a warrant if the 4th amendment still stands?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
It does no such thing! no form of “income” would be taxed under the fairtax. Only PERSONAL consumption is.
Cite the part of the law that gives the "PERSONAL consumption" tax rate...You can't because it doesn't exist.

The law states the rate is 23% of the gross payments received..

IOW, the business gross INCOME is taxed..

21 posted on 04/17/2012 10:23:44 AM PDT by lewislynn ( What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in commom? Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

And the CONSUMER, not you , pays it you idiot!


22 posted on 04/17/2012 10:37:42 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cowman

Great quote. Good, albeit disconcerting, to know this concern arose long ago and we’re so far into it we can’t recognize the issue.

Going cash-only is, of course, possible. Smart totalitarians realize they can’t control _everyone_ _always_, so they’ll grant you the delusion of anonymity (be it real or not) insofar as the overall approach persuades ever more people to embrace their own oppression. Over time, of course, your cash-only approach will grow harder to adhere to, and you too will someday scrawl “2+2=5” in the dust; I long had a cash-only mentality for the same reasons ... then one day realized I hadn’t so much as carried cash for months. The individual struggle for freedom amid a submissive culture is one of diminishing returns.

Indeed, I could not so much as not register my kids for Social Security, faced with the prospect of a huge fine in form of “lack of tax credit” to the tune of $20,000 each. I sigh, sign ‘em up, and hope the despotic system crashes in a fiery end ASAP.


23 posted on 04/17/2012 11:05:02 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

You are wrong, it is uniform.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2012.pdf

Each qualifying adult is rebated $11,170 and each qualifying child is rebated $3960.

That is uniform.

What you are referring to is whether the FairTax is fair. It is as fair as any tax system can be. A divorced custodial parent of 3 will likely have income from a non-custodial parent or in the case of a widowed parent will have social security.

But the discussion is bout its constitutionality and it is uniformly applied, therefore constitutional.


24 posted on 04/17/2012 11:07:10 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; lewislynn

He or she is clearly a confused and disturbed individual.

Mixing up notions of consumer versus business taxes, non-uniformity in rebates applied to families versus uniform rebates applied to individuals.

He or she does not understand the FairTax basics and like a leftist democrat tries to confuse the issue or creates diversions to unrelated issues.


25 posted on 04/17/2012 11:12:57 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; lewislynn

You guys are arguing semantics. OK, so the business is taxed upon its income at the point of sale; the consumer is imputed with the responsibility, but it’s the business that in fact receives the money and then sends a fraction to the feds. You can say the consumer pays the tax but the business collects & aggregates & submits it (making the business a tax collector).

So what? However it is done and whatever semantics apply, the feds confiscate trillions of dollars, waste most of the money in ways it is not granted power to, bill our grandchildren for >50% more spending on top of that, and do it in a manner where it may scrutinize & adjust each and every purchase made.

Sales tax, whoever is imputed as making the payment, is idiotic.

How about a different, more Constitutional, approach: reduce the IRS to a couple of guys working a couple days a year to receive, record, and deposit one large check from each state & territory. Let Congress decide what each state’s “fair share” is according to the Constitution, and let each state decide how it’s going to raise the money - or how it will push back with enough force of “NO!” that Congress will take notice and lower its demands.


26 posted on 04/17/2012 11:13:35 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I thought requisitions went the way of the Articles of Confederation. When did Congress, under the Constitution, ever receive and deposit one large check from each state & territory?


27 posted on 04/17/2012 11:28:13 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

You think that will remain uniform for any meaningful length of time? Some self-identified group will lobby Congress to grant them greater rebates (and to reduce some other alleged group’s).

There’s lots of outrage about people making money off “refundable tax credits”, and additional outrage over the proposition of the government paying everyone a “living wage”. How then is it suddenly “sensible” for the feds to give a family of 4 $38,180 no strings attached? especially when anyone can work a high-paying job, and by operating exclusively in used goods and private sales pay no taxes regardless of income? How is this any different from the well-despised “redistributing the wealth”?

Lesseehere, work 2000+ hours a year for twice the income but have half of it confiscated (don’t forget _all_ levels of taxation), or do nothing and collect a check for half as much with no taxation ... same net, lots of effort vs. zero effort, gee I wonder which will encourage creation of wealth. Retail sales & the new goods market will collapse overnight.

Once Progressives realize this is a means to “guaranteed living wage”, they’ll be all for the FairTax - for the wrong reasons.

The Constitution does not provide for giving people “living wage” money just because they exist. Doesn’t matter if it’s dispersed uniformly.


28 posted on 04/17/2012 11:31:43 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Correct me with quotes/links/history if I’m wrong. Before the 16th Amendment, outside of tarriffs etc I’m not at the carbohydrate-hazy moment clear how the feds accumulated revenue. As the Senate and President were at the time selected by the _states_ (not directly by aggregate individual citizens), I don’t see a stretch to just issuing states a bill based on Congressional seats, and letting each state decide how that bill would be fulfilled (New York by taxing each via complex revenue codes, Alaska by a cut of oil revenues and no tax on residents, etc.).


29 posted on 04/17/2012 11:36:29 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I appreciate your research.
Pardon my continued suspicion of Congress’ ability to play semantics with what constitutes “uniform”. This IS a government which thinks it can prohibit lawful imputed reduction of demand in illegal interstate commerce.


30 posted on 04/17/2012 11:40:02 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
You guys are arguing semantics.

Not true. The argument is about definitions. Every piece of legislation, every government law or ordinance, every contract has a list of definitions that are in effect. Definitions are important so that time is not wasted on those that do not read them and so that courts will apply law with meaningful intent.

Sales tax, whoever is imputed as making the payment, is idiotic.

Sales tax without income tax works just fine in many states including mine. It is a fact that in recessions sales tax revenues dip less than income taxes. Income taxes are difficult to administer and are more sensitive to economic conditions.

During recession the consumer needs to purchase certain items just to survive so there will always be a sales tax revenue stream that has this basic necessity sales thereby is less sensitive to economic downturns than income tax revenues. Sales tax revenues are much more stable and robust.

How about a different, more Constitutional, approach: reduce the IRS to a couple of guys working a couple days a year to receive, record, and deposit one large check from each state & territory.

Why not do it this way? Because it would be unconstitutional. What you are referring to is a direct tax which must be apportioned according to a census, a capitation tax. But you are proposing it be applied to the state level without apportionment which is unconstitutional because only income taxes are presently constitutional without apportionment and the States have no income.

Let Congress decide what each state’s “fair share” is according to the Constitution, and let each state decide how it’s going to raise the money - or how it will push back with enough force of “NO!” that Congress will take notice and lower its demands.

Again, what you propose is a direct tax on states without apportionment which is impossible. Direct taxes were written into the constitution to provide for large public works projects or for funding wars. If you are proposing a direct tax on states with apportionment then you are reigniting the conflict that led to income taxes without apportionment. Because average incomes are different in different states, you are in effect saying that poor people in one state pay as much as the rich in other states and even if the states try to lessen the burden on their poor, they still must come up with funds according to an apportionment census and so must tax the rich more. This is what drove the argument for income tax without apportionment. Direct taxation of incomes was the solution but because 'income' was never defined, it has turned into a game of who will be taxed. The FairTax resolves these problems totally.

31 posted on 04/17/2012 12:03:30 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

You are welcome. The case law on uniform is extensive and well established. However, the word ‘income’ was never defined and has been abused beyond anything the Congress of 1913 could have ever imagined.

As for Obamacare, i.e. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), it will likely with high probability fail on commerce and uniformity provisions of the Constitution BUT it may be deemed severable and leave Title IX of that Act as constitutional. That would be a nightmare.

Title IX of PPACA has taxes on health plans and on incomes to pay and redistribute. It is pure socialism and is likely the hidden ace in the hole for socialists while the country was distracted with individual mandates, Commerce and Uniformity Clause arguments. It is a massive tax increase that will still let the socialists dictate what is and what is not taxable as far as health. In other words they accomplish what they want which is to control our health behavior through taxation.

As many of our wise leaders have said, if the government controls our health behavior, they control everything including guns. In other words, America is fundamentally transformed just as Obama and his leftist ideologues set out to do.


32 posted on 04/17/2012 12:17:38 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
The FairTax resolves these problems totally.

Except that it gives our ever-more-intrusive federal government a peek at every single purchase made, which as the history of every federal tax system shows WILL be abused.

Upshot is that taxation sucks and is subject to take unconstitutional paths without consequence.

Maybe the better question is: why, after 225+ years of economic opportunity, the federal government isn't financially independent? and what could be done to make it so?

33 posted on 04/17/2012 12:19:22 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
I'm no 19th century tax expert either. I understand, and may be wrong, that the only time direct taxes, those on individuals, were imposed during wars.

Creation of an efficient system of taxation was one of the reasons for the Constitutional Convention. I do know, having read the Virginia ratification debates on the Constitution, that the Anti-Federalists zeroed in on the direct taxing power as a great evil that would lead to our enslavement. They argued forcefully for the requisition system that did not work under the Articles. Federalists responded that to enforce payment against recalcitrant states would be to constitutionalize, to guarantee civil war.

Our government did just fine for 120 years collecting duties, imposts, and excises. A man could go through a lifetime without paying the federal government a cent.

THAT is liberty.

34 posted on 04/17/2012 12:20:10 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

that proposal replaces the irs with NuIRS which is even MORE intrusive and more bloated. In addition it creates a NEW entitlement check that can only lead to MORE lobbying as k-street clients demand their product be included in the “prebate”.

THEN you SHALL have al sharpton et al demanding a “living prebate”.

The truth can be found in the nightmarish language of the proposal itself. EVERYONE must register. The federal government will determine what is or is not a family. The federal government requires the merchant to PROVE they are not an end user. and so on.


35 posted on 04/17/2012 12:27:44 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
The courts were far less interested in graduation than they were apportionment.

Really, what you need is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that rescinds the 16th and creates something new.

Remember, any percentage levy (an income tax is such) is the dead hand of the past reaching out to throttle the future.

36 posted on 04/17/2012 12:30:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Except that it gives our ever-more-intrusive federal government a peek at every single purchase made, which as the history of every federal tax system shows WILL be abused.

We can still use cash.

Upshot is that taxation sucks and is subject to take unconstitutional paths without consequence.

That the downside yes, and why we need courts of law with good lawyers and good judges.

37 posted on 04/17/2012 12:36:18 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

All of which you heckle about is unconstitutional when the 16th goes away and if the 16th does not go away, then the FairTax will sunset.

In other words, the FairTax and the 16h cannot and will not coexist. Therefore, all of you inanities are pointless.


38 posted on 04/17/2012 12:42:23 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

You haven’t solved anything at all.

And, BTW, tax inclusive and tax exclusive rates are not hard concepts to grasp.

What is it you do not understand?


39 posted on 04/17/2012 12:44:37 PM PDT by Taxman (So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

it can not just be a repeal, it must include a constitutional prohibition against an income tax or anything that functions as an incometax. (ie calling a rose by any other name...)

mere repeal invites a law reinstating WITH a sales tax.


40 posted on 04/17/2012 12:45:24 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

the flaw in the bill is that it only provides for a constitutional repleal. this leaves the citizens wide open for a LAW that imposes an income tax. It must be a repeal AND a prohibition like those states with constitutional prohibitions against sales tax.

Regardless a new monthly entitlement check as is proposed on the FairSCAM is a non-starter.

the proposal is DOA.


41 posted on 04/17/2012 12:48:35 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Man50D; Principled; EternalVigilance; phil_will1; kevkrom; Bigun; PeteB570; FBD; ...

FairTax ping!


42 posted on 04/17/2012 12:53:37 PM PDT by Taxman (So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Hostage
and why we need courts of law with good lawyers and good judges.

I would include an impeachment mechanism for judges so that we can remove them when they start doing things like finding that a farmer that uses the produce of his farm on his farm is influencing interstate commerce.

44 posted on 04/17/2012 12:56:17 PM PDT by Cowman (How can the IRS seize property without a warrant if the 4th amendment still stands?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The graduate income tax and removal of apportionment were tied at the hip in history, that’s historical fact.

Because a pre-1913 direct tax with apportionment would lead to taxing the rich in one state far more than in other states, problems were created that had been unforseen. What happened in history is the wealthy class would change residency leaving states in more of a mess. To think of not allowing people to change residency would in effect turn the Constitution on its head.

The solution was to tax the rich uniformly in all states but then it became a problem of uniformity again because what is rich? In 1913 an annual income of $20,000 was considered very rich. Less than 2% of the population had such incomes. So was it right to tax those making $20,000 or more but those making $19,999 or less not at all? So they needed a graduated income tax so that “everyone would pay their fair share”. But they needed the 16th amendment to make such a scheme constitutional.

In the years following ratification of the 16th, the wealthy class reacted by changing the nature of their money from income to non-income or non-taxable. So began the long history of corruption that we see today like a metastacized cancer.

The wealthy class will always have a means to escape confiscatory taxation of their incomes. But they cannot escape a consumption tax if they live in the USA. They might purchase a $200,000 Mercedes in Germany or a million dollar yacht in the South Pacific but they must pay the import tax in the USA if they expect to use these large ticket items in the USA.

Income taxation will always gravitate to the middle and upper middle classes. And that is what has happened throughout history.

The solution to get everyone to pay their fair share is to go with the FairTax.


45 posted on 04/17/2012 12:59:21 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cowman

Newt Gingrich spoke to this, and spoke very well. Why I like Newt is he has a command of the facts and the history. He’s ready to incarcerate judges.

Another constitutional professor spoke to this abuse of the commerce clause and spoke well on it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html

He offers a constitutional amendment that is spot on.


46 posted on 04/17/2012 1:03:01 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

LOL!

I see that LurkeyLiarLooneyLou has decided to grace our tax forum with his wit and wisdom.

His are the ramblings of a diseased mind — go to IGNORE! Not worth the time and effort to rebut, IMHO.

We established quite some time ago that LooneyLiarLurkeyLou profits quite handsomely FRom manipulating the Internal Revenue Code to his considerable monetary benefit.

For LiarLooneyLurkeyLou, the Internal Revenue Code is his golden goose, and, HORRORS!, we FairTaxers are chasing it with our ax!


47 posted on 04/17/2012 1:07:05 PM PDT by Taxman (So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
the flaw in the bill is that it only provides for a constitutional repleal. this leaves the citizens wide open for a LAW that imposes an income tax. It must be a repeal AND a prohibition like those states with constitutional prohibitions against sales tax.

This sentence makes no sense, in fact it does not even appear to be a sentence. The FairTax legislation ends (sunsets) if the 16th amendment is not repealed. Americans will have lived and enjoyed life under the FairTax and will then be told it will go away and the income tax will come back unless they take action to repeal the 16th.

Regardless a new monthly entitlement check as is proposed on the FairSCAM is a non-starter.

There are no entitlement checks in the FairTax legislation. You are hallucinating.

the proposal is DOA.

HR 25 FairTax legislation has more support in Congress than any other tax reform. That is a far cry from being DOA.

The FairTax grows every year as more and more people hear about it and become educated about how it works. The FairTax movement is undergoing an educational process campaign and that process can take many many years but once a critical mass is reached there is no turning back.

The income tax without apportionment took 52 years to finally become legal under the Constitution. The FairTax will not take that long.

48 posted on 04/17/2012 1:16:20 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
The so-called Fair Tax is simply another permutation of the income tax ~ best to pull the 16th amendment and find some new way of addressing federal revenue needs.

I'd recommend first determing if the federales really need revenue!

49 posted on 04/17/2012 1:28:51 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
The Fairtax specifically taxes the gross income from sales and services...

Say what?

It taxes the purchaser! You need a basic refresher on the Fair Tax.

50 posted on 04/17/2012 1:57:13 PM PDT by foxfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 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