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

Skip to comments.

TODAY'S RULING UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR THE FAIRTAX! REPEAL THE 16TH AMENDMENT NOW!
Vanity ^ | 6/28/12 | SELF

Posted on 06/28/2012 10:25:00 AM PDT by Hostage

I pointed out in extensive discussions after March 21, 2010 and throughout 2011 that the democrats were following the FDR playbook on Social Security in pushing Obamacare.

I tried my best to point out that regardless of the Commerce Clause or any uniformity provisions of constitutional law, that the 16th Amendment would be used to characterize Obamacare as a tax.

Our enemy are those that impose on us and acquiesce to the 16th Amendment.

If you are for appealing the 16th Amendment, it does not mean you are a tax protester, it does not mean you are not wanting to pay your fair share of taxes, it means you are against the federal government gaining more and more power over your life.

The FairTax is a substitute tax code that operates without the 16th Amendment and is legal and constitutional under the original tax provisions of the US Constitution.

The FairTax is not an additional tax, it is not a tax on top of existing tax. It is a 'replacement' tax that replaces all the taxes currently in the supply and production chains of goods and services and bundles them all together as one retail sales tax.

The FairTax cannot coexist with an income tax and has a provision to sunset if the 16th Amendment is not repealed.

The FairTax will take power away from the ruling class to social engineer and tinker with our freedoms.

The FairTax will be easier to enforce and easier to administer.

The FairTax will boost GDP over 10% and eliminate a half trillion dollars in compliance costs to satisfy the income tax code.

The FairTax has far more sponsors in Congress than any other tax reform. The number of sponsors has recently increased.

The FairTax can be adopted by your local congressional representative if there are on average 3000 FairTax activists in your district. You need to get busy.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: fairtax; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
IF YOU ARE SERIOUS ABOUT TAKING THE COUNTRY BACK, STUDY THE FAIRTAX IN-DEPTH BEFORE DRAWING CONCLUSIONS. ASK ME QUESTIONS. I HAVE SEEN ALL THE DEBATES AND OPPOSITION. IW WILL SHOW YOU BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT AND SHOW YOU THE HOLES IN THE OPPOSING ARGUMENTS. THESE HOLES ARE WIDE AND ARE THE REASON I AM AN ARDENT FAIRTAX SUPPORTER.

START HERE:

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

STUDY, STUDY, STUDY AND ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS. THEN GET BUSY IN YOUR COMMUNITY.

1 posted on 06/28/2012 10:25:04 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hostage

*NO* to “FAIR” TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With its Orwellian name to its ‘pre-bates’ and deceptive and hidden “tax-inclusive” rates, it is as big a turd as the current system

FLAT TAX OR NOTHING~!!

10% ACROSS THE BOARD- NO EXEMPTIONS!


2 posted on 06/28/2012 10:27:33 AM PDT by Mr. K (I AM WRITING-IN PALIN/GINGRICH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

How about NO to both?


3 posted on 06/28/2012 10:32:21 AM PDT by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Did someone turn over a rock?


4 posted on 06/28/2012 10:38:13 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

You are right about repealing the 16th Amendment. Do that, and then we can start over. I prefer a flat tax myself, no deductions, kicks in after about $50k or so.


5 posted on 06/28/2012 10:39:54 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Repeal of the 16th is a lovely notion.

But since we don’t seem to be able to reliably win presidential or congressional elections, it’s pretty much a pipe dream.

Repealing (or passing) an amendment is 10x or 20x harder than winning a simple election.

Why don’t we concentrate on electing a president and building a super-majority in Congress, and then talk about possible amendments? You gotta have a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, anyway, to pass an amendment.

(There is an alternative approach, but it’s never been successfully used, and there’s no reason to think it would be any easier than the congressional route.)


6 posted on 06/28/2012 10:40:26 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

FairTax is better than our current Marxist Income Tax we have now.

All Income Tax is progressive.


7 posted on 06/28/2012 10:41:42 AM PDT by SeminoleCounty (When I said "close the borders", I did not mean the bookstore chain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

We will never again be a TRULY free people for so long as we continue to abide the communist inspire income tax and the IRS!

http://www.fairtax.org


8 posted on 06/28/2012 10:41:42 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 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

If health care reform violates the tenth amendment, the “fairtax” trashes it completely.


9 posted on 06/28/2012 10:45:44 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
If health care reform violates the tenth amendment, the “fairtax” trashes it completely.

Pray tell us how that is!

10 posted on 06/28/2012 10:51:52 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 9 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Repealing the 16th amendment is moot. The SCOTUS just said that Congress can tax anyone and anything it wants, without any amendments being necessary.


11 posted on 06/28/2012 10:54:31 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K; Defiant

Mr. K you are misinformed about the FairTax, grossly so. You obviously don’t understand how the law works and what is constitutional under the FairTax.

The FLAT TAX is an INCOME TAX. IT can only exist under the 16th Amendment. Without removing the 16th Amendment, any FLAT TAX will evolve back to what we have today.

The 1913 first income tax was a FLAT TAX of 1 % on 98% of Americans and 7% on the remaining 2%.

You who support a FLAT TAX are making work for tax lobbyists to regrow your flat tax to the unfair tax insanity we have today.


12 posted on 06/28/2012 10:54:54 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

yes, I am well informed on it

I am against the “fair” tax because there is nothing fair about it

1) the name (I hate orwellian double-talk)

2) the pre-bate. Low income people get a PRE-BATE of the taxes they pay at the cash register- all democraps will have to do is promise everyone a bigger pre-bate

3) the ‘tax-inclusive’ rate calculcarion. In a normal sales tax of 7% if you buy something for 100 you know your final price will be 107 dollars. But a ‘tax-inclusive’ rate of 7% the price would be somethign like $108.22. Impossible to calculate in your head. So they calculate it in advance and HIDE IT in the price.

4) the 27% rate- that’s insane!!! (and it is really 32% if you calculate it the ‘normal’ way)

10% across the board flat tax. easy, simple, everyone pays. and I do mean EVERYONE- except people who RECEIVE a government check. It is stupid to tax people who are being paid out of taxes....

AND the government MUST live within that 10%, balance the budget, and ANY surplus MUST PAY OFF DEBT before it is used for any new programs

Thanks for the nice reply, Some of the “fair tax” people are real ass-holes


13 posted on 06/28/2012 10:56:52 AM PDT by Mr. K (I AM WRITING-IN PALIN/GINGRICH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

While I’m in favor of the FairtTax, it really has no bearing on this issue. The “taxes” (read: penalties) in Obamacare are above and beyond normal taxes, no matter how they are collected.


14 posted on 06/28/2012 10:57:35 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

You do not need to win Congress or the Presidency.

The Constitution gives us the right to hold State Conventions and force Congress to do our bidding.

This is a process of education. Once a person ‘gets it’ on the FairTax, there is no turning them back.

That is why I say to read the link above and to STUDY, STUDY, STUDY and ASK QUESTIONS.

This is not a game anymore. You are asked to study and become informed. You need to make a committment.


15 posted on 06/28/2012 10:58:09 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

Fairtax mandates that the states piggyback in lieu of all the taxes that they now impose.


16 posted on 06/28/2012 10:58:37 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

HOWEVER!! I would support a national sales tax of 10% (because I agree with your repeal requirement of the 16th amendment)

but NO “PRE-BATE” and no 27% rate- 10% across the bnoard

or 9-9-9 like the plan put forth in the primaries


17 posted on 06/28/2012 10:59:02 AM PDT by Mr. K (I AM WRITING-IN PALIN/GINGRICH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

“EVERYONE- except people who RECEIVE a government check.

So we’re back to 51% riding in the cart instead of helping pull the cart?


18 posted on 06/28/2012 11:01:33 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
If you go to this site, there is a PDF which you can download that covers what the author has been able to divine about an Amendments Convention called by the authority of the states under Article V, specifically the rules under which it would operate.

About 90% of the document is correct. The 10% that is wrong comes from making unwarranted assumptions based on how the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called and how it operated. These assumptions are wrong because the original Convention was conducted under the rules of the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. The author also failed to read the American Bar Association's seminal 1973 document exploring how such a convention would work, how its members would be chosen, and how its purview would be limited by the state legislatures. Still, 90% isn't bad, and it's a good document to work from.

19 posted on 06/28/2012 11:09:55 AM PDT by Publius (Leadershiup starts with getting off the couch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Show me that in the bill!

I’ve been working on it for 15 years and have never seen that but perhaps I just missed it so would you please be kind enough to show that part to me.


20 posted on 06/28/2012 11:14:16 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 16 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

The SCOTUS/CONGRESS/PRESIDENT cannot impose any income tax if the 16th Amendment is repealed.

The 16th Amendment makes Obamacare legal and constitutional.


21 posted on 06/28/2012 11:15:41 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

How about we shrink the federal government down enough so that it can be funded by a permanently capped 10% Tariff on imports?

Like in the good olde’ days....

So the Tariff would pay for National Defense and Border Security. The states can handle everything elsehowever they see fit.


22 posted on 06/28/2012 11:17:10 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

[ “EVERYONE- except people who RECEIVE a government check.

So we’re back to 51% riding in the cart instead of helping pull the cart? ]

If they receive free money why can’t afford to send 10% back where it came from?


23 posted on 06/28/2012 11:18:00 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Publius

There was a very serious States Conventional Convention movement for the 17th Amendment. It was so serious that Congress was moved to take the matter into their hands.

So there is precedent that is more recent.


24 posted on 06/28/2012 11:19:00 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Sounds... “Utopian”

Do we force it on everyone that wants the government to wipe and powder their rears?


25 posted on 06/28/2012 11:19:41 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Not this nonsense again that was shot down already.

If you really believe in the concepts of the founding fathers of this country, then no individual should be paying income or property taxes.


26 posted on 06/28/2012 11:26:07 AM PDT by Outland (Ping me when the revolution starts. Anything less won't fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Congress was able to finesse the call for an Amendments Convention for the direct election of senators because some states had language in their petitions stating that if Congress sent such an amendment to the states for ratification, then their petitions for a convention should be considered discharged. Enough states had such language in their petitions that the threshold went below the two-thirds line. Therefore, Congress said an Amendments Convention was no longer required by law.

This is the "put a gun to the head of Congress approach", and it worked in 1913. The other alternative is to follow 90% of the procedures in that download file and actually have an Amendments Convention with its purview delineated by the state legislatures. So there are two ways to put the gun in the hands of the states.

27 posted on 06/28/2012 11:27:45 AM PDT by Publius (Leadershiup starts with getting off the couch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
FLAT TAX OR NOTHING~!!

I was once a flat tax supporter but have now changed my mind. I have come to see how attempts to flatten the current system get undone almost as quickly as they are implemented. Reagan flattened it as much as anybody has ever done and he wasn't even out of office before his reforms started to be undone. I no longer see adjusting rates and closing exemptions as a long term viable solution. We are no longer at the point where taking a scalpel to the tax code will work, but rather we need to bring out a chainsaw.

My biggest concern is the class warfare involved in an income tax system. We are now at a dangerous tipping point where more people are becoming takers than givers with the federal coffers. Look at Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. The majority of citizens are on the receiving end and don't want to agree to give up any of their share. Those on the paying end have nothing left to give. We are about there too. The takers will vote for the politicians who promise more and, since they are the majority, there is nothing that will stop them until it all collapses.

I have come to be a proponent of the FairTax because everybody needs to see themselves as paying into the system. I want to see the income tax system completely scrapped and the 16th amendment repealed (along with the 17th). I don't want hidden taxes like the VAT. I don't like the euphemism "FairTax" either and would prefer a National Sales Tax with all other federal taxes be eliminated. I want everybody to see on every receipt for every item they purchase the line showing "Federal Tax:" so they see the exact cost of government they want on a daily basis. Every time I hear a person arguing about whether the FairTax is 23%, or 30%, or whatever I laugh. It could be set as a 50% sales tax for all I care. Is that too high? Absolutely! That's the point. If everyone can see what it takes to pay for the government the people want, they may actually end up wanting less. The problem with the FairTax rate is the spending that it is meant to cover, not the rate in the tax itself. The more transparent the tax the better. VAT taxes, employer paid payroll taxes, and the like are all meant to hide the cost of government. Only when EVERYONE has to pay and sees how much it is they are paying on a daily basis will there be any inclination to control the spending.

Yes, a flat 10% across the board with no exemptions would accomplish having everyone paying into the system. I would love to see that too, but I would prefer a complete end to the income tax altogether even more so as to minimize the class warfare and politics of envy that is a part of an income tax. I also don't want people to have the 10% (or whatever) tax rate hidden on their direct deposited paychecks and dealth with only on April 15. I want the Federal behemoth to confront them with a tax bill every single day.

28 posted on 06/28/2012 11:28:30 AM PDT by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
The Constitution gives us the right to hold State Conventions and force Congress to do our bidding.

Quite correct.

However, do you have any reason to believe that a movement unable to win a super-majority in Congress can somehow get a majority vote from 3/4 of the state legislatures? That means 13 of the 99 houses can block the measure.

An amendment is MUCH, MUCH harder than an election, yet people keep proposing an amendment as a fallback position when they can't win the elections.

It's like saying I can't run a mile without being forced to stop, so instead I'll run a marathon.

29 posted on 06/28/2012 11:35:46 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

Who will be collecting the tax from the business owners?


30 posted on 06/28/2012 11:37:22 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“The 16th Amendment makes Obamacare legal and constitutional.”

Which clause does that?


31 posted on 06/28/2012 11:38:59 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
One thing is for SURE Hostage.

IT'S TIME for a NEW WAY to do the same old thing, TAX us.

Some agree with you, others will tell you you're daft.

Nonetheless, "IT'S TIME for a NEW WAY to do the same old thing."

Hang in there. I'll listen to what you have to offer. May not always agree, but, I'll listen and evaluate your POV.

32 posted on 06/28/2012 11:49:08 AM PDT by VideoDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Are you going to support your previous statement by showing us the language in the bill that “mandates that the states piggyback in lieu of all the taxes that they now impose” or not?

I doubt that you will because there IS no such language in the bill.


33 posted on 06/28/2012 12:01:25 PM 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 30 | View Replies]

To: Outland

The FairTax is not nonsense and it has not been shot down.

The FairTax is adding more Congressional sponsors every month and it is 10 times larger than any other tax reform in Congress.

This is a process of education. You are obviously not educated on this subject. Get serious and read the link above and study it.


34 posted on 06/28/2012 12:09:21 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Good information. Thanks.


35 posted on 06/28/2012 12:10:22 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Read the 16th Amendment. Congress has the power to tax ‘incomes’ from whatever source.

Congress can define the word ‘income’ any way it wants.

Your healthcare plan is ‘compensation’. Congress can declare this compensation as income.

If you don’t have a healthcare plan, Congress can now force you to get one or suffer a tax in the form of a penalty.

This is all made possible because of the 16th Amendment. Without the 16th, Congress would not have the power to tax whatever they want to call ‘income’.


36 posted on 06/28/2012 12:14:28 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

You’re the advocate. How about you answer my question or I will answer it for you. The fairtax requires the states collecting the tax and piggybacking their own gross receipts or sales taxes on to it, and if they don’t a neighboring state will be authorized to go in and collect it.

If it’s not in the fair tax, then it has been changed since I last read it.

From the faq on the fairtax.org website. “Retail businesses collect the tax from the consumer, just as state sales tax systems already do in 45 states; the FairTax is simply an additional line on the current sales tax reporting form. Retailers simply collect the tax and send it to the state taxing authority. All businesses serving as collection agents receive a fee for collection, and the states also receive a collection fee. The tax revenues from the states are then sent to the U.S. Treasury. “

Some states may comply, and others will just have to have the IRS come in and do the collecting.


37 posted on 06/28/2012 12:17:32 PM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Your logic is very twisted. How is not having health insurance defined as income under the 16th amendment?


38 posted on 06/28/2012 12:19:46 PM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

>”However, do you have any reason to believe that a movement unable to win a super-majority in Congress can somehow get a majority vote from 3/4 of the state legislatures?”

First, the Tea Party rout of Congress in 2010 was small compared to the TP victories in statehouses the same year.

The TP is much stronger at the state level than at the federal level.

Second, to create an amendment for ratification only requires 2/3s not 3/4s. Ratification takes 3/4s yes, but to get the amendment to the states for ratification requires only 2/3s.

Third, historically in 1913 Congress was moved to act by a serious state conventions movement (see discussion by Publius earlier in this thread).

The bottomline is that we are now a Socialist country and Socialism does not stop until all of our freedoms are under state control. We need to act in a much more bold manner now. State Conventions is the way to go. It need only go as far as having Congress get serious and take it up itself.


39 posted on 06/28/2012 12:42:21 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Well, good luck.

I will be very surprised if you can get 1/2, much less 2/3, of the states to vote for a repeal of the 16th.

The problem here is that about the first 25 states can essentially register a meaningless protest vote, making their constituents happy without causing any problems for themselves or their pals in government. As the proposal starts to approach 2/3, things get serious, and I think legislators will chicken out.


40 posted on 06/28/2012 12:57:53 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

In Title 9 Revenue Provisions of the Obamacare Act, there are income taxes on Employer Sponsored Health Plans (ESHPs).

The ESHPs will be evaluated and computed in dollar amounts and considered as ‘income’ from employer to employee. Above a certain threshold of ESHP value, a 40% tax will be levied. The Threshold value is arbitrary and can be set by Congress whenever and however they want. Eventually this arbitrary form of income taxation will force ESHPs out of the market.

Individuals with incomes more than 200k will be taxed directly on their incomes. And as we know the 200k will change over time so that everyone is taxed directly on their incomes.

All of these taxes are constitutional under the 16th Amendment because legislators have the power to define the word ‘income’. The word ‘income’ was never defined in 1913 and left open for Congress to create mischief.

We need to repeal the 16th Amendment period.


41 posted on 06/28/2012 1:05:08 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I’m not going to lose any sleep over it since it’ll never be a reality anyway.


42 posted on 06/28/2012 1:07:35 PM PDT by Outland (Ping me when the revolution starts. Anything less won't fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Armando Guerra

The so-called “Fair Tax” is not

It is a National Sales tax- which I would support - with some provisions I will NEVER support

1) The ‘prebate’ - What do you want to do- make it even EASIER for dems to get elected? “Vote for me and next year your ‘pre-bate’ will be $4000 instead of $3000

2) 27% rate? huh? seriously? a third of everything you spend?

3) “tax-inclusive” calculation. I swear I will beat to death the next person who tries to explain to me that this complicated, hidden, and deceptive tax calculation method is “better”

Get rid of those three things, and make it a 10% national sales tax and I’m in- I am just NOT infavor of what is given the nice Orwellian label: “The Fair Tax”


43 posted on 06/28/2012 1:10:26 PM PDT by Mr. K (OBAMA MUST BE STOPPED ROMNEY/GINGRICH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

There is also the highly relevant issue that a specific amendment is not proposed via convention. The potential for a “runaway convention” is quite real.


44 posted on 06/28/2012 1:15:46 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

You’ve completely evaded my question. How is not having health insurance interpreted to be income? that is the tax referred to in the individual mandate that has now been deemed to be a tax, which is not authorized by the 16th amendment.


45 posted on 06/28/2012 1:21:11 PM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

>”The potential for a “runaway convention” is quite real.”

I have heard that canard before many times and it is simply not true.

It’s not true because it takes 2/3s of ‘states’ to create an amendment for ratification. Note that it is ‘states’, not delegates and not population.

If you look at a map of our USA, you will see that conservatives easily control most of the states. To block any amendment requires only 17 states. To create any amendment for ratification requires only 34 states.

Conservatives are much much stronger at the state and county levels than at the federal level.

There is no real concern with a runaway convention that favors the left. There is plenty of concern for the left to see a runaway convention by conservatives.


46 posted on 06/28/2012 1:25:16 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

>”How is not having health insurance interpreted to be income?”

I did not evade your question and I am not any obligation to answer your questions except to show your ignorance to those reading.

If you don’t have health insurance, then your income will be taxed.

If you have health insurance that meets federal guidelines, then you will receive a tax credit against the tax imposed on your income.

It’s clear as can be.

If you can’t understand the above, not much of anyone is going to be able to help you.


47 posted on 06/28/2012 1:30:37 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Clear as mud. It’s not your income that gets taxed if you don’t have health insurance. It’s just a tax on your lack of insurance.


48 posted on 06/28/2012 1:41:51 PM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

You are seriously misinformed and I do not blame you because those that have vested interests in the Income tax have invested in a lot of propaganda to get people like you to think the same.

Let’s take your list one item at a time:

1) The ‘prebate’ - What do you want to do- make it even EASIER for dems to get elected? “Vote for me and next year your ‘pre-bate’ will be $4000 instead of $3000

THE REBATE IS A MEANS OF MAKING IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE SHALL BE NO FEDERAL SALES TAX ON EVERY AMERICAN FOR THE ESSENTIALS OF LIVING. LET’S EMPHASIZE THAT:

“AMERICA UNDER THE FAIRTAX CODE WILL NOT HAVE ANY FEDERAL SALES TAXATION FOR THE ESSENTIALS OF LIVING”.

NOW FACTS:
1. CONGRESS CANNOT VOTE FOR ANY REBATE UNDER THE FAIRTAX ACT.
2. THE REBATE IS DETERMINED BY A WELL-SEASONED LONG USED FORMULA FOR THE POVERTY LINE BY DHHS.
3. THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS DIFFERENT REBATES. EVERYONE GETS THE SAME FROM WARREN BUFFETT TO GRANDMA ON SOCIAL SECURITY. BUT GRANDMA LIVES TAX FREE WHEREAS WARREN WILL PAY MUCH MORE IN RETAIL TAXES, MUCH MORE THAN HIS SECRETARY FOR SURE AND MUCH MORE THAN HE DOES NOW.
4. CONGRESS UNDER THE FAIRTAX LAW CAN ONLY CHANGE THE NATIONAL RETAIL SALES TAX (NRST) RATE.
4. FOR CONGRESS TO CHANGE REBATE AMOUNTS, THEY MUST CHANGE THE FAIRTAX LAW.
5. IF REBATE AMOUNTS ARE RAISED, AMERICANS INCLUDING ME WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE IT MEANS LESS TAXATION.
6. IF CONGRESS TRIES TO RAISE THE NRST RATE, I AND TENS OF MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS WILL HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH IT.

SO TO RECAP:
RAISE THE REBATE—> GOOD, THIS IS A TAX CUT.
RAISE THE NRST RATE—>BAD, THIS IS A TAX INCREASE.

2) 27% rate? huh? seriously? a third of everything you spend?

WHEN WE TOTAL ALL OF THE INCOME AND PAYROLL TAXES THAT ARE IMPOSED ON SUPPLY CHAINS AND SERVICES TO GET PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO THE RETAIL CONSUMERS, WE HAVE 23% AVERAGE EMBEDDED TAXES IN THE PRICES OF EVERYTHING WE BUY AS A CONSUMER, BE IT A PLUMBING SERVICE, A CART OF GROCERIES OR AN AIRLINE TICKET. IN OTHER WORDS, WITH OUT FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, PRICES OF EVERYTHING WE BUY WOULD BE 23% LESS ON AVERAGE.

UNDER THE FAIRTAX, ALL OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION IS ABOLISHED. THEREFORE, ALL CONSUMER PRICES WILL BE ON AVERAGE 23% LESS.

THE FAIRTAX LEGISLATION HAS A 14% NRST RATE AND A 9% FOR BUDGET BLOAT LEAVING PLENTY OF INCENTIVE TO CUT SPENDING WHICH MUST BE DONE. THE TOTAL INCLUSIVE NRST PERCENTAGE WILL BE 14+9=23%.

IF A 2 X 4 AT HOME DEPOT COSTS $2.00 TODAY, IT WILL COST $1.54 ON THE SHELF UNDER THE FAIRTAX. WHEN THE 2 X 4 IS TAKEN TO THE RETAIL CHECKOUT, AN NRST OF 46 CENTS WILL BE APPLIED AND THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE INCLUDING FEDERAL SALES TAX WILL BE $2 OUT THE DOOR. THIS IS WHY THE FAIRTAX IS A REPLACEMENT TAX. IT TAKES ALL THE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES OUT OF THE SYSTEM AND REPLACES WITH ONE FEDERAL SALES TAX.

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN’T SEE THE EMBEDDED TAXES DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE NOT THERE. THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY THERE. BUT THE FAIRTAX BRINGS THEM OUT INTO THE OPEN, INTO THE SUNLIGHT AND POLITICIANS THAT LOVE TAXES DON’T LIKE SUNLIGHT ON TAXES.

THE FAIRTAX SPEAKS TRUTH TO FEDERAL TAXATION!

3) “tax-inclusive” calculation. I swear I will beat to death the next person who tries to explain to me that this complicated, hidden, and deceptive tax calculation method is “better”

IF YOU ARE HAVING THOUGHTS OF BEATING SOMEONE TO DEATH, I RECOMMEND YOU TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND START THERE.


49 posted on 06/28/2012 2:02:58 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

It may not be clear to you because you don’t want to see it.

But it is very clear that the tax will be imposed on IRS Form 1040 Federal Income Tax and a tax credit will be given if it can be shown that a qualifying health plan is in place.

Without the 16th Amendment the IRS form 1040 does away and so does the Obamacare tax.


50 posted on 06/28/2012 2:06:08 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 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