Posted on 03/04/2002 2:19:12 PM PST by Dementon
NRST will increase government revenues because it so effectively taps retirement accounts.
Only when money is spent, and the income/payroll tax does that now anyway. Only from both ends, when you make it, and when you spend it.
We spend "disposable income", (i.e. "aftertax" income) which finances all income that is taxed. Viewing from the perspective of consumption dollars, where it is all generated, we get an entirely different perspective on what is being done to us.
Between business income taxes and payroll taxes, the burden on citizen as reflected through higher prices, lower wages, and lower return on investements are indeed horrendous.
The following article covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The percentage used in the above article is somewhat off target in that it is based on a percentage that excludes individual income tax and SS/medicare contribution extracted out of individual wages & salaries. The 24% in the article considers only those factors actually paid to government out of impositions on the business in complying with the income, payroll, excise & tariff tax laws.
The total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone. Why? Because wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipt to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure). If we add in the cost of compliance of more than $600billion/year, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income payroll tax system increases to about a 47% of family consumption expenditures.
Tax as % of current family retail expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $600billion(Paine '97, Pilla '95, AGCCA 2000, Williams 2000) additional dollars are passed on in consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
Percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+600)/1900 = 47.36% as passed through consumption prices. Reduce the taxes on business and simplify them in any way possible ultimately means a lower price and higher standard of living for the citizen.
NRST will increase government revenues
By the way, so does lower tax rates. Every single time it has been tried by the way. Are you now advocating tax rate increases to reduce growth of government.
You reduce government by curtailing programs, then adjusting the tax system. To do either takes push on Congress Critters.
The war between the states (Civil War) was fought over property rights, not slavery. Ten states objected to tariffs imposed by the Union. Finding no relief in the courts or from Congress, the 10 states said thanks but no thanks. Tax protesters all of them.
Figure on another Civil War?, the last one cost a half million lives, North and South. And the South lost.
That is join em. Exploit the Leviathan if you cant defeat it, right?
Why not, as long as you don't keep electing the same scoundrels in keeping the bennies flowing. It's call bleed the dragon.
The mocking tone of your reply reflects a kind of pride. The 100 percent kill record of the 'courts' would be evidence of tyranny to most. You apparently see it only as stupidity on the part of those attempting to defend their property. Lots of websites (likely maintained by tax industry operators) join in poking fun. Property indeed. Your money are belonging to us.
Admittedly under the present circumstances, it is studpid to attempt protecting ones property. One is dead before one starts. Am I mistaken in reading a note of AG pride in that sad fact?
The 100 percent kill record of the 'courts' would be evidence of tyranny to most.
The 100% kill rate is because there are those who, like lemmings, keep throwing themselves over a cliff with failed arguments. Not matter how many time a bad argument is used it will continue to fail.
You apparently see it only as stupidity on the part of those attempting to defend their property.
No, that may be your claim. I figure most of them are victims of the scammers involved in the tax resistance movement. Afterall it is the leaders and guru$ $elling the same failing arguments to uneducated and gullible marks simply trying to fight back.
Something from one of the better tax resistance sites by the way. At least the site that maintains the text of this case appears to be proving information about failing argument and looking for alternative solid answers and not the same old ones:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a "person" under the tax code.
KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
By the way, New American, the house publication of the John Birch Society sees thing pretty much as I do.
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
Am I mistaken in reading a note of AG pride in that sad fact?
No, What you are reading are the attempts of one person, who has learned from sad experience, to warn the diver away from the empty pool.
But then I guess some prefer to keep using brick walls for socker butting practice. I really wonder why I should persist other than there are those who have not yet been stung and can learn before they leap and become someone elses guinea pig or cannon fodder.
Admittedly under the present circumstances, it is studpid (sic) to attempt protecting ones property.
Actually it isn't. It's just ignorant and expensive to keep using methods that are known to fail and actually make the problem worse.
There are means to legitimately protect property. Tax evasion and bad legal arguments just do not happen to be among them. If anything those routes increase the risk of confiscation of one's property and liberty as well.
You suggest their is a way to protect ones property from the relentless grasp of government. The NRST cant be it. Its revenue neutral. Voting the rascals out cant be it. It hasnt worked for the last 140 years.
Those of us who resent the 30 percent (and growing) rate of confiscation, but know they are well and truly licked by the good and learned judges---breathlessly await the 'means to legitimately protect property' you refer to.
The NRST cant be it. Its revenue neutral.
You would rather keep getting hit with 47% federal tax burden on all expenditures?
refer to reply #21 again, to refresh your memory.
The NRST is 23% of expenditure on new goods and services only. And requires not returns or reporting by the purchaser of products (the citizen).
All tax measures are required to be revenue neutral in the first years to even get out of the gate. If they aren't, the get killed by fiscal conservatives who don't want to create deficits(the other way to tax), or by liberals who don't like tax cuts for any reason.
However, tax reduction is possible under a revenue neutral tax bill.
Sequestration Process:CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
"The 1990 BEA created a separate sequestration procedure to enforce PAYGO rules that apply to direct spending and revenues. The PAYGO rules apply to legislation through FY2002, but the PAYGO sequestration procedure applies to the net deficit effects of that legislation through FY2006. PAYGO rules require that an increase in direct spending or a decrease in revenues must be offset by an equal amount of spending reductions, revenue increases, or a combination of the two so that the budgetary effect of new legislation is not projected to increase the deficit, or reduce the surplus, for any fiscal year through FY2006.
Which, when you put it all together simply means if you can get Congress to cut spending the tax rate can go down and still be revenue neutral. The statutes merely prohibit increasing deficits or decrease surpluses through tax cuts.
There is no restriction to reducing tax rates after cutting appropriations, so long as the revenues drop dollar for dollar with decreased in appropriations. That is what all that liberal rhetoric about "paying" for tax cuts is all about.
Current law dictates that any tax bill must be revenue neutral. There is indeed a provision in law requiring revenue neutrality in revenue,(i.e tax bills).
The House can waive the rule under Unanumous consent, and Senate under 3/5 vote. and certain other resticted conditions such as Declaration of War, or <1% real growth for 2qtrs.
However if one member protests, sorry the bill simply will not be allowed until it does meet the revenue neutrality requirements under the Budget Enforcement Act, meaning the provisions of the proposed tax bill may not increase the budget defict nor decrease a project surplus. Thus it becomes necessary to either show no change in services or the reduction of appropriations or repeal of programs before a tax bill may go forward.
Applicable Congressional Research Service Reports on the Budget process.
Baseline and ScoreKeeping Process/Enforced by Sequestration:CRS Rules 98-560
Budget Enforcement Act; Surplus: CRS Rules 98-97
Budget Enforcement Act of 1997: CRS Rules 97-930
PAYGO RULES: CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
House: auto sequestration if Receipts or Appropriations legislation in deficit increase,
House Point of order waivable by unanimous consent
Senate Point of order waivable by 3/5ths vote.
May be waived under Sequestration Rules on declaration of War or
conditions of <1% real economic growth for 2qtrs.
"CBA points of order, like most others, are not self-enforcing. In order to enforce a congressional budget rule, a Member must raise a point of order against the legislation violating it. When a point of order is raised against legislation that may violate a substantive provision of a budget resolution, a determination of whether the legislation would cause spending or revenue levels to be breached is based on estimates supplied by the Budget Committee of the appropriate house, under section 312(a) of the CBA. Generally, when a point of order is sustained, the violating bill or amendment fails and is not considered or the violating provision of a bill or amendment is stricken. "
"Congress may, however, waive these points of order. In the House, Budget Act points of order usually are waived by a "special rule" reported by the Rules Committee and adopted by the full House.
Sequestration Process:CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
" PAYGO rules require that an increase in direct spending or a decrease in revenues must be offset by an equal amount of spending reductions, revenue increases, or a combination of the two so that the budgetary effect of new legislation is not projected to increase the deficit, or reduce the surplus, for any fiscal year through FY2006."
Those of us who resent the 30 percent (and growing) rate of confiscation, but know they are well and truly licked by the good and learned judges---breathlessly await the 'means to legitimately protect property' you refer to.
Actually the real burden is greater then 30% by a long shot:
We must . . . End Tax Slavery Now; Nov '97
by Jarret B. Wollstein
HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY PAY?
According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes - 34.2% total.
But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:
- Compliance costs - record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.
- Enforcement costs - IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.
- Emotional, moral and cultural costs - families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.
For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:
Federal taxes 22.4% of income
State & local taxes 11.8%
Compliance costs 22.2%
Regulatory costs 12.7%70.1% of your income is now consumed by government
The NRST can't defend you from your state, that's up to you and the people in your state.
However, the NRST can and does protect you from the FEDS, in that products may only be taxed once under the NRST, all lands, property and goods held for other than business purpose prior to its implementation date are not subject to the NRST.
Once the NRST is paid with the first retail retail purchase of a product, it can no longer be taxed under the NRST again. Resales are free of the NRST, antiques, used goods of any descpription, resale of residential property, none of it is taxable by the NRST.
That's as good as it gets until you can change your states mind about it's own tax structure.
You really ought to be investigating what the NRST offers instead of blowing it off as just another tax. It totally repeals all income taxes, individual corporate, profits and wage as well as estate & gift taxes. That is 95% of the Federal tax revenues, and the systems that collect them.
It is long past time to end the Income Tax once and for all and get rid of the intrusive anal exam of family finances by government. Support the enactment of the only bills before congress that would actually achieve that.
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
the modification then enactment and ratification of:
H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.
(Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)
And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:
H.R.175
Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.
Voting the rascals out cant be it. It hasnt worked for the last 140 years.
Can't as long as we keep insisting that govenment hide the real burden from over half the electorate.
To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal taxes are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% continue to clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% to pay . That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating even more participants from the Individual Income Tax rolls as proposed in the current tax reduction proposals currently on board through changes in personal exemption limits and other mechanisms such as the EITC.
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of RepresentativesTHURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
12:00 noon"In 1996, Congress passed a historic welfare reform law that has dramatically reduced the number of Americans who depend on welfare. In spite of this positive development, Representative DeMint is concerned about the steady growth of a welfare/entitlement state that extends well beyond the poor and is forcing millions of middle income Americans into dependency.
There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."
Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
No offense, but this years-long NRST promotion seems so government, so 5-0. And after all the abuse from government, you assure us that this government plan will be different. Ahem, choke. If HR 2525 is in the interest of public policy, it would just happen. There would be no need to sell it. Right?
the eastern establishment tax pros that drafted it
Hardly, it was drafted in Texas by a group of concerned businessmen footing the bill looking for a way to actually end the income tax and the IRS.
It is now supported by a totally grass roots effort.
Read the darn bill or not as you will. Looks to me you would rather just lay down and let government just run over you.
With privatization of SS/Medicare, the NRST would be 14.91% of consumption. Much less than the 17% tax a la Forbes/Armey Flat Tax.
I can guarantee that the next thing coming down the pike without the support of the american citizen behind the proposed NRST, will be a full fledged VAT with no income tax and no brakes on government at all.
What do you think the "Flat Tax" is and the push to put sales tax on the internet on top of the current, or the Flat Tax system. Guaranteed It sure isn't going to be working to your benefit. Now there is a real scam for you.
The NRST repeals all income, payroll(e.g. SS/Mediscare taxes) and gift estate taxes.
All other proposals maintain the individual income tax, and puts in place other forms of tax such as various broad sales tax/VATs as well without removing anything of note.
The NRST is a proposal to avoid that evenuality and does everything possible to assure that federal taxes stay out in the open where everyone can perceive them and actually hold government accoutable to its excess spending.
But you are welcome to ignore the NRST what it is for and what it is meant to do and thereby get hit with the alternatives. Judging from the response by folks like you, I would say the alternatives are the more likely scenario. Hope you like the "inflation" and no control over government growth that goes with the alternatives.
Just to make sure you have a good nights sleep, this is what is waiting for those who aren't interested in real "Truth in Taxation".
Remember the Forbes/Armey Flat tax is still an income tax, still requires an IRS, and still taxes business passing on such taxes in higher prices to consumers, lower wages to employees, and lower returns to investors/retirees. It is, quite frankly a VAT combined with an individual income tax.
Issue: What Is the Best Way to Collect a Value Added Tax?
A value-added tax (VAT) generally is a tax imposed and collected on the value added at every stage in the production and distribution process of a good or service. Although a VAT may be computed in any of several ways, the amount of value added generally can be thought of as the difference between the value of sales and purchases of a business. (e.g. Revenues - Costs = Taxable Business Income)
Subtraction-Method VAT. Under the subtraction method, value added is measured as the difference between a business's taxable sales and its purchases of taxable goods and services from other businesses. At the end of the reporting period, a rate of tax is applied to this difference in order to determine the tax liability. The subtraction method is similar to the credit-invoice method in that both methods measure value added by comparing sales to purchases that have borne the tax.
The subtraction method differs from the credit-invoice method principally in that the tax rate is applied to a net amount of value added (sales less purchases) rather than to gross sales with credits for tax on gross purchases. A business's tax liability under the credit-invoice method relies on the business's sales records and purchase invoices, while the tax liability under the subtraction method may rely on records that the taxpayer maintains for income tax or financial accounting purposes.
The flat tax is a VAT. None other than the father of the flat tax, Robert Hall of Stanford University (along with Alvin Rabushka), in his 1995 Ways and Means Committee testimony said, "The Hall-Rabushka flat tax is a value-added tax."
Which was pointed out again in additional hearings in April of 2000:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm
"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"
"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."
The Flat Tax; Chapter 3, by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka
| In our system, all income is classified as either business income or wages (including salaries and retirement benefits). The system is airtight. Taxes on both types of income are equal. The wage tax has features to make the overall system progressive. Both taxes have postcard forms. The low tax rate of 19 percent is enough to match the revenue of the federal tax system as it existed in 1993, the last full year of data available as we write. Here is the logic of our system, stripped to basics: We want to tax consumption. The public does one of two things with its income—spends it or invests it. We can measure consumption as income minus investment. A really simple tax would just have each firm pay tax on the total amount of income generated by the firm less that firm’s investment in plant and equipment. The value-added tax works just that way. But a value-added tax is unfair because it is not progressive. That’s why we break the tax in two. The firm pays tax on all the income generated at the firm except the income paid to its workers. The workers pay tax on what they earn, and the tax they pay is progressive. To measure the total amount of income generated at a business, the best approach is to take the total receipts of the firm over the year and subtract the payments the firm has made to its workers and suppliers. This approach guarantees a comprehensive tax base. The successful value-added taxes in Europe work this way. The base for the business tax is the following: Total revenue from sales of goods and services less purchases of inputs from other firms less wages, salaries, and pensions paid to workers less purchases of plant and equipment The other piece is the wage tax. Each family pays 19 percent of its wage, salary, and pension income over a family allowance (the allowance makes the system progressive). The base for the compensation tax is total wages, salaries, and retirement benefits less the total amount of family allowances. |
FLAT TAX, VAT TAX, ANYTHING BUT THAT TAX; Duke Law Magazine, Spring 96:
CONSUMPTION TAX PROPOSALS; 1996 Deloitte & Touche LLP
The Flat Tax is a VAT even as the current income/payroll tax structure now in place is a subtraction method VAT, in that it is a levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production, it is passed on to the consumer hidden in the price of goods and services.
As long as government is able to play a shell game with hiding taxes from the Voter(i.e. individual) it can rely on the old maxim:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
and keep right on growing without bound.
From what I read, it did that some time ago. I hope I'm wrong.
On that subject, let me ask you about the famous Beardsley Ruml (1946 Fed Chairman or something like that) speach wherein he said the government no longer needed to collect tax for revenue. It can invent the money it needs by fiat, so taxes become a means of control only. Suppose there is no Beardsley or his speach. Wouldnt that idea still be correct?
As of 3/5/02 9:49 PM Central we have $3,672.45 in donations from Never Never Land. Starting tomorrow, March 6, 2002, from 6:00 PM Central, to March 7, 2002, 11:59 PM Central,
(I have to keep track, so I get to choose the time zone)
the state which contributes the most to Free Republic during this time period will get to add Never Never Land's total to their own state.
he said the government no longer needed to collect tax for revenue. Wouldnt that idea still be correct?
Are you interpreting that statement to mean there is no purpose for taxes? I think you had better read the opening statement of the Ruml article again:
"The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government's power to tax business. Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority. Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases."
As far as the question of no need for taxes for revenue, the statement never was appropriate as the only purposes under the Constitution for taxes are to:
"pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"
we have a debt, we have to pay for a common defense, and the other clauses under Article 2, section 8 (the general welfare according to Madison) to pay for as well as the authorised function and infrastructure of the branches of government, and those are the functions of revenue.
Reason for revenue more than amply exist, and I don't see reasons to tax 2-4 in article 2 section 8:
"TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE
-by Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York & advisor to FDR on taxation.
January 1946 issue of "American Affairs""What Taxes Are Really For
Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.
In the recent past, we have used our federal tax program consciously for each of these purposes. In serving these purposes, the tax program is a means to an end. The purposes themselves are matters of basic national policy which should be established, in the first instance, independently of any national tax program.
Among the policy questions with which we have to deal are these:
Do we want a dollar with reasonably stable purchasing power over the years?
Do we want greater equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone?
Do we want to subsidize certain industries and certain economic groups?
Do we want the beneficiaries of certain federal activities to be aware of what they cost?
These questions are not tax questions; they are questions as to the kind of country we want and the kind of life we want to lead. The tax program should be a means to an agreed end. The tax program should be devised as an instrument, and it should be judged by how well it serves its purpose.
under there do you?
The "common good" of Beardsly Ruml, and socialists does not equal the general welfare of Article 2 Section 8 of the Constitution.
After telling us that taxing business to control them was appropriate in the beginning of his article. He turns around at the end of his article telling us all the reasons why taxing business is bad for the nation.
Being aware that Ruml advocating taxing business for puposes of control, and that taxing business was very bad for the country? What does that say about the nature of socialist and Congressional intent by levying such taxes?
Noting that "eternal vigilence is the price of liberty", and one cannot exercise vigilence with a blindfold on.
One should note the statements of madison in regards the authority of national law, and upon whom taxes should lay and why they cannot be merely voluntary contributions:
James Madison, Federalist #39:
James Madison, Federalist #45:
James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:
I'd like to hear what people think--I think they have interesting things to say...but when I try to read one of these threads, it gets very very cumbersome with the MULTIPLE LENGTHY cut-and-paste inserts! Could you just hold off for a while and let people comment? No offense, do as you like, but for me, this isn't a discussion thread, it's unreadable.
Maybe you could just have a topic room or something regarding tax law, so that people who really want to read a book on it, could do so. And then the rest who want to make a comment, could, on the posted articles.
No, I don't mind learning and I'm not averse to using my brain, but I don't want a three day seminar here, I want a discussion.
Is it just me, or does anyone else wish AG would summarize and then give links to all the material he posts
AG does summarise & link in all his posts. Hit the links some time and you will discover that.
AGeezer
Maybe you could have a FR place, like the HTML sandbox or something, that has these (interesting but too long to read at the time) posts of yours organized somewhat by tax topic? I'd go to it, pick and choose what I wanted, then use it to expand my understanding of the article posted...I'm serious--this looks like a lot of work on your part.
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.