There is certain inevitability in bringing any tax matter. 100-percent of the time, the judicial mind finds in favor of the government. A remarkable record dont you agree? Either 100 percent of petitioners have meritless claims or 100 percent of outcomes are pre-ordained.
The courts say to take the tax problem down the hall to the legislative branch. You can vote em out if you dont like it. Well--in spite of taxes being the subject of every election since 1900, the Tax Foundation finds taxes have risen steadly. In 1900 5 percent of property was expropriated by government. Now its 30+ percent and rising.
The NRST you advocate is revenue neutral, so we can expect no relief there. In fact, Laurence Kotlikoff predicts that the NRST will increase government revenues because it so effectively taps retirement accounts.
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. We all know how that tax protest turned out. So if I object to the taking of 30 percent of my property--I must put up a better fight than 10 states did. Alternatively I can do what Lewislynn accuses you of doing. That is join em. Exploit the Leviathan if you cant defeat it, right?
Either 100 percent of petitioners have meritless claims
Bingo! Guess what, if someone keeps bringing back previously failed claims to the court they loose. Amazing how that works isn't it?
That by the way is the definition of a frivolous claim. Already ruled upon and lost many times.
Here's the Department of Justice's written position on 16th amendment and other common tax protest positions:
DOJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE MANUAL, Section 40 TAX PROTESTORS
And a comprehensive FAQ compiled by a lawyer of all the Tax Protest arguments that have failed repeatedly and why:
And there are of course the many Court cases from the Article III Courts, (i.e. federal district, appellate, & Supreme Court) that support all the above, a blow by blow of the judgements of more current cases:
Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery
The ultimate place to go for the answers, is Congress. They, afterall are the ones ultimately responsible for the condition of the Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders. It is Congress in the end the enacts the enabling legislation and accepts or rejects the content of all Regulations and E.O.s.
The Courts have made it abundantly clear that the arguments presented in the above texts are failed and decided, and provide no relief to the defendant. Infact they have also made it very clear as to where to turn for relief from the very beginning as regards the income tax law.
Kotlikoff also predicts:
The Economic and Civil Liberties Case for a National Sales Tax, May 11 '95
Stephen Moore
Director
Fiscal Policy Studies
Cato Institute
Economic Impact of a National Sales Tax
In 1993 the Cato Institute commissioned a study by economist Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University to examine the economic impact of replacing federal income taxes with a national sales tax.(20) The sales would apply to all consumption purchases-- including services. Only real estate and securities would be exempted. The purpose of the Kotlikoff study was to determine a) What would be the impact of the sales tax on economic variables such as savings, wages, and output? and b) What is the necessary sales tax rate to completely replace on a revenue neutral basis the federal personal income, corporate income, and estate tax?
Kotlikoff discovered that to completely replace federal income taxes would require an
- initial sales tax rate of 17.4 percent.
- After five years the rate could be reduced to 15.4 percent, and
- after ten years the rate could be lowered to 13.9 percent.
The reason the rate can be lowered is that the study finds a very positive economic feedback from the tax change. Specifically, the Kotlikoff study finds that after ten years, a national sales tax would:
1) More than double the national savings rate.
2) Increase the capital stock by 8 percent above the level attained under the current tax system.
3) Raise income and output by 6 percent more than would be achieved under the current tax system. That would increase national output by almost $400 billion per year.
4) Lift the real wage rate by 3 percent.
5) Reduce interest rates by 8 percent.Kotlikoff concludes the study by issuing the following endorsement for a sales tax: "A shift to a national sales tax has the potential for dramatically improving incentives to save. The distortion to save is so great under our current system of income taxation, that it appears we could switch to consumption taxation...and end up with much higher rates of saving and capital accumulation and a higher level of per capita income."
That's not counting the fact that a National Retail Sales Tax would remove the IRS as a factor in the daily lives of all americans. It would assure the proportional participation of all voters in the tax burden so Congress Critters would have a much more difficult time in playing rich vs. poor games by hiding taxes behind inflation as it does today.
When politicians loose there primary lever, hiding taxes from view of most of the electorate, do you think folk are going to push, for more taxes? If so why are you bitching now?
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.