Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 04/21/2008 6:04:34 PM PDT by BGHater
Taxes were on the forefront of many Americans’ minds this week as they scrambled to meet the April 15th deadline to file their returns. Tax policy in this country hurts taxpayers twice – once when they pay taxes, and then when the government spends the money. Americans are sick and tired of the financial burden and the endless forms to fill out. To add insult to injury, after collecting this money the government does some very detrimental things to the economy.
The burden of complying with the income tax is tremendous. Since its inception in 1913, the tax code has gone from 400 pages to over 67,000. The Tax Foundation estimates that around $265 billion dollars and 6 billion hours are spent just on compliance. That expense amounts to about 22 cents of every dollar the IRS collects. Imagine the boon to the economy if we spent that time and money expanding our businesses and creating jobs!
Aside from the direct loss of money and productivity, the funds from the income tax enable the government to do some very destructive things, such as vastly over-regulating economic activity, making it difficult to earn money in the first place. The federal government funds over 50 agencies, departments and commissions that formulate rules and regulations. These bureaucracies operate with little to no oversight from the people or Congress and generate around 4,000 new rules every year and operate at a cost of about 40 billion dollars. There are some 75,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register that Americans are expected to know and abide by. Complying with these governmental regulations costs American businesses more than one trillion dollars per year, according to a study by Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration. This complicated system drives production to other countries and shrinks our job market here at home.
Big government is destructive when it takes your money and when it spends it. There is no economic benefit to supporting a government sector as massive as ours. In fact, this country thrived for well over 100 years without an income tax. Today, if you took away the income tax, the government would still have revenue from other sources equal to total government spending in 1990, when government was still too big. $1.2 trillion should be more than enough to fund a government operating within its constitutional confines, and that is exactly what we need to get back to.
I have introduced legislation many times to abolish the IRS and the income tax. It is fundamentally un-American to require taxpayers to testify against themselves and be considered guilty until proven innocent. Abolishing the IRS altogether would trigger an avalanche of real growth in the economy.
With these financial hard times only just beginning, this would be the most efficient and logical way to get our economy growing again, and Americans would need not dread the 15th of April every year.
loony
nutjob
loser
idiot
liberal
naive
stupid
wingnut
moonbat
this is what we are supposed to think about Ron Paul here on FR isn’t it???
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
God bless Ron Paul, may his ideas long outlive him. :)
No, they're not. If they were, we wouldn't have this system.
I'm sick and tired of people complaining while supporting the people in office who perpetuate the things they're complaining about.
Couldn’t say it any better, Dahoser!
No kidding! People complain about the loss of power, they complain that Bush is wiretapping and listening in on their phone conversations yet they have no problem jumping through hoops, telling the IRS all kinds of personal information and wading through pages and pages of BS all in the hopes that they’ll get some of their own money backs. Messed up.
You forgot the part about them getting their own money back and moronically exclaiming how they "made out great this year!"
1. The income tax.
2. Regulations.
3. The threat of litigation.
4. And union wage scales.
And watch the growth of the American economy soar.
this is what we are supposed to think about Ron Paul here on FR isn’t it???
That’s right. Aren’t you sooooo glad we have John (I don’t really no much about economics) McCain instead.
While Ron Paul states the obvious, unfortunately too many Americans have never heard his message.
How about the government control your pay while they're at it...Sounds pretty stupid now doesn't it.
The Americans facing this burden directly are overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who aren't. The lowest 50% of tax returns have an average tax rate under 3%. They take their 1040 to H&R and get it done in an afternoon.
That isn't even touching the millions of Americans who don't file at all.
And these people all vote. Around election time, they're a lot more receptive to talking about new government handouts for themselves than about tax complexity faced by other people.
We have exactly the system you would expect unqualified democracy to produce.
Don't whine about problems that are of your making.
Ron Paul is a yokel.
Lyndon LaRouch (sp) must be proud.
I agree with you too. Thanks.
Yeah, like was suggested in the fairtax book, in the past couple weeks, I asked a few people how much they paid in taxes last year, and 8 out of 11 said they did not pay any taxes, they got a refund... They Had no clue how much they actually paid. One said he owed $452 and knew he already paid some, but not how much, One knew what his state & federal tax burden for the year was, from his tax forms... but did not consider how much he paid in Social Security and Medicare, and the last one said 34% of his gross income for the year, went to the government, not including sales tax and property tax. After, I told each one of them they should read the fairtax book, only the last one had even heard of it and he too was a supporter.
No, they're not. If they were, we wouldn't have this system.
Yes they are sick of it, but they have no fire in their belly and take a Prozac instead. Well, plus they caper like mad fools in triumph when they "win" by getting a nickel of their taxes back here and there from Uncle Sam Santa. Americans are becoming as sheepish as Canadians, the British, et al. Self-defeatists. People give up when they no longer realize what they've lost.
No kidding. I visited Switzerland a few years ago. They’re quasi-socialistic in many respects, but one thing that was noticeably absent was the threat of litigation at every turn. It’s amazing how steeped we are in that environment, and it’s hard to fathom until you’re free from it.
He isn’t talking about going to a different form of tax, but soing away with the income tax, period. If the government were operating within its Constitutional bounds, it would not need the money.
It is only the assumption of other extraConstitutional duties which has mandated the additional spending.
The method of collection is really moot, if the rate of spending goes unchecked.
The prebate/rebate or what ever name it goes by, is an effort to refund the amount the poor spend on taxes on necessities.
As an average, it starts off unfair, but is especially so to those whose misfortune it is to reauire more expensive medical care or pharmacology.
I propose that the tax on medical care, food, shelter (primary residence), and energy be done away with. Then the prebate could be done away with as well.
Nor would I tax military uniforms or the various equipment items necessary to tha trade.
You may disagree, but the potential for defrauding the rebate system, the need to issue rebates, and all the positions that entails--all an expense to the government and ultimately us, would be eliminated.
I would also find a way to safeguard the already taxed savings of those who have lived prudently, especially for their retirement, who would again be taxed as they bought items which they might need. The first part of this, eliminating the tax on medical care, food, primary residence, and energy would go a long way toward removing the imbalance present in the system: the elderly are most likely to require medical care, and expensive procedures at that.
If, as a result of the fair tax, prices would come down, so much the better.
Most of the early taxes were either tariffs or consumption taxes levied on things which were not mandatory for life. Tea, nice, but not a necessity, even for Englishmen, liquor, ditto. We still have those excise taxes on a wide variety of goods, and they are included in the price. Would the fair tax eliminate those too, so purchasers of tires and other goods would not pay taxes on taxes?
I take it part of this plan is to repeal the 16th amendment.
“There is no economic benefit to supporting a government sector as massive as ours. In fact, this country thrived for well over 100 years without an income tax. Today, if you took away the income tax, the government would still have revenue from other sources equal to total government spending in 1990, when government was still too big. $1.2 trillion should be more than enough to fund a government operating within its constitutional confines, and that is exactly what we need to get back to.”
“You propose a system that would make the disparagement between rich and poor is even wider and almost ensure an implosion of social programs and a vast reduction of vital national operations such as the military. Unemployment would skyrocket, the US dollar would plummet, and your economy would falter, throwing into jeopardy the economies of reliant nations.
I think we all see what you’re saying, and we agree that, in a utopian world, taxes wouldn’t exist and be fantastic. But in real life that can’t and will never happen, for the reasons we’ve cited here and more.”
The above is a response I got from a liberal Canadian when I suggested everyone should pay the same amount of taxes. Seems the government’s done a good job brainwashing him into thinking that it doesn’t get enough money without the income tax.
__________________________________________________________
Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
`Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.
`Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.
`Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.
`Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and gifts
________________________________________________________
As William F Buckley put it, all roar, no teeth. Paul makes these great(sic) speeches on theory, yet is unable to accomplish a thing because he never can take what he says beyond theory to actual real world implementation. This bill to abolish the income tax (through a Constitutional Amendment) has zero "Hows". No budgetary considerations, no departmental reorganizations, no listing of laws and departments that need to be changed, no revenue shifting, nothing. If you look at other bills sponsored by other Congressmen, to accomplish a lot less, you'll see that they include these details, and thus, get out of committee because they are something that can actually be implemented.
A couple questions for ya if you don't mind.
Is there any problem with bartering? Can I trade a car for another car, no taxes, even if one is brand new?
Or vegetables or commodities for whatever I want to purchase? Will the Fed. tax on fuel be dropped? Will the FT lock in the % that everything is taxed, or will it adjust from time to time depending on Congress?
He also has a pending bill that outlaws pain and sorrow and funds it through a complete deregulation of joy.
How so? I’don't understand your reasoning without more detail.
Poverty level where? Mississippi? Silicon Valley? Where you are makes a difference in what constitutes enough to scratch by. Just take a peek at the variation in per diem rates permissible under the current tax system, and the wide variety in what the allowance for food is under those rates. Supposedly, they are adjusted for the business traveler, dependant on location and the cost of eating there.
Using that example, the poverty level (national average) prebate of taxes on food is going to be woefully short in some locations, and long in others. So, it is unfair.
Now, if you are a diabetic, you will need more in medical supplies than someone the same age who is in good health. It really isn't optional. Without your shot you enter a coma and die.
How is it "fair" to tax that? How is it fair to tax medical oxygen?
If you get in a car accident, even one which is not your fault, you get taxed on top of having been creamed by some nitwit? Sorta adds insult to injury.
If you are a paraplegic, your wheelchair will be taxed, and any other special equipment you require. If an amputee, your artificial limbs. Your lot can be rough enough without having to pay even more, without being taxed on an arm or a leg.
This is a short list of things which are really not optional.
There are many more. Your Poverty level tax prebate isn't going to come close to refunding your taxes on these items, and they are not things you can decide not to purchase. That just isn't fair.
Some states currently do not tax food items, and it would not take much to program in at the till what is taxed and what is not. Happens all the time.
Also the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit.
I think I addressed medical care already, but I will add that part of the reason those who can afford medical care pay so much is that they are picking up the tab for those who cannot afford it. The poor pay less, because the hospitals get stuck with the bill, or the Welfare picks it up. On other items, such as unprepared food, housing, clothing, it is because they can!
(For starters, I did not think this was a beat up the rich sort of deal, but maybe that is what propels it. )
Everyone has to eat, everyone has to live somewhere, and the only thing which puts a lid on that price-wise is their own appetites and budgets.
(Notice I did not include clothing in the list of things not included that I proposed--the variation between what is considered "necessary" is immense, and anything past enough to keep you from dying of exposure or getting hauled off to jail is of "necessity" only depending on your economic bracket. Pay tax on your clothes, and that from someone who lives where subzero temps are quite common in winter.)
I did include energy, though, and depending on where you live work may be an elevator ride away, someplace where there are no options for public transportation. What you put the fuel in (fuel is already taxed, BTW, anyway) is up to you, and fair game to be taxed.
Again, home heat, here anyway is not optional. Unless you really ramped up the clothing budget, and use an outhouse instead of a flush toilet, it is a good thing to keep the frost off the walls. In other climes, people would argue that air conditioning is equally important. If you use less, you pay less, anyway, and iirc, that energy is already taxed--another tax the fair tax would not eliminate, so eliminate the taxes on taxes.
As for the rich spending all that money on nicer than necessary necessities (Prime Rib instead of Hamburger Helper), where does that money go?
Ultimately, the money spent on what the rich or poor spend it on goes into the pockets of the people who provide these things.
They in turn, do not stuff the mattress with it, but spend it. Not all of it will be spent on the exempted items I proposed.
At some point, it will be taxed.
Even using the internal rate of 22%, allowing that .78 of that dollar will remain after the first time it is spent, that dollar will be whittled down to less than a penny by the 18th time it changes hands. It drops below a dime on the tenth taxed transaction.
I think the government can wait one transaction more to get that fraction of a cent difference. The rich buy a big house to live in--primary residence. No taxes on that new big house.
WHAT? EGAD, you're going to break the government
--not!
The people who built the house will spend the money, and you can tax it next time. Then the rich will have to fill that big house with all sorts of things which are fitting for such an abode. You can tax them then. The amount they spend on furniture, etc, will put money in the coffers.
The hired help will get paid, etc.
The poor man builds a house, it is smaller, mainly because he either cannot afford or does not want a huge place. He buys less to put in it, and the government gets a proportional share of that.
As I said, what he spends on that new, primary residence will be taxed down to under ten percent of that amount by the tenth time it changes hands anyway.
But that raises another concern. If the Government reduces the money supply to 10% of its former self by the tenth transaction, who is going to have any money?
BTTT FairTax
I always had an idea you were a union man. 9 to 5 and all that.
While the income tax subjects bartering to taxation, the FairTax only would if one of the items being bartered is new or is a service.
The Fed fuel tax is still in place under the FairTax.
The FT legislation, as written, will tax everything equally. As it is under the income tax congress must be monitored to make sure it doesn't tinker with the tax in an unfriendly way.
You want to run a business in a country that has union wage scales or in a country where people are perfectly willing to work for half of that?
They aren't mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to run a business in a country that has union wage scales and still have people willing to work for half of that. They just aren't willing to work for have of that and get their kneecaps busted.
There is a minumum wage in America that has one real purpose: to negotiate union wage scales and keep them high. Any businessman in his right mind would use cheaper labor that is available in developing countries.
Sooner or later, you will start to believe it.
Then if the Congress lays and collects Taxes on the wrong things in excessive amounts at inappropriate times, it should cease being the Congress.
The problem is that the public education system has done such a good job that practically nobody in this country is able to recognize that Congress has overreached its bounds.
Heaven forbid that the federal government do without its revenue "fix" for a few days while our elected representatives figure that out.
Thanks for the info.
Income is taxed once annually. The government takes that cut. As for all the other taxes, the fair tax does not only not do away with them, it taxes some of the taxes paid as well. Excise taxes come to mind.
Now, Here is what happens to your dollar as it goes through a series of taxable transactions. The first time you spend it, 22 cents goes to the government. that leaves 78 cents of that dollar in private hands. That person spends that 78 cents, and 22% goes to the government That leaves 61 cents of the original dollar in private hands.
Say what is left of that dollar gets spent again (not unusual that a 'dollar' changes hands a few times in a few months, right?) the government gets its 22%, the original dollar is now down to 47 cents in private hands. Now this is only three taxable transactions, and the dollar you had is 53% gone to the government. It is a question of money supply. By the fifth transaction, the government has taxed that dollar five times, on the 5th go round 22.5 cents remain in private hands, the government has 77.5 cents. Do the math yourself or make a spreadsheet to show you how the money goes away. Why? Because a dollar is not stagnant. Because in order to have an economy, that dollar keeps moving through multiple transactions, and every time it moves it gets taxed.
Now, just for fun, move a trillion dollars through ten taxable transactions and see what happens to the money supply. 92.7% is in the Government coffers.
In order to put money back into circulation, the government would become the primary purchaser of goods and services because it would have the money. Corporate to corporate transactions are all fine, but at some level, the average schmuck has to spend some money or there is no economy. That transaction is going to get taxed.
As for the current system being unfair. Yeah, it is. Last year the IRS and other taxing agencies took over one fourth of the money I made while other people who lived off the dole (at least partially) 'got back' more money than they put in. But as long as socialist philosophies underlie government spending, it will not matter how the money is collected. What matters is how and how much of it is spent. Half the population paid diddley squat or got back more than they put in.
hilarious
Your example assumes that each transaction is taxable. That would not be so for business to business transactions nor would it be so for transactions involving savings accounts or investments.
Keeping this post G-rated, Americans can disregard the 75,000 pages of regulations concerning federal taxes. What our federal legislators need to know is that they are in contempt of the Constitution for unthinkingly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty spending politics.
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, references notes by Thomas Jefferson to explain why the federal government is wrongly operating outside the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned.
The bottom line is that the people need to reconnect with the intentions of the Founders as reflected by the Constitution and its history, particularly with respect to the requirement for constitutionally enumerated federal government powers which reasonably justify federal spending. The people really need to get in the faces of members of Congress who are foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty, Constitution-ignoring politics, demanding an end to unauthorized federal spending and an appropriate lowering of federal taxes.
No, it does not. I even said "taxable transactions".
I was privvy to a study done in a small town here, which said every dollar gets spent eight times before leaving town.
The larger the town, the more times that dollar circulates, on average, before going elsewhere, because larger towns offer a wider range of goods and services, so the money isn't spent elsewhere.
Sure, some of those transactions are not taxable, but ours is a service economy. The engine which drives it is consumer spending, and those transactions, from the jiffy lube to the grocery store would all be taxed.
Not once a year, but every time money changed hands--at the retail or service provider level, especially in the food sector, because no one buys used food unless they are buying fertilizer.
This isn't going to happen once a year, but several times a year, maybe even in a month.
Every time, the cut is 22 cents off the dollar, off to the government coffers. By the third taxable transaction, the government has 53 cents of the original dollar.
Then why do Europeans have longer vacations, universal health care, and government paid education through graduate school?
If your statement were correct, it would seem logical that the 50% who pay little or no taxes would vote those things for themselves too.
Withholding makes it too painless. Make everybody write big checks four times a year, and change would come quickly.
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.