Posted on 11/23/2002 11:02:34 AM PST by winner45
That's not a valid criticism of the sales tax. In Florida, for example, supermarket food purchases are not taxed. Nor are residential rents (until they get into the "luxury" level), nor medical services. In principle, and in practice, the poor can live their lives relatively unaffected by a well-crafted sales tax.
Dont that just piss you off ? it does me!
It is a dead debate and a waste of time because the issue has been settled in our courts. The only chance now is repeal.
A national sales tax, when applied to all final goods and services, is the easiest, fairest, and best way for the federal gov't to collect revenue.
It would be too easy for Congress to levy taxes faster.
And they're not leving taxes fast enough now?
Where would you take a challenge as to whether the 16th amendment was legally ratified?
a sales tax would require a new amendment or the tax would have to be apportioned.
What Constitution have you been reading?
Constitution for the United States of America:
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
Sales taxes are indirect taxes of the nature of excises or duties:
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)
- An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.
- It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. ... Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.
- Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9."Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
Three of the four Supreme Court Justices who made the following ruling were delegates to the Constitutional Convention:
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states," "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
Where would you take a challenge as to whether the 16th amendment was legally ratified?
Congress and the States, who are the only parties to amending the Constitution per Article V.
Now if a state were to bring suit in the courts, that would be a different kettle of fish, for they have the necessary standing to bring such a suit.
Interestingly, inspite of the claims going around of the 16th having not been legally ratified, no state nor any legislator ever brought such a suit to the courts or ever made the claim that the 16th amendment, as officially, published was not what they intended or ratified in their legislatures.
Most people today are clueless in what is being withheld from their paychecks.
They let H&R Block do their tax returns and whistle while the Feds stick it up their wazoo, because they're too stupid to figure it out.
On the other hand, with something like a consumption tax; when Joe Six Pack buys his six-pack of Budweiser for $7.00 and has to pay 90 cents in taxes, he will SEE how he is being fleeced by the gov't.
Too few people do not pay attention to most of their bills. Ever stay in a hotel, fly on a commercial airline? The published rate is one thing. What you PAY is usually about 20% higher. Look at your telephone bill. It's loaded with more hidden charges than Clinton hummer interns in the White House.
Further, a lot of the black market / underground economy will go away as it is sucked up into the retail market; and thus pour more money into Uncles' ever-thirsty-sucking coffers, since it will be collected and sent to DC.
Wake Up America. Too many of us have been dumbed down, or lulled into the "Stepford Wives'" mentality for too long.
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.