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.
TAXES DEBATE html
THE BENEFITS OF A TRUE FLAT TAX OVER TODAY’S CORRUPTED TAX SYSTEM
Under the present income tax system, people are said to pay up to 32% of their “income” to the federal government for income taxes. They are said to pay additional taxes that takes the effective “income tax” up to 50% and even higher. With many though, especially those with the highest of “incomes”, deductions and/or exemptions make a mockery of even the “graduated” income tax. For instance, the President who made 250,000 dollars in his first year of the presidency paid between 25 and 26 thousand for his “income tax”, which works out to be about 10% despite the fact that he was in the 32% federal tax bracket. {WHAT did he deduct?} While at the same time, people who were not able or inclined to take deductions and/or exemptions, paid the full percentage mandated for their taxes.
The Present system punishes those who work hard to make more money, through the “progressive” aspect of the code. The code also allows for great abuse by hiding social agendas in the tax system itself with deductions and/or exemptions, that also allow for politicians to be able to buy votes by giving certain groupd tax breaks or preferrential treatment hidden i within the tax code.
The lowest percentage paid is I think{?} about 18% for people at the bottom of the income scale. Few if any deductions and/or exemptions {excepting children and wives or husbands} are available to these people due mostly to their inability to be able to afford the things necessary to trigger the deductions and/or exemptions.
------------------------------
A true flat tax with NO deductions and/or exemptions {except for the first ten thousand for each and every taxed entity} would lower the tax rate below the lowest percentage used in the lowest tax bite calculations. Lower paid workers would benefit more by this tax. Middle and Upper “class workers” would also benefit by this system. People who might {and that is an unlikely might} pay more, are those who have gigantic mortgages in comparison to their income, and have large deductions for mortgage interest payments. {this could be alleviated by a phase out of the mortgage deduction over say a twenty year period}. Those with a lot of investments and large incomes might have to pay more taxes if they had to pay the same percentage as everybody else. {This is I think{?} the real reason for the rabid opposition to such an equitable tax}. I also would tax every entity whether natural {man}, or godgov created and allowed {corporations and organizations} would pay the same percentage on their gross income. On the basis that individuals deserve the same representation as do godgov created corporate entities.
The arguement is that corporations will raise prices if they are “taxed twice” {I.Ee at the corporate level, AND the investment level}.
The flat tax that I propose would take three lines on a tax form {Plus an addition if involved in the interest deduction phase-in.}. I am led to understand that the percentage would be about 15% to run government including social security.
=========================
Line (1); Gross income without deductions and/or exemptions
Line (2); Percentage to be multiplied by line one.
Line (3); Amount of tax due government
Line (4); If necessary, phased in interest tax deduction to be subtracted
=========================
This would put a BUNCH of high dollar people out of work due to it’s simplicity. Another of the rabid opposition groups. Well funded too.
Another aspect of this tax, would be that “nonprofit organizations” would not be recognized. There is actually no such thing. Organizations either make enough money to pay their help, or they fold.
The idea though that all of the people who have high incomes either through hard work, or investment income having to pay the same percentage is one of the most important aspects of this tax code. Everybody would have the same incentive to keep the tax percentage bite as low as possible, and the people who have the resources and the time to pay attention would especially want to keep the percentage down.
Dick Armey’s “flat” tax retains many of the preferrential treatment aspects and thus the bribery aspect of the system today.
The true flat tax would allow for movement up the economic ladder through hard work, paying close attention, or even being in the right place at the right time {luck}, or down the economic ladder through the opposite actions {or bad luck} equally. Competition would prevail economically on an individual’s or corporation’s incentive to excell, or stagnate.
-----------------------------------
The difference between the NRST and today’s code
Today’s tax code concentrates the onus on the “middle” class working man. While Democrats fight to give special benefit to the poor and newly created {by Democrats} poor, Republicans fight to give to the “upper” classes, and newly created {by the Republicans} “upper” classes.
The NRST also focuses the onus of the tax bite upon the “middle” class while giving benefit to the poor, and giving great favor to the wealthy and their money handlers.
Example, Ross Perot is said to have an “income” of 60 million dollars a year. Supposing Ross pays ten million dollars for sales taxable service and goods to get by for the year. This gives Ross 50 million dollars as “disposable” income that can forever be “invested” {as long as it is in godgov approved “instruments” and accumulate untaxed income. This will happen EVERY year tax free forever. Every years “disposable” income will do the same, and be added to the untaxed income accumulating in Ross’ portfolio. ALL super wealthy people will have this preference over current tax policy {code}.
Ross will pay a yearly National Retail Sales Tax only on the 10 million that he spends for necessities. Maybe $2,300.
In our current corrupted tax code, Ross makes that 60 million dollars and pays {due to deductions and/or exemptions} about 7.5 million in taxes even though he is in the 32% tax bracket {the highest}.
Under “my” Proposed tax code, Ross would pay the same percentage as every single individual taxable entity. Approximately 15% on sixty million minus the 10 thousand deduction due every taxable entity, which would equal $8,998,500, and still have 51 million to play with, and make his own decisions on rather than having to invest his 60 million in godgov approved instruments in order to prove his sales tax bite. Either way, Ross’ money handlers will do extremely well moving his funds around at a “nominal” fee. But, with the NRST, the 60 million plus interest or return on investment that becomes “disposable” income every year will especially please his money handlers.
A person making 100 thousand yearly would pay 15 percent of ninety thousand ($13,500} under “my” tax code. And with the NRST whatever was left over after his “disposable” income had been separated. The money handlers would also have an appreciation of this guy too, but not as much as ol’ Ross.
A person making 20 thousand dollars a year would pay the 15% on 10,000, or $1,500 with “my” tax code, and about $2,300 or maybe a little better with the NRST.a And the money handlers would have little regard for these guys either.
In both Dick Armey’s “flat” tax and the NRST, the wealthy and the truly rich and their money handlers would have LITTLE interest in keeping the tax percentage low, when compared to the guys making $100,000 and $20,000 a year. And, it IS the wealthy and the rich and their money handlers who have a LOT to say and influence when it comes to tax rates.
Congress critters who set the tax rates have little or NO interest in keeping the tax rate down, because they give themselves raises as “necessary”. The wealthy and their money handlers have MUCH influence when it comes to keeping congress in check.
Now, These figures are off the top of my head from former numbers I have seen and/or heard. But, they are “fairly” calculated. I would appreciate any factual information that will change the figures. But anybody who thinks they are “anti-corporation”, or “communist” are silly in the extreme. And, folks who would sell that idea, can kiss my ass. Peace and love, George.
Ah, C'mon Guys!! Peace and love, George.
WWW.NITE.ORG
Thornton, Thanks. Peace and love, George.
I hear the people shouting: "Dump the income tax!" "Abolish the IRS!" "I'm for the National Retail Sales Tax!" "I'm for the Flat Tax!"
Well, I'm for leaving the tax code as it is.
I LOVE THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE!
http://www.nite.org/articles/quick_study.htm
http://www.nite.org/taxlaw/gross_income.htm
http://www.nite.org/results/results.htm - begin with 'No Time Delay Electronics'
Thanks for the post but I seem to have lost the urge to think since Zoh got "fired". Take care.
I'll check my 1999 returns and let you know. Also, the NRST has a wider scope than I think you've addressed here. The NRST eliminates taxes on corporations. Would your proposal also eliminate corporate taxes or would the 15% be applied to their gross profit?.
As well, why does the rate have to be 15%?. Why can't it be say 2.5%?.
---max
"I'll check my 1999 returns and let you know. Also, the NRST has a wider scope than I think you've addressed here. The NRST eliminates taxes on corporations.
Would your proposal also eliminate corporate taxes or would the 15% be applied to their gross profit?.
---------------------------------
Max, That'll probably be fought tooth and nail for both sides. Personally, I would tax their gross income. On the basis that individuals and families have to pay taxes on their income. No breaks for buying stuff that is to be used, or resold, or labor. Why do "they" get a break, and homeowners don't for grasscutting, babysitting, and/or anything else. Corporations get great advantage by buying bulk, while the people pay the same for a loaf of bread regardless. They also will get preferrential treatment from government regulations, etc. Do they actually deserve a bigger break? And, EVERY business from startup through years of "service" will know what they are going to have to deal with. Competition will actually rule the marketplace rather than the tax codes.
==================================
As well, why does the rate have to be 15%?. Why can't it be say 2.5%?. "
--------------------------------
I haven't been able to access the numbers for "gross profit" before deductions and/or exemptions, and the amount truly necessary to run government as needed. The rate today may be much lower, or even a little higher, but I can't see higher by much. Not nearly as high as the NRST must start at.
I also would try for a required super majority to raise taxes, and a simple majority to lower taxes. Both requiring FULL participation of congress critters. NO midnight 10 man votes by suspending the rules. Peace and love, George.
"Thanks for the post but I seem to have lost the urge to think since Zoh got "fired". Take care."
NB, Keep the faith! Zoh is trying to get back on the market in Baltimore, and has some pretty good feelers going. If you have listened to Zoh for a while, You may have heard some spirited {and short} discussions between her and I on tax issues. I LOVE HER!!! Zoh can be heard nationwide on the internet at http://www.liberty works radio.com, {LWRN - Liberty Works Radio Network} on REAL audio.Peace and love, George.
George, the problem is, your plan is an income tax plan.
ALL income tax plans are harmful to the society they are imposed upon.
For starters, income taxes punish those who choose to work, save and invest, and reward those who don't. Our tax system ought to encourage individuals to work, save and invest, don't you think?
The National Retail Sales Tax does that. Without artificialities.
All income taxes operate on the same principal as the neighborhood mugger: fear. Please explain to me why we should fear our government as we fear the neighborhood mugger?
Consider this: What right does any man have (whether IRS official or mugger?) to demand of another a percentage of their wages? The difference between government demanding a percentage of one's earnings and a robber demanding one's wallet is one only of degree.
Both critters are theives.
The government critter uses a law and the robber critter uses his fist/club/knife/gun/or whatever is available to him to steal one's property (money). One is intimidated on the one hand by fear of prosecution if one does not pay and on the other one is intimidated by fear of bodily injury or death if one does not fork over one's money.
As a distinction, consumption, beyond the necessities of life (neither NRST plan taxes the necessities of life) is purely voluntary. No government holds a law over one's head and threatens one with jail time if they buy product Y instead of product Z.
Each of us will consume voluntarily that which we choose to consume, and will not be punished by some third party for doing so. Every consumer will be treated equally with every other consumer at the checkout counter in terms of the percentage of taxes paid on their respective purchases.
The purchase decisions consumers will make will be based on their own particular set of circumstances, not dictated by the government. Each consumer's personal choice in how they work, save, invest and consume so as to improve the living standards for them and their family will determine how much taxes they will pay.
That is FReedom, George. A quality that all income taxes arbitrarily restrict.
An income tax taxes our contribution to society, whereas a consumption tax taxes what we take out of society.
From the standpoint of the "Greatest Good" for the society, a consumption tax wins hands down over any income tax scheme.
Does it not seem proper, indeed fair, to tax what we take out of society rather than what we contribute to society?
Does it not seem proper, then, to tax as we spend rather than as we earn?
Shift your thinking a notch towards FReedom, George, and replace your income tax thinking with consumption tax thinking, and we can come to an agreement.
Then perhaps we can work together to rid this country of our depressing and oppressive tax code.
For FReedom, George, for FReedom.
FReedom for you, George. FReedom for me. FReedom for your children and grandchildren (and mine). FReedom, George, for all Americans. That is what the National Retail Sales Tax is all about.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
Scrap the Code! Scrap the IRS! Abolish the VLWC!
We will never be a truly free people so long as we have Clinton/Gore, the income tax and the IRS.
So, you find the US Tax Code to be a profit center for you? Sounds like we have another reason to replace the income tax code.
This isn't a debate. It is simply a sleight of hand. A real debate would be....Income tax or no?
You are certainly right, Taxman. Here is a comparison between Flat Income Tax and the NRST (HR 2525).
The FairTax VS the Flat Tax.
The FairTax is electable in that the choice is not between making income or not, it is between spending beyond the necessities of life or saving, investing, gifting or educating oneself. Under the flat tax (VAT) if you earn income you pay a tax.
The flat tax retains the payroll taxes, which is the most onerous tax for three-quarters of the lower income Americans. The flat tax seems to have a lower rate, but that's an illusion. It keeps payroll taxes of over 15% and actually increases hidden taxes paid through corporations. When you count all taxes, the FairTax has the lowest marginal tax rate of any plan because it has the broadest base.
Also, the flat tax is not revenue-neutral -- the FairTax is.
The FairTax lets you keep your whole paycheck or pension. The flat tax keeps tax withholding.
While the flat tax makes tax filing simpler, the FairTax would put an end to the IRS and to all individual tax returns, tax audits, and tax frustration-making April 15th just another day. Bureaucrats would never again know how much money you make or snoop into your finances.
The FairTax eliminates all taxes on the poor. The flat tax would actually raise taxes on the working poor since it abolishes the Earned Income Tax Credit, which offsets some of the payroll tax burden.
The FairTax eliminates all hidden taxes and shows the true cost of government to all Americans with every purchase on every receipt. The flat tax would increase the burden of hidden taxes because more taxes would be paid through corporations recouping their business income taxes by imbedding it in the price of all goods and services. It is the hidden taxes that have caused taxes to be at the highest levels they have ever been.
Another important advantage to the FairTax is that this reform will be easier to keep intact after it becomes law. In 1986, Congress and the president adopted a tax reform plan that lowered the top income tax rate to 28%, but it lasted less than five years, and the top rate today is well over 40% (considering tax deduction phase-outs).
Since the FairTax would scrap the entire income tax apparatus, including the IRS, it would be much more difficult to bring back an income tax. We also believe that once people get used to keeping their entire paycheck, pension and Social Security benefits, they will never want to go back to the old system.
The flat tax taxes exports and exempts imports from tax. The FairTax taxes U.S. produced and foreign produced goods the same when they are sold at retail in the U.S. The FairTax does not tax exports. We think it is sound policy to not punish U.S. exports and to place U.S. and foreign goods on an equal footing in the marketplace.
The flat tax would tax businesses whether they have a net profit or not since interest and other items are not deductible.
The flat tax has much more difficult transition rules that are not even considered.
The FairTax shares every benefit of the flat tax, and the FairTax has advantages that can't be matched by the Flat tax.
And the last, most important point, is Americans don't want an income tax. They want an NRST, and there is market research to back up that claim, and there is an ever-increasing number of members of the various NRST organizations. Argue for income taxes, flat or not, and you are arguing a losing cause. Americans know how much it hurts, they have heard the horror stories about audits, they know they can't be taxed anymore, and they want change now!
Reider, this post would make an excellent thread!
The flat tax would actually raise taxes on the working poor since it abolishes the Earned Income Tax Credit, which offsets some of the payroll tax burden.
Eliminating the EITC is not a bad thing IMO. Note here that the FairTax plan eliminates the EITC, of course. Poorer folks are assisted then by elimination of tax liability; NOT by a welfare payment as under the EITC.
We also believe that once people get used to keeping their entire paycheck, pension and Social Security benefits, they will never want to go back to the old system.
Ba-da-BING...cha-ching!
Given the way politicians implement things, any new tax system would probably leave the current system in place as well (at least until pressure is applied to do otherwise). Result: more taxation.
Look at the new currency. Older bills have not (as far as I can see) been removed from circulation. This means that at least in the short run, there are more federal reserve notes in circulation than before. The inevitable consequence is inflation.
A true flat tax with NO deductions and/or exemptions {except for the first ten thousand for each and every taxed entity}
George, you can't say "NO DEDUCTIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS and then list exemptions or deductions. That's contradictory. And the moment you write a Bill with deductions and exemptions, you are going to have the steaming herds of tax lobbyists (53% of the lobbyists in Washington are tax lobbyists) descend on your code and skew as much as possible in their favor which means to the detriment of the proletariat. You are going to be standing there with a "Wazzup" look on your face as your Bill turns into a monster.
It is one thing to write a new tax code. It is quite another to spend millions on economic research that studies the impact of each section on another so the whole thing does what it is intended to do. You need a tinkerproof tax code, George - one that doesn't blow up in your face.
Your 15% rate doesn't wash either. What about the 7.65% we proles pay in SS & medicare and the 7.65% matched by our employers? 15 + 7.65 = 22.65% rate. (hey, that's beginning to look like FairTax rate!)
Oh, yeah, and the employer is going to hold down wages to recoup his matching share, or have a lower ROI, or pass on his other taxes and compliance cost in the price of his product or service. Taxes imbedded in prices makes them remain artificially bloated by at least 30% and hurts the proles the hardest.
You need to get over this problem you have with rich people keeping their money unless you think they are stuffing it in mattresses or burying it under the begonias. What they are doing with it is investing it in companies - in the economy. Cash infusions give a company money to expand into new markets, and hire more proles, or develop new products. Rich people do a lot of charitable good, too, Gorge. They give billions away to charities that benefit the proles. Take a walk around New York and look at all the money the rich folks have given to that city.
Sorry, George, you may think you and your handlers have got the answer, but I got big news:
Americans don't want an income tax. They want substantive change and they want it now and they want a national retail sales tax!
Not quite. Bills are continually returned to the US Mint, burned, and replaced with the new notes. Even before the new notes came out, worn or torn or defaced bills were destroyed before new bills were issued.
Do you really think it's proportional though? I suspect there are still more bills being printed than are being removed from circulation.
Of course, it's proportional. Why would the Fed continually adjust interests rates to control inflation if the Mint was pumping out new bills at will?
DD, Okay, I'll start by saying that a flat tax on income has been accepted for centuries as the most equitable form of taxation ever devised, and continues today in the form of what some call "tithes". Peace and love, George.
" ALL income tax plans are harmful to the society they are imposed upon."
Taxman, Tell that to church congregations around the world. Peace and love, George.
"The FairTax is electable in that the choice is not between making income or not, "
Reider, Tell that to the folks who make 20,000 dollars a year. And, "electable" becomes easier as wealth accumulates, or is given. The NRST, as Armey's "flat" tax was written by wealthy people to benefit the wealthy, and their money handlers above all others. Plain and simple. Peace and love, George.
Reider, The 15%, was as of a few years ago, and would cover the expenditures for Social Security too. As I wrote, these numbers are not absolute. In fact, I am looking for the total gross income in this country, and the amount necessary to run all government expenditures. Perhaps, you can help. My "deduction" is to each and every taxpaying entity, and NO other. If the "lobbyists" can manage to do that with their proposals, then maybe they should be considered. Peace and love, George.
"Here is a comparison between Flat Income Tax and the NRST (HR 2525)."
Reider, Where is the "comparison". I see no comparison without the numbers for different levels of "disposable" funds. Peace and love, George.
"Americans don't want an income tax. They want substantive change and they want it now and they want a national retail sales tax!"
Reider, Hey, I'm an "American", and I DON'T want a NRST shoved down the throats of Americans. And, "My handlers"????? hawhawhaw. LOL. I gotta go answer nature's call now, but, I'll be back. FREEDOM!!! Peace and love, George.
Reider, The 15% was as of a few years ago, and would cover the expenditures for Social Security too.
i don't think so, George. The 15% inclusive ASSumed that SS was privatized....quite the assumption, huh?
Anyway, IF SS were privatized, the Fairtax rate would be 14.91% inclusive. Also, with the fairtax, there would be no embedded federal income tax related costs (currently 20-40% of prices). With the Fairtax, all individuals would pay the same rate, with NO tax on necessities (get that?...NO TAX ON NECESSITIES). With the FAIRtax, all individuals would desire a reduction in the tax rate...that's huge George...under the FairTax, all individuals would desire a reduction in the tax rate.
Not to be forgotten, under the FairTax, there is no IRS.
Under the flat INCOME TAX, you still have an IRS.
Under the flat income tax, you actually have an INCREASED amount of embedded federal income tax related costs HIDDEN in prices.
Under the flat income tax, you create huge numbers of folks that perceive that they pay no tax, hence they desire more and more government...that's bad, George.
Hell, no tax plan is "good", but the FairTax plan is head and shoulders above the rest!
It's a no brainer, unless you want continued government growth!
Halt government growth! Implement a VISIBLE, UNIFORM, CONSTITUTIONAL tax!
Where is the "comparison". I see no comparison without the numbers for different levels of "disposable" funds.
Specifically what numbers do you want to see compared? Got a scenario to play out? Let's do it. Throw me a scenario and we'll analyze it. Whaddaya say?
Hey, George, 80% of Americans polled preferred a national sales tax to an income tax. Why do you think they are the preferred method of taxation for the States? Why do you think income tax plans like the FLAT TAX never go anywhere when people promote it....Forbes lost on it TWICE.
We don't expect everyone to agree. We take into account folks who's lack of vision, fear of change, and liberal socialistic views will prevent them from understanding the wisdom of an NRST. So, you are one of those...no surprise there.
"wisdom of an NRST. "
Reider, "Wisdom" for the wealthy, and their money handlers. For most others that go along, could only be a good sales job of a pig in a poke. Peace and love, George.
Prince, Just use figures like 20,000; 80,000, 150,000 {congress critters}; 500,000; 1,000,000; 10,000,000, 100,000,000; and be sure to include the "disposable" funds that will build exponentially over the years. And rates at all levels. Peace and love, George.
I'm not wealthy. I don't have money handlers. None of my friends are wealthy. They don't have money handlers. Most of the members of the NRST aren't wealthy and they don't have money handlers. Just who are the "wealthy" that you are railing against?
The problem with your arguments, George, is that they are under-researched, ill-informed, ill-conceived, and promote revenge against the very citizens you need to support your plan! I'm sorry that you are jealous of people with money. I am sorry you didn't make a success of yourself financially. I am sorry that you want to stifle and punish people who did, but you will never succeed at that. Variations on the income tax is no step forward no matter how much you promote class warfare. A majority of Americans want to rip out the income tax by its communistic roots and you will never convince them they are wrong.
Reider, And I'm sorry that you are such an obnoxious would be overbearing bore. Put the NUMBERS on paper to compare. Peace and love, George
George, Principled is not going to do free research for you. Not even if I have to trash his fingers and stomp on his calculator. Particularly since you don't accept or grasp the numbers put forth by three years of rigorous economic research by prominent economists - oh wait, experience and education is meaningless to you, right? Those researchers might be the wealthy you are always talking about.
Principled, do not fall for the kiss up.
Awwwwwww. Did widdle Georgie get a nerve plunked! And you can call names and post your bathroom schedule on FR, and still call me an obnoxious bore?
As a beneficial mental exercise, think upon the idea of the logical reasoning capacity of a guy who seriously and loudly proclaimed several times that anyone not paying their taxes "correctly" (according to who???) should be hanged in one breath and in the next ranted about a group he hates ("the rich") and another group he detests as "getting" more than he does (families with children), talks about a flat-VAT income tax being the only "fair and equitable tax system" (while shifting the tax burden onto middle income taxpayers and businesses by increasing taxes dramatically and untaxing an entire group of freeloaders, and then ends up with "peace and love"?
In case you haven't figured it out, I'll give you a clue - he's nutso - big time; and a communist to boot.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
What exactly are you looking for, George?
Compare WHAT at those income levels?
Sometimes "nutso" is the only explanation. Especially since he let us know he had to answer nature's call. How many clear-thinkers would notify the public? How many clear-thinkers would think we'd care? George, you sure atomized your credibility with that post...or any number of other posts, now that I think about it. LOLLLLLLLLL.
What do you think George from Br00klyn Park is wanting to show with those numbers?
George, please tell me the name of the church that will put you in prison or physically assault you if you don't put money in the plate?
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
Scrap the Code! Scrap the IRS! Abolish the VLWC!
We will never be a truly free people so long as we have Clinton/Gore, the income tax and the IRS.
George, please tell me the name of the church that will put you in prison or physically assault you if you don't put money in the plate?
Oh Taxman, what was the deal with churches (and other organizations that operate on donations) prior to the income tax?
I'm oh-so-curious!
I'm pretty certain George doesn't have any numbers to post. If he did, they would be so horrific when compared to an NRST, that he wouldn't be able to hold his head up, so he hopes you will post some that he can tear apart.
Hey, George, show us your numbers. Ours are posted for all to see. Don't be afraid. If your plan is as good as you say, then show us your numbers!
George,
they say you don't have any numbers to illustrate the flat tax you like... do you? what specific issue(s) are you looking to compare?
All the numbers I've seen comparing any income tax to an nrst show the nrst winning hands down...
what numbers do you want me to get to? what do you want to compare?
Tithe, n.,v. a tenth of one's income offered or levied for support of a church, as among Mormons.
before the income tax provided tax benefits for giving to charities, how did they survive?
if the income tax and the deduction for charitable contributions go away, what can we expect?
I'm not aware of any church congregation with a tax system in place.
Since you gradiated from one of them thar liberal learning brainwashing centers of academia, perhaps you should grasp your brain around these threads:
Forbes 46.3% (minimum) Flat Income/Vat Tax Scam!
Income Tax vs National Retail Sales Tax - You be the judge
ELECTION 2000: A Conservative Winning Agenda
Here's the deal. You start with the same flawed assumption as the government currently does: That the money is the government's to give out as it sees fit. It is not the purpose of the tax code to benefit or not benefit groups of people. It is the job of taxes to pay the bills in the least intrusive, most efficient, most unbiased (notice I avoid the word fair) manner possible. All your arguments about who benefits, and especially your class-baiting about the rich benefiting, fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned. And I, by the way, am by no means rich. I'm for the NRST.
“Whoever hopes a faultless tax to see, hopes what ne’er was, is not, and ne’er will be.”
---Alexander Pope
Sorry George, but income taxes, be they flat, round, or square just don't stand up under close inspection for the following reasons:
1. They are COMMUNIST INSPIRED and and give the government a prior claim to the fruits of our labor.
2. They DIRECTLY ATTACK the 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
3. They are HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY in that it singles out only those who have
4. They undermines the ENTIRE ECONOMY of the country by forcing the price of goods produced in this country beyond the reach of a great many potential customers.
5. They are very ill defined as to just what constitutes "INCOME".
Beyond that I don’t suppose they are much worse than any other form of taxation!
neither am I, xjcsa. I am curious how the folks will respond to churches and such.
under the NRST, they will have 30% more money with which they may do as they please... so why is George from Br00klyn Park worried?
Please help me understand...
Glad you asked, Principled.
HOW DOES THE FAIR TAX AFFECT CHARITIES? WON'T CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS DIMINISH WHEN PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER DEDUCT THEIR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS?
Non-profit lobbying groups sometimes claim nonprofits will be hurt because of lower marginal rates as well as by the elimination of the charitable deduction. Following their logic, charities would do very well under death taxes or income taxes at 90%.
But, this is completely wrong in both premise and conclusion. Charities will be greatly advantaged by the FairTax.
First, donors are motivated to give, not by the level of tax savings, but by the resources they have available. After the 1986 TRA, charitable giving increased rather than decreased, despite lowering of marginal income and transfer tax rates. Since the Fair Tax would not interpose a tax before the decision to give has been made all business and individuals would have more resources to contribute. Charitable giving is motivated more by benevolence, than cross-subsidization by all other, typically middle income taxpayers.
In fact, the charitable giving deduction does not disappear under the FairTax. It is effectively enhanced by not taxing charitable contributions. Like the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable contribution deduction is only designed to make contributions pre-income tax. However, under the FairTax these contributions are made with pre-income and pre-payroll tax dollars. This is an added benefit to the charities; in fact, a far greater benefit than would result from income tax relief alone.
It is certainly of greater advantage to the nearly three-quarters of the taxpayers, who can’t even claim a charitable deduction today because they don’t itemize. According to the 1994 SOI, only 33 million taxpayers itemized and 81 million did not itemize. The charitable deduction is limited for itemizers as well under current law – no such limitations apply under the FairTax.
Finally, it is important to point out that the benefit to charities is itself somewhat suspect. While churches rely on charitable donations, they are somewhat impervious to the tax motivation. Other charities, universities and museums, for example, rely little on donative sources of giving.
Less than 2 percent of all the 501(c)(3) s (those with $50 million in assets), account for 70 percent of the total asset holdings. These organizations relied on contributions, gifts and grants for only 11 percent or their income in 1991 as opposed to commercial sources of revenue.
George my friend; perhaps you would like to read what Denis Calabrese, former Chief of Staff to Majority Leader Dick Armey, had to say on this very subject before you go ANY further with this argument.
Confessions of a Flat Taxer
Just about every American has finally concluded that the income tax system can't be fixed, it needs to be replaced. Many Republicans want to go ahead and sunset the tax code by a date certain, say December 31, 2000. Like Cortez who burned his ships on a foreign shore so his soldiers would not pine for home, they believe that nothing is more effective at forcing a change in the status quo than, well, the absolute destruction of the status quo. Given Washington's penchant for inertia, this strikes a lot of people, including me, as a good strategy. Bill Clinton on the other hand, wants to have a national debate on tax reform first - using the analogy, he wants a new ship built (and passage in a first class cabin on it for his political allies, no doubt) before burning the old ones. Either way, everyone agrees the old system has to go.
In the meantime American taxpayers continue to suffer the crippling burden of a tax system which punishes work, savings, and investment, costs every man, woman and child in America over $850 per year in compliance costs alone (this is in addition to the actual tax they pay), and subjects them to more than 34 billion civil penalties assessed by the IRS each year. It's a tax code that's easy for dishonest people to cheat, but hard for honest people to comply with. It's intrusive, unfair, and robs millions of Americans of the opportunity to better their lives. It's ten thousand ugly, impenetrable pages of dead weight on the American economy. It's simply the worst law in America. Whether you like the Clinton or Cortez approach to tax reform, it's high time we had a serious debate on what a post-income tax world will look like.
Well, here's a new world for you to consider for a moment: no income tax, no payroll tax, no self-employment tax, no capital gains tax, no gift or estate taxes, no corporate taxes, no withholding, no tax on Social Security. No tax forms, no record keeping, no personal tax filing whatsoever. No IRS. No April 15. All gone. Forever.
No tax on income of any kind, for businesses or individuals. When you think about it, why would we ever tax income in the first place? Why punish what we want to encourage, which is work, production, and self-sufficiency? Where else in society do we punish achievement? Do the Chicago Bulls pay Michael Jordan less money when he averages 30 points per game? Does Harvard University flunk out its A students? Does a mother send a child to her room for being polite at the dinner table?
Consumption is what we must tax, not production. We should allow what people take out of the system to go through Washington's toll booth, not what people produce for society. And there's only one tax that truly accomplishes this goal, simply and honestly, and that's the FAIR TAX, the perfected version of a national retail sales tax.
The Fair Tax, as advocated by Americans for Fair Taxation (AFT), would replace the individual and corporate income tax, Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, the self-employment tax and the estate and gift tax with a simple, single rate national retail sales tax on all final goods and services. The plan also includes a universal rebate that protects all families on the purchase of necessities, eliminating the regressivity of some sales tax plans.
But wait, what about the flat tax? Well, I'm glad you asked. You see, I was for the flat tax before the flat tax was cool. I was the strategist behind the very first Congressional campaign of Majority Leader Dick Armey, the Congressional father of the flat tax. I was Armey's first Chief-of-Staff in Washington. I've studied every tax plan there is, and none more than the flat tax. Dick Armey is as fine of a man as you will find, inside or outside of Washington. He's also the biggest country western fan I know, and Dick and I both can't wait to say to the income tax "Thank God and Greyhound You're Gone," (Roy Clark), but as for the best replacement, the Fair Tax is "The American Way" (Hank Williams Jr.) and the Flat Tax is a "Coca Cola Cowboy" (Mel Tillis).
The flat tax, as originally proposed in the early 1980s by Hoover Institution scholars Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, and more recently promoted by Steve Forbes, is a good proposal, much better than the current system. It would dramatically improve the economy and reduce the complexity and intrusiveness of our current tax system.
The Fair Tax and the flat tax are alike in many ways. The flat tax and the sales tax would have similar (although not identical) positive effects on the economy. They both would dramatically reduce marginal tax rates and reduce the tax bias against work, savings and investment. Each would provide a tax system that no longer discourages savings and investment. Each would lead to much higher rates of economic growth, greater productivity, higher wages, lower interest rates and a higher standard of living for the American people.
But the sales tax clearly trumps the flat tax in a number of very important ways. Under the flat tax for instance, individuals would need to continue filing income tax returns. In fact, the Armey flat tax form looks very similar to today's 1040EZ form. Under the Fair Tax, individuals would be forever free from filing tax returns. No record-keeping would be necessary, and IRS audits of individuals would totally cease. Under a sales tax, what you earn would be what you keep. No more federal income tax or payroll tax would be withheld from paychecks.
Businesses would also have a much simpler job under a sales tax. Instead of complying with a myriad of complex rules relating to the income tax and payroll taxes, they would simply have to answer one simple question each month: How much did you sell to consumers? Moreover, under the sales tax, retailers would be paid a fee to compensate them for the costs of complying with the tax system. And what of the flat taxers' objection that under a sales tax businesses would become tax collectors? Today, 95% of businesses already collect sales taxes for their states. In fact, today, business are tax collectors and tax payers. Under the sales tax, they no longer pay, they just collect, and they are paid for collecting. Oh, and the customers walking into their store have 100% of their paychecks in their pockets.
Compliance costs under the flat tax would be lower than under present law but they would be much lower still under the Fair Tax. Under the flat tax, all Americans would still have to file tax returns. Under the flat tax, business would need to continue to track and report their income and their deductions. Businesses would still need to comply with withholding regulations regarding the income tax and payroll tax withholding from employees. Firms would still pay the employer share of the payroll taxes. And the self-employed would still pay the 15.3 percent self-employment tax. Under the Fair Tax, all of these burdens would no longer exist.
The Fair Tax would do away with the IRS because a sales tax would be administered by the state sales tax agencies, assuming the states chose to do so. Given the incentives in the Fair Tax plan, most if not all would choose to do so. The federal role in tax administration would be dramatically reduced to oversight of the state sales tax collecting authorities and administering the collection of customs duties and the remaining excise taxes (such as the gasoline tax). As for cheating, what will be easier to police, 120 million flat tax returns, or 14 million Fair Tax returns?
Most importantly, because the sales tax would dispense with the existing income tax apparatus, it would be very difficult for the federal government to go back to an income tax. On the other hand, it is very easy to turn a flat tax into the loophole-filled, unfair tax system we have today. All that need be done is to change the tax rates and place exceptions in the law. Because the Fair Tax is an indirect tax that taxes goods and services rather than specific people, it is well nigh impossible to turn it into a graduated tax rate system where how much you earn or spend determines the tax rate you pay. Any changes will be brutally transparent.
The issue of international trade and competitiveness is another clear winner for the Fair Tax. The flat tax, like the current tax system, taxes U.S. exports but allows imported goods to enter the country free of tax. The flat tax thus places American firms at a decided disadvantage in both foreign and domestic markets. Under the Fair Tax, U.S. produced goods and foreign produced goods pay the same tax when they are sold at retail in the United States. When U.S. produced goods are exported they bear no sales tax since they will never be sold at retail here. In other words, only the Fair Tax makes U.S. firms more competitive both in foreign and domestic markets. Foreigners will invest here and U.S. firms will bring their capital home to take advantage of this improved tax situation. The US will in essence become a tax haven for international capital. And American workers and consumers will reap the benefits.
The Fair Tax repeals payroll taxes (FICA). Many Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income tax. Theses taxes are highly regressive because the 12.4 percent Social Security tax is only paid on the first $68,400 of wages and not on wages above that amount or on investment income. Because of this aspect of the Fair Tax plan combined with the rebate, the positive impact on poor and middle income families is substantial.
Congressman Armey often decries "government by deception," wherein Washington perpetrates ills on the American public without the action being visible. Well, the sales tax is the least deceptive, most visible tax of all. It conveys the actual cost of government to the American people with every single purchase. The flat tax retains the hidden employer payroll tax. It also shifts much of the burden of capital taxation to businesses by denying them deductions for interest, payroll taxes and other business expenses. Most people will remain unaware that these very substantial business taxes are being collected because they will simply be hidden in the price of their goods and services. American taxpayers will not be able to see the true cost of government.
The Fair Tax shares all of the advantages of the flat tax. Where they differ, the sales tax is superior to the flat tax. Flat tax supporters who honestly examine the sales tax will surely reach the conclusion that while the flat tax is a positive proposal, the sales tax is by far the best. I hope they will then join me in the rapidly growing Fair Tax movement. In the first four weeks after public introduction, Americans for Fair Taxation received 250,000 requests for membership kits and information from people who support tax reform. Thousands more every day call the 1-800-FAIR-TAX line or log onto the http://www.fairtax.org. website. Flat taxers of the world unite... behind the Fair Tax!
The 15%, was as of a few years ago, and would cover the expenditures for Social Security too.
How can that be, George, when it takes 15.3% fund Social Security and Medicare now...and it's going to be bankrupt in ten years at that rate. What are you going to use to fund the constitutionally provided Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of the government? Or the Armed Forces. Or NASA?
As I wrote, these numbers are not absolute. In fact, I am looking for the total gross income in this country, and the amount necessary to run all government expenditures. Perhaps, you can help.
No, I can't help, George. You must pay for your own research since you are proposing a plan that I do not support.
My "deduction" is to each and every taxpaying entity, and NO other. If the "lobbyists" can manage to do that with their proposals, then maybe they should be considered
You want to use the lobbyists (who are funded by corporations to represent their tax interests in Washington which has the net effect of raising individual taxes) as a model for your tax plan? My suggestion, George, is that you get out of the deep end of the pool. You don't have a plan. You have an idea that you are trying to develop into a tax plan and you are trying to use the brains of people that you bash and mock. Shady Pines, George.
"COMMUNIST INSPIRED "
Bigun, The concept of "income taxes" has been used for centuries by churches with their "tithes". You don't tithe the proper amount, you can't belong. Sounds good to me when it comes to the most equitable income tax. Marx's father wasn't even a gleem in HIS Daddy's eye when the concept of income taxes came into being. The NRST, AND Dick Armey's "flat" tax are tax codes written by wealthy people to benefit wealthy people and their money handlers above all others. Except the rich and SUPER rich, and THEIR money handlers. The end result can only be that the vast majority of "money" will be held and distributed by the moneyhandlers for their and their client's {maybe} benefit. Because if the accumulated "disposable" wealth is spent, it will be taxed, and then no longer "disposable". So, rather than the money running around locally, it will be dispenced where it will bring the greatest return. There are either a bunch of liars running around, or a lot of stupid dupes. I no longer believe in coordinated stupidity coming from such folks, so you know where I stand on what these bums think. Peace and love, George.
And I'll say that in this country it wasn't accepted for 120 years. I'd like you to provide a single example of a fair income tax anywhere in the world. The founders forbid such a tax at all under the constitution. So I find your assertion that an income tax is "accepted" around the world to be somewhat silly.
The income tax doesn't need to be replaced. It needs to be scrapped. Replaced with nothing.
"You don't have a plan. You have an idea that you are trying to develop into a tax plan and you are trying to use the brains of people that you bash and mock. "
Reider, Absolutely. And you seem to be afraid that someone might do that. "I'll crush his arms". When I read the 15% figure, I too wondered why we needed more than what social security itself took in. I still wonder. I wrote of usury before. It is is the usurous payments due on maturity of government instruments sold during Carter's reign thatis going to cause the destruction of Social Security that you write about. Congress spent that money. By the way, since I read the 15% figure, according to you guys, the econome has been going great guns, so the 15% SHOULD remain about constant. Peace and love, George.
Bigun, The concept of "income taxes" has been used for centuries by churches with their "tithes". You don't tithe the proper amount, you can't belong.
I've been in a few Churches in my day George but I am ignorant of one with such a requirement. Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me WHICH one(s) make this requirement for membership.
BTW: I am aware that the Bible teaches that 10% of ones INCREASE (not the same as income George) is a proper amount for one to voluntarily contribute but that is, in no way, akin to a TAX my friend!
MISQUOTE, George. It was fingers, not arms. And that's a kind of private joke that Principled understands and you don't - like most of what is going on in tax reform today, or basic economics. Or the freedom on which this country was built. And the right to amass wealth. George, even the Russians have given up Communism. It's dead! It's gone! It's not gonna come here!
Social Security, George, is based on wages, not the stock market. Since the current generation of workers is funding SS for the present retirees, that means that when the huge population of baby boomers retire, the working generation will not be sufficiently large to pay their retirement. SS will go bankrupt unless something is done, hence all the talk about privatizing SS. Of course, under the FairTax, SS will be funded by the nrst so it will be secure, and not dependent upon the current workforce to pay the current retirees benefits.
George, I agree with demidog on this one. The damn income tax should be scrapped and replaced with NOTHING. This whole topic reminds me of discussing how we will shear the sheep. Do we use scissors or electric shears? The sheep still get sheared. The method does not make any difference. The results are the same. We all are poorer and not really free because of the income tax. What would be the revenue from a 10% tarriff on all imported goods, including Mexico? If that amount equals our government budget, I would favor this method of raising revenue and it is Constitutional too.
CATO
The income tax doesn't need to be replaced. It needs to be scrapped. Replaced with nothing.
I wholeheartedly agree that the income tax should be scrapped!
While I may also agree that it should be replaced with nothing, that will not happen. Even the founders had taxation. The revenues left after eliminating income and payroll taxes would be enough to keep I-95 open for a month. You and I may agree that's fine! But 535 + 2 in DC don't.
My hope is to minimize the evil-ness of the system, and putin place a system that will move the entire citizenry in the direction of less government via LOWER taxes.
Eliminating the income tax and the IRS is, IMHO, a step in the right direction.
Another step in the right direction is repealing the 16th. And another step is making ALL individuals pay the SAME rate so that we're ALL interested in keeping the cost of government low. THis last point is the one I'm very interested in... it will lead to lower taxes hence less government.
It just is not realistic (at least not yet) to eliminate the income tax and replace it w/ nothing.
The method does not make any difference.
I disagree, Cato
Our income tax encourages individuals to desire more government service, cuz they don't realize what the cost of government/services is, nor do they recognize their own tax burden.
A uniform NRST however would DIScourage individuals' desire for services, cuz they cough up their share of the cost of government daily.
This change (ie having ALL individuals keenly aware of the cost of government AND thier share of that cost) would lead to lower taxes and of course less government via privatization/elimination.
Those pols will do ANYTHING to be re-elected! And if they have to eliminate/privatize the DOE to lwer the rate on EVERYONE, they'll do it.
BTW the import tax is a good idea, for a while. But later, like today, folks will begin to believe that they don't pay for government. Then it's downward spiral again.
I favor the NRST cuz it puts CONSTANT, HEAVY downward pressure on taxes.
In conclusion, I assert that it DOES matter how the tax is collected. It may be collected in a way that encourages government growth, or it can be collected in a way that DIScourages government growth, and it can even be collected in a way that encourages government shrinkage.
It matters. We should pick the one that makes government smallest.
Note also that whatever plan we choose must be feasible.
HR 2525 is in Congress right NOW. It is a plan that will make government smaller...not overnight... but the constant downward pressure on taxes due to the uniform rate will shrink government.
Well, those tariffs obviously are not sufficient to fund the government or the hue and cry for tax reform would be resonating at such deafening levels through the halls of Congress that even you would know what's going on.
You beat your chest for no taxes, but you have not even the most basic idea of how much money your government needs to run, or why zero taxes is so wildly impractical as to not even be considered by clear thinking people. You don't even seem particularly clear on how much our economy is tied up with taxes. If you don't know, how can you take a position? Unless being held up to ridicule is how you get your kicks?
Business keeps ideas like tarriffs off the TV screen and out of the minds of the people. Tarriffs would mess with their profits from the goods made in other countries like Mexico and China. You got that? And SA, do you know what the budget is? I will except estimates. I think it is in the range of $1.5 trillion. If this figure meets your approval, we just divide the total dollar amount of all IMPORTS by the budget and we have the tarriff rate for the year. Easy and we would not be filling out and paying internal taxes. I like that. Bonus, more jobs would stay in America. Question for you: How do we put boots made in China on our soldiers feet in the next war? Tarriffs on foreign goods would help restore vital industries for the defense and preservation of America. Problem with that too?
Regards,
CATO
The method doesn't matter. All of these tax methods are internal. I favor tarriffs over internal taxes. I guess you can invent a new way to make internal taxes more palatable, but the people DO NOT like them! Give tarriffs a chance and see if the people like them over a new and improved method of working the same old game since 1913.
OBTW, the NRST sucks, IMO! You want to talk sticker shock, then talk NRST.
CATO
http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/ is the site where you can get the information you seek. It's for the Office of Management and Budget. Do your own research and answer your own questions. We've done ours and are just waiting for you to catch up.
OBTW, you can't read very well! I did not say no taxes. I favor tarriffs(taxes) over internal taxes. T-man, learn to read.
CATO
Give me your Tariff bill number so we can check it out. HR????
Come on CHIEF, I just put "my" ideas out for discussion. If you don't like the idea of a tarriff, say so.
The personal attacks only detract from your usual respectful responses.
CATO
Also, the flat tax is not revenue-neutral -- the FairTax is.
This is what happens to tax plans that are not revenue-neutral:
Only takes one Senator, or One member of the house to kill a bill:
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.
Bye Bye Flat tax.
and continues today in the form of what some call "tithes"
Give unto Caeser, that which is Caeser's, unto God that which is God's.
The tithe belongs to God has first dibs, Caeser can only try to get what's left over.
Since it is a matter of conscience whether or not I pay a tithe for God's use, are you now telling us that you do not intend to hang or incarcerate those, who as a matter of conscience do not pay your income tax?
Give tarriffs a chance
The first year must be revenue neutral(see my reply #71 to Reider above), that means your tarrif needs to be projected to pull in revenues sufficient for current obligations of the Federal Government.
What is that percentage rate of tarriff, and what prevents people from simply not buying imported goods to avoid paying the execessive price of imported goods under such a system resulting in nill revenues for defense or any other necessary expenditure of Federal government.
Remember the luxury tax on yahts. The industry died when people didn't go for the tax induced higher prices when there were alternatives to get the same product at lower cost at hand. Result, lost jobs, lost indust, nil tax revenues.
Give me your Tariff bill number so we can check it out. HR????
Chief-- are you working in the public sector? Because if you do I'd like to see your time sheet. I'd suspect if you spend this much time during the day on the this site shilling to establish an additional tax on Americans longing for a freeRepublic the time sheet you submit is grossly incorrect and could be construed as a fraudulent instrument.
Well, now we have the flat taxers. The idea of an additional tax perpertrated by the new liberals on the producers brings out the best of people. That is what the Brits rued about 225 years ago.
Best wishes.
Now here is a person who is a true supporter of government intrusion into private lives. In fact, you are so supportive of it you are adopting that intrusiveness as your own right to pry, and threaten by allusion, into the lives of people that disagree with you. Sorry, Banger (I still want to know why you gave yourself that name), but your wild-eyed argument fails to consider that 1. Chief may be retired, or 2) that he is self-employed, or 3) that this is his job. Now, don't you look silly. So, butt out of people's personal lives and confine your wailing to the subject at hand.
C'mon, George,
1) When Ross Perot invests, he will often invest into productive activities. (Not always, I know, but that is another story.)
2) When he buys a Rolls Royce, he will pay some more than 2,300 NRST. Do not count all for misers. Regards..
Look into Wanniski's theory of tariffs, it should be somewhere at www.polyconomics.com
Neither of us can know how a tarriff will effect the economy. I will say that our government budget should be handled on a year to year basis per the Constitutional requirement of annual appropriation of revenue bills. I will also say that any tarriff should be for the raising of revenue and not protective.
My plan: figure your next annual budget. Take last years total imported goods value, divide by the annual revenue needs of the government as defined by the proposed budget and you have the tarriff rate for the coming year. This rate would change as revenue requirements change and imports change. The citizens of the nation would then not have to deal with the IRS. We also could cut the number of revenuers because the tarriff would be collected at the ports of entry(known, defined, and relatively few.) I want the IRS out of the people's lives. This plan would do this.
CATO
"Wisdom" for the wealthy, and their money handlers. For most others that go along, could only be a good sales job of a pig in a poke.
Found this one Just for you George: Look close and find out who gets hit with your True Flat Tax, and Who Benefits the most!
And you say you are worried that the rich aren't taxed enough. Your True Flat Tax tends to put them in even better position with respect to the poor and middle class.
So please do tell, who are your wealthy handlers trying selling your pig in a poke!
Why Flat Tax Isn't A "True" Flat Tax
http://www.cac.psu.edu/ur/archives/BUSINESS/flattax.html
2-23-96
Charles R. Enis, Associate Professor of Accounting
Penn State's Smeal College of Business Administration
The idea of replacing the income tax with a flat tax has had its proponents and detractors for at least 15 years, but a Penn State researcher says that the flat tax concept making news now falls short of the real thing.
"A 'true' flat tax would eliminate all exclusions, deductions, exemptions, and credits," says Enis, who published papers on flat taxes as far back as 1984. "It would achieve the maximum simplicity and impose the lowest possible tax rate on individuals while raising roughly the same revenues as the current income tax system."
In the early 1980s, when a proposed 10 percent flat tax was a big political issue, a study by Enis and colleague Darryl L. Craig, now at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, showed that a "true" flat tax would transfer substantial taxes from the rich to the poor. Enis says this result makes a "true" flat tax the benchmark against which alternative tax reform proposals should be compared.
Hypothesizing a flat tax of 12.72 percent, which would have raised the same amount of revenue as the income tax at the time of the study, Enis and Craig found that a substantial proportion of individual tax returns would experience a tax increase. This "true" flat tax would likely hurt low-income families, provide tax relief for high-income families, and divide middle-income families equally between gainers and losers. The major transfer of the tax burden would have been from the top 10 percent of income earners to the lower 70 percent of income earners.
"Under a 'true' flat tax of this sort, more families in the top group of income earners would profit from a lower tax rate than would suffer from the loss of loopholes," Enis says.
In a later study, Enis and Craig showed that adding a degressive feature -- such as exempting a specified initial level of income from taxation -- supplies a flat tax with some of the progressiveness seen in the income tax system. They also found that a degressive flat tax would shift tax burden from lower-income to upper-income and especially middle-income families. Recent flat tax proposals are more similar to a degressive flat tax than to a "true" flat tax.
The researchers' flat tax models eliminated tax free income, deductions, and credits and replaced multiple rates with a single rate.
Unlike the systems simulated by the researchers, the flat tax being championed by Presidential hopeful Steve Forbes and others would apply a 17 percent rate to all compensation and pension contributions. It would not tax other incomes sources, such as interest, dividends, and capital gains of individuals; and would allow a large personal exemption but no deductions.
The revenue neutral tax rate in the degressive flat tax simulated by Enis and Craig was 21.6 percent, which suggests that the rate proposed by Forbes is likely to result in a large revenue shortfall.
Furthermore, Enis points out that, unlike what has been suggested by Forbes, a flat tax does not require the elimination of the entire internal revenue code. Many provisions of the code were enacted to prevent abuse of the manner in which income is measured, timed, reported, and classified regardless of the rates or rate to be applied. Elimination of such safeguards will invite unbridled tax avoidance, Enis says.
Meanwhile, although individuals would not have to include interest and dividends in taxable income under recent flat tax proposals, such forms of income will not be completely tax free because businesses that distribute them will receive no deductions for the payouts.
"Disallowing these deductions and exempting related income from taxation will have the effect of taxing income at its source and eliminating double taxation on distributed corporate profit," Enis explains.
In addition, as described by Enis, a "true" flat tax would eliminate every loophole for taxpayers, including the cherished personal exemption. The tax liability would then be computed by applying a low unitary tax rate to the complete income base for all individuals.
"Although many features of a 'true' flat tax would streamline matters greatly for both taxpayers and the government, the elimination of most forms of tax shelters could discourage home ownership, gift giving, and retirement planning," Enis notes. "Still, it would probably achieve a lower rate than 17 percent, which could result in investors having greater disposable income available for these activities.
"It would also give individuals a clearer knowledge of their current and future disposable incomes for financial planning purposes."
**gwc**
My plan: figure your next annual budget. Take last years total imported goods value, divide by the annual revenue needs of the government as defined by the proposed budget and you have the tarriff rate for the coming year
So lets do it, As a test case take the actual 1999 budget divided by 1998 imported goods, to give us your %tarriff that would finance the federal budget 1999.
Click on the value to go to the source of the number.
1999 $1.727 Trillion -- Total U.S. Budget Outlays
1998 $0.912Trillion --Total Global Imports to U.S.
100*1.727/0.912 = 189.3% tax exclusive rate.
equaling Import prices X 2.893
Please explain who is going to buy those imported goods at almost triple of current prices so that amount of revenue will be collected. Especially considering that U.S. goods will be readily available at much lower prices.
Tax collected only from the clinically insane.
My job is to assure that your children and grandchildren won't have to spend over $20,000 of their income per year, with an income tax rate of over 80%, to "feed the beast".
Since you don't seem to give a damn...I'll fight the fight for you.
I ask to see your Tariff bill and you think that was a personal attack?
Okay, since you don't have a Tariff bill, written by a tax specialist...nor co-signers, please give me "at least" the specifics, so we can determine if it is a viable alternative.
I take it, you have studied the ramifications of your alternative in great detail...haven't you?
Tarriffs would mess with their profits from the goods made in other countries like Mexico and China. You got that?
No they wouldn't! They would simply be passed on down the line hidden in the price of the product! You got that?
You want to talk sticker shock, then talk NRST.
Cato! Prices will NOT rise under the NRST sir. THere will be no "sticker shock".
ANother thing, you like tariffs cuz they help US made goods... well, so does the NRST. Here's how:
-the NRST is levied on all imports sold in US for final consumption
-the NRST is NOT levied on any export
This puts US goods on an equal footing with goods produced in other countries where gov't has been subsidizing exports for years.
Cato, I'm disappointed that you argue so vehemently against the NRST without understanding it very well. Please ask some basic questions, or look here for basice NRST info, or look here to look at the plan in Congress right now.
No tax plan is perfect, but the NRST is by far the best alternative. I hope you'll find out about it. Not only is it the best alternative, it's achievable.
A uniform rate paid by ALL individuals on ALL purchases of new (not previously taxed) goods & services for final consumption. Business to business tranx are not taxed. Investment is not taxed, ever. Necessities are un-taxed so only discretionary spending is taxed.
Hell, interest rates will drop overnight to the tax-free rate (about 25% less than current) when this is enacted.
I stress, having ALL individuals pay the same rate will put pressure on pols to lower the rate.
Please learn about the NRST, and examine its effects. We need thinkers to consider this. It is clear that you have not yet checked it out- I encourage you to do so, THEN let's talk about what the best alternative is...
I want the IRS out of the people's lives. This plan would do this.
So would HR 2525. I know this is not you ronly criterion for rejecting HR 2525... I just wanted you to know that HR 2525 defunds the IRS, destroys existing income tax records, and makes the taxation of income illegal.
I'd suspect if you spend this much time during the day on the this site shilling to establish an additional tax on Americans
You're off base, Banger. THe NRST is not an additional tax. SHeesh.
Give tarriffs a chance and see if the people like them over a new and improved method of working the same old game since 1913.
Shoulda caught this earlier in another reply... sorry.
Anyway, I gotta stress that the NRST isn't the same old game. The NRST makes ALL individuals keenly aware of the cost of government, and the NRST makes ALL individuals cough-up their share of the cost of government each time they buy something.
THAT is why the NRST will cause lower taxes and then less government.
BTW "excise" tax has been the game since we began in 1776, the income taxis the 1913 reference.
"The founders forbid such a tax at all under the constitution."
DD, SHOW me where! Peace and love, George.
A tariff on imports would be a tax paid by individuals purchasing goods inside the US, of course. But the tax would be hidden in prices. So folks wouldn't be aware of the cost of government, nor would folks be aware of their share of it....
The perfect recipe for ever-expanding government.
"INCREASE (not the same as income George) "
Bigun, Ah, but it IS the SAME thing in a tax system based on income taxed at the same flat rate accross the board with no deductions and/or exemptions. "Increase" = "income". And' with most churches, if a person does not tithe 10% of their "increase", they are not allowed to "full" membership. Most churches. With RARE exception. Peace and love, George.
The founders forbid such a tax at all under the constitution.
We had an income tax twice before 1913 when the 16th was "ratified"... so it can be argued (and has been!) til day's end whether the 16th gave the right to tax income or whether that right existed w/out the 16th.
For this reason, the amendment in the "FairTax plan" HJR 45 (in COngress right now) not only repeals the 16th amendment, it goes farther to say that taxing ANY kind of income is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
George, it's been shown several times to you that when maginal rates decrease (and hence the income tax deduction for charitable contributions decreases) that charitable contributions INCrease.
That's cuz folks have more money in their pockets with which they may do as they please.
Charitable ocntributions will increase when we abolish the income tax.
"Or the freedom on which this country was built. And the right to amass wealth. George, even the Russians have given up Communism. "
Reider, The equal right of property ownership allowes for the ability to "amass wealth". But, The Constitution calls for all taxes to be levied equally. The NRST gives great benefit to those who have already amassed wealth and their money handlers while making it diffucult for those on the bottom to move up. SHOW me where "my" tax code "takes according to ability, and 'gives' according to need." THAT is the necessary base for communism to work. It is YOUR sales tax that employs the "communist" tendencies of the former{?} Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To benefit the oligarchy above all. I too hope it is dead, and that YOU don't resurrect it. Peace and love, George.
Thank you, Chief. I'm wild for those letters. You know, I have this short...yeah, that's it...short... little study that I'd like to post in those letters. So, howza about sharing?
CHIEF negotiator, please post the Al Hamilton quote on the self-limiting quality of uniform excise taxes....and this time i'll figure out how to save it so I can post it next time! These dang computers!
That quote says it well why a uniform NRST will control the cost of government!
"Since the current generation of workers is funding SS for the present retirees, that means that when the huge population of baby boomers retire, the working generation will not be sufficiently large to pay their retirement. SS will go bankrupt unless something is done, hence all the talk about privatizing SS. "
Reider, It is NOT supposed to be so. The return on the high dollar government certificates that went into the socialsecurity trust fund during the years of the Carter Reign SHOULD have been sufficient to pay social security for even the "baby Boomers", BUT the Congress SPENT the money. The "Trust Fund" is more than empty today, as is your NRST when it comes to being a "fair" tax. Peace and love, George.
The NRST gives great benefit to those who have already amassed wealth and their money handlers while making it diffucult for those on the bottom to move up.
George, this is the 6th time I've seen you post this, and this will be the 6th time I ask you to support this assertion.
Please show me HOW the NRST does what you say! You have refused to answer me thus far...but I want to know wyh you believe this, George.
SHOW ME. Use an example, or use a scenario of some type, or use research...HELL, just SHOW ME!
I don't see it this way...I think all individuals will benefit. SHOW ME why I'm wrong...help me understand!
"What would be the revenue from a 10% tarriff on all imported goods,"
Cato, I DON'T like consumption taxes. They are excessive on the less well off, while the folks who make them higher simply raise their salary when "necessary" {Read when they damn well please.}. to "make up for the loss". Peace and love, George.
The social security "Trust Fund" is more than empty today, as is your NRST when it comes to being a "fair"
Weak, Goerge.
No tax is fair. THe "FairTax" is the name of a plan. BTW it's a plan that is the most fair of any alternative. This post was pretty weak.
Cato, I DON'T like consumption taxes. They are excessive on the less well off...
But HR 2525 untaxes necessities, so the effective tax rate on poorer folks is ZERO. There is NO tax on necessities, George, NONE, NADA, ZILCH.
Reider, The equal right of property ownership...
George, are you talking about a system of government that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital, and land by the community as a whole? That's the definition of socialism.
...allowes for the ability to "amass wealth". But, The Constitution calls for all taxes to be levied equally. The NRST gives great benefit to those who have already amassed wealth and their money handlers while making it diffucult for those on the bottom to move up.
That is pure hokum, George. When you give people the right to keep and control their own money, and to determine when they pay taxes, you free the people from the government yoke. When their money is not confiscated in the Payroll Department, they can save for a home faster, save for their children's education faster, they can plan for their retirement more securely and without having to depend on the government to give them back what they confiscated.
There are several reasons why the FairTax, a proposal to replace the current income tax system with a highly progressive, revenue neutral national sales tax, will benefit young, often low-income families. The Fair Tax is the only plan that will completely "untax" the poor, and also will dramatically lower tax rates on young, low-income families living above the poverty level. The FairTax achieves this result by (1) eliminating all federal payroll withholding taxes allowing wage earners to take home their entire paychecks – it's the full paycheck plan; (2) the FairTax allows every family to purchase necessities tax free via a rebate system that exempts all spending up to the poverty level; and (3) the FairTax eliminates all hidden federal taxes, corporate income taxes and payroll taxes that needlessly inflate the cost of goods and services by an average of 20 percent according to Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of the Harvard Economics Department. Therefore, under the FairTax, consumers will not pay more for goods and services than they do today, even including the sales tax. In addition, used products, used cars, homes, etc., are not taxed under this legislation. Only the FairTax achieves this goal.
The FairTax is discretionary and provides individuals with the maximum choice over what to do with their income: they can consume or save. If one chooses to consume for their own benefit beyond the necessities of life, one will pay a tax. If one does not, but chooses instead to save and invest for education, a home or a better retirement, one will defer consumption and the tax. Unlike current law, the FairTax is not biased towards consumption. It will encourage young families to save and invest. If we had enacted a FairTax ten years ago, according to Dr. Jorgenson, we would each be 10 percent better off today.
Since the Fair Tax does not tax savings and investment and makes the payment of the tax largely elective, it will enable young families and new homebuyers to save for their purchase faster. Why will individuals be able to save so much faster under the FairTax? First, the Fair Tax removes the enormous disadvantage to savings and investment under our income tax system. Today, savings and investment income is greatly disadvantaged. Wage and salary income is included in the income tax base when it is earned originally. If that income is consumed, the benefits of consumption go untaxed. However, if what is left of the wages and salaries is saved (for example, for a new home), the earnings are taxed as the income from that investment is generated. Then, if the income-producing asset, such as a stock or bond, equipment or real property interest is sold for more than it was purchased, the benefit of the capital investment — the capital gain — is taxed a third time. Corporate income (including capital gains) is taxed at the corporate level and again when it is paid to shareholders as dividends. Inter-corporate dividends are also subject to tax, creating yet another level of taxation. A principal advantage the Fair Tax has over an income tax, therefore, is that a down payment can be saved without fighting against the cascading taxes on savings.
An equally important feature of the FairTax and its impact on young families is its treatment of education. The FairTax exempts education, recognizing that education is an investment in our Nation’s intellectual capital and is every bit as important as our investment in physical capital. Education is often a large expense for young families.
The FairTax would additionally benefit lower-income families through increased economic growth. Slow economic growth or recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on the poor and low-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. The FairTax would dramatically improve economic growth and improve wage rates, while retaining the present tax system would needlessly delay economic progress.
In addition the FairTax will eliminate approximately $225 billion dollars in compliance costs, an annual savings of nearly $3000 for every family in America. These are funds that could be spent on a better education for our children, for a home or for a better retirement.
SHOW me where "my" tax code "takes according to ability, and 'gives' according to need." THAT is the necessary base for communism to work. It is YOUR sales tax that employs the "communist" tendencies of the former{?} Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To benefit the oligarchy above all. I too hope it is dead, and that YOU don't resurrect it.
George, IF you have a "tax code" please post it for everyone to see so we can see how FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, an income tax does not tax productivity, does not confiscate earnings, does not imbed itself in the price of goods and services. That is going to be on amazing income tax code. I personally can't wait to see who will sponsor the Bill. There will be a Bill, right, George? I mean this isn't just some sport you've taken up?
Morning, Principled. Still trying to get George to understand the concept of zero taxes on the poor, I see. Well, I've taken on a similar thankless task, as well. It's good for developing patience with small children.
"making ALL individuals pay the SAME rate so that we're ALL interested in keeping the cost of government low. "
Prince, The NRST will NOT do this. The folks who make the rates {Congress} can {AND DO} give themselves raises everytime that rate goes up. People MUST consider the different effect of a national sales tax on poor and moderate incomes, and the remainder IF any after the minimum "23%" that will be taken by the NRST. The remainder {"disposable income"} is more or less just that. The wealthy and their money handlers will not mind overly much if that rate rises to say 30%. Many of them too will be able to raise their salary to compensate for the 7% difference. "No big deal." But for those who work hard and long just to get by at 20,000 dollars a year and less who are just beginning and need to buy EVERYTHING will not be able to advance in even their lifetime. We NEED to keep income in mind during our figuring, and we also need to keep the benefit of and the amount of "disposable" wealth. And, to those who have their "disposable" income invested will ONLY be able to count it as "wealth". For, to spend it locally means that it must be taxed AND removed from the roles of the money handlers.
A true flat tax based on income {NOT the number of heads, or even on an "individual" basis, but income. INCREASE per year}, with no deductions and/or exemptions {except the first ten thousand to EVERY individual taxpaying entity is the most equitable form of taxation ever devised when looked at over the whole of the economic strata. And, it WOULD leave everybody with the same incentive to keep that flat rate at its lowest possible, and thereby government at its smallest possible. And, to boot, any government expenditures would come out of the treasury ON THE BOOKS for all to see rather than being hidden in some arcane tax code form. Peace and love, George.
"And' with most churches, if a person does not tithe 10% of their "increase", they are not allowed to "full" membership"
QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!!!! LOL! What church do you go to? When have you last been? Do you report your income to your pastor? Do you provide the church accountant your tax return every year? Does the usher demand to see your paycheck stub every Sunday morning to compare it to what you just put into the offering plate?
QUICK GEORGIE...GRAB ONTO FATHER EARTH BEFORE YOU FALL OFF!
PS. Change churches!
Cato, By the way, You guys must be supporting Pat Buchanan, as he wants to implement tarrifs, and lower the size of government also. Peace and love, George.
it's all yours, Reider. I'm out for a while. Fixing the birdhouse, replacing the landscape timbers, etc. No rest from Mrs Principled. Doc says I should be ok, so that's it.
Please cover my posts....
AG, No. I would say that they just can't "belong". Got to go! Peace and love, George.
The FairTax and Charitable Giving
Many of those bills being returned to the Fed have been removed from circulation because some malcontent has written or stamped across them "Hate the IRS and Income Tax? and lists one of the NRST websites and/or a phone number. I've seen a number of those here in the south.
Some of you guys wouldn't do that, would you, causing the Fed all that unnecessary expense and trouble just to reach your fellow citizens?
Shameful behavior. Just shameful!
LOLLLLL, Chief. What I want to know is what benefits are you not allowed if you don't tithe 10%. Do they not let you pray? Or do you have to sit on the floor? Maybe you can't park in the church lot. Oh, I'm telling you, Chief, this guy is a hoot.
Hit "View" then "Source", then look for post #83...that will give you the html used.
To Quote Alexander, Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury said in Federalist Papers #21:
"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.When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty
that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection
is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when
they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the
citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of
the power of imposing them.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." (Emphasis added).
"1) When Ross Perot invests, he will often invest into productive activities. "
Boomer, When Ross or anybody else buys something they invest in productivity AND service to deliver that product to the buying point. That is another problem with consumption taxes. If you want less of something, you tax it. If we tax consumption, we will also be trying to lower the level of consumption, and THAT will lower the level of the need for production. The money handlers are selling the idea that interest is a product. It is not. It is a side benefit of production. The socialists have for years wanted to tax consumption in order to curtail those awful folks who buy so much. The NRST knowingly {my thought} or not, does exactly that. It also gives great power to the money handlers who in "partnership" with godgov will control all that they can. This is about POWER, and the accumulation of same into fewer and fewer hands. The NRST folks want that power to be inherited by the wealthy and their money handlers. I don't like that idea A'TALL. Peace and love, George.
While I may also agree that it should be replaced with nothing, that will not happen.
That is true as long as you keep voting for the GOP. If you vote for Libertarians, then it definately will happen.
To Quote Alexander, Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury said in Federalist Papers #21:
"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 withoutn defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue.
When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."
If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.
This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
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." .
============================== thanks, CHIEF negotiator.
Cato and DD... this is a good way to describe why I thnk tying the growth of our fed gov to an excise is smart if you want to control the size of government.
Article 4 section 9.
AG, I have said over and over and over ad nauseum that the "flat" tax proposal on the board by Dick Armey, and Steve Forbes is NOT a true flat tax. It, like the NRST is a code written by the wealthy {Dick Armey} to benefit the wealthy {especially investors through godgov created and approved instruments} and their money handlers above all others. Peace and love, George.
That is true as long as you keep voting for the GOP. If you vote for Libertarians, then it definately will happen.
I don't vote GOP, DD.
ANd it won't happen. The income tax will not be eliminated w/out someting to replace it. THe pols in DC will not have it, no way,...just no way. Even if we had majority libs, it wouldn't happen. It couldn't. Our best shot is to get a system that encourages the shrinking of government. A system that makes ALL aware of the costo f government. Wouldn't that make pols act mor elibertarian by forcing them to focus on lower the tax rate... to do that they'd have to cut costs, privatize, or eliminate.
It isn't realistic to think we could eliminate income and payroll tax and not replace them.
What I describe above, however, IS ACHIEVABLE. It's HR 2525 (click on legislative issues and ask for full taxt) and it's in congress RIGHT NOW!
I am happy to say that I have never defaced US currency. Mainly because I didn't think of it. But, now that you have suggested it.....no, just joshin' ya. The NRST case is too strong to have to do it.
"People MUST consider the different effect of a national sales tax on poor and moderate incomes, and the remainder IF any after the minimum "23%" that will be taken by the NRST."
I (_|_)ume he will probably have to spend every penny on "necessities", don't you think?
So let's break out our trusty little calculator to see how the NRST will harm FEDup:
$22,500 X .23 = $5,175.
Why lookie there Mabel!!! FEDup didn't spend a dime of his own money, did he? So tell me Georgie...what was FEDup's effective tax rate? (I'll give you a hint...if you come up with something other than "ZERO", you've got the wrong answer.)
The income tax will not be eliminated w/out someting to replace it.
Of course it will. And I predict that this will happen in 10 years or less.
Who in the world would stop the Congress from repealing the income tax? who would stop them?
I would work to stop Congress from repealing the income tax if it has no viable replacement plan. First of all, remember the Great Depression? That'll be a holiday compared to what would happen under a repeal/no replacement. Can you imagine the social collapse with 271 million people out of work? (I am assuming that you don't want social collapse, though sometimes I'm not so sure...)
You are aware of the global economy and if you throw the US into a Depression, you also plunge the rest of the world with it. You have to look at many factors in determining taxes, and to talk serious tax reform means you have to have a strong sense of fiscal and social responsibility. It's not a game, Demidog, it's serious economic policy.
Who in the world would stop the Congress from repealing the income tax? who would stop them?
They've been stopping themselves. They won't elimintate income and payroll taxes without a viable replacement system. That's why the flat inocme tax was introduced. That's why the nRST was introduced. They're both plans that replace they current system.
COngress has not and will not eliminate the major source of their revenue w/out a replacement. They won't. It's childish to think otherwise.
Now, onto your other point..."who would argue about eliminating the income tax?"... nobody except big-government types. But there's gotta be a replacement plan to take its place.... and the NRST imposes an environment that will consistently put downward pressure on the size of gov't.
The choices are to stick w/ an income tax, which nobody but big goo'vt types want, or to go w/ the NRST and eliminate the income tax.
The idea to eliminate income and payroll tax and replace it with nothing is a non-starter... else we'd have already done it!
I've been trying to show this to George for a long time. He hadn't understood that necessities are not taxed. I think he does now; but I still wish he'd answer my question I've asked him 6 times.
BTW CHIEF negotiator, say that family abouve made 28,500 a year, giving them $500 month disposable...how much could that family save if they saved just $250 per month for say, twenty years? Let's say an annual rate of 8%?
That's 150k! ENough for college for a kid or two. What if they save for longer, what if they get increases in pay? Say they save $250 per month for 40 years...? Hmmm
THat's just $872,000. And that's dang sure enough for college...and there's no tax on college.
Also, when they spend this discretionary income (if they choose to do so), they are free to purchase used items and pay no tax. They'll still have tax-free necessities too.
How's that bad for them George?
At least they'd be able to pass thiese saving on to the kids w/ no tax under the NRST!
AG, No. I would say that they just can't "belong".
Ahh! exile from owns, country.
You and who's army George? that's when I turn to the ammo box!
What ever happened to you intent to hang anyone who didn't agree with you tax George?
Yep, please show where that is appropriate under the Consititution seeing as I am a native american as well as of direct decent from those founding father's who proclaimed:
Preamble of the Consititution:
Self determination George, that is the issue. Your income tax(Karl's favorite for control of the populace and destruction of the proletariet) is on the way out George, the American people are in the process of abolishing it!
Got to go!
You certainly do, right along with your tax!
That is true as long as you keep voting for the GOP. If you vote for Libertarians, then it definately will happen.
No wonder the libertarians do not seem to be winning much support in the elections! Appears as though it ain't about to happen any time soon in my book.
AG, I have said over and over and over ad nauseum that the "flat" tax proposal on the board by Dick Armey, and Steve Forbes is NOT a true flat tax
Read again George, the sections highlighted were comments about your True(no deductions, no exemptions, no exceptions everyone pays) Flat Tax.
I've always know you never read the posting of others beyond your first disagreement, now it has be demonstrated. Heck they were even highlighted in red for you.
Click here, go back and actually read for a change. The article was written as a hit on the Armey/Forbes etc flat tax, it wasn't praising them.
They've been stopping themselves.
Yes this is true. But you're talking about the GOP and the DNC.
The libertarians will do it. It is their platform.
Secondly, the reason that the GOP and DNC do not want to do such a thing is that the resultant loss of income would limit them to only funding constitutionally approved functions of government. Now if you want this to continue then keep voting for the same old tired two-party group.
If you want this to end, then vote for libertarians.
I will say that if the GOP proposed a flat rate retail or income tax, I would imagine that it would take in more money then the current system. Has to. These people are all about expanding the governments role in your life not decreasing it. And you can't accomplish more government control if you are short the funding necessary to enact your programs.
"it goes farther to say that taxing ANY kind of income is UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
Prince, Just another aspect of those who would prevent others from being able to "amass wealth" while solidifying their own hold in order to pass it on to their own "prosperity". The NRST, like Dick Armey's "flat" tax is a tax code written by the wealthy to favor the wealthy and their money handlers over all others. Peace and love, George.
Can you imagine the social collapse with 271 million people out of work?
On what planet are you studying economics?
1. It is not the government's job to control the economy nor is it an authorized power given to any branch.
2. Freeing up vast amounts of capital has never created a depression.
If you want me to believe such nonsense at least include some reasoning as to your belief that allowing people to be truly free will create a "depression."
P.S.
The idea of replacing the income tax with a flat tax has had its proponents and detractors for at least 15 years, but a Penn State researcher says that the flat tax concept making news now falls short of the real thing.
"A 'true' flat tax would eliminate all exclusions, deductions, exemptions, and credits," ...
Didn't even bother to read the opening paragraph of the Article in Reply #79 did you George!
"THE BENEFITS OF A TRUE FLAT TAX OVER TODAY’S CORRUPTED TAX SYSTEM"
Nobody benefits from a tax system except the government. Real people, people NOT on welare of goverment grants, hate taxes and rightly so.
The decision is not which tax system to be slaves to but whether the tax system is even legal in the first place.
Government shills are trying to keep the debate focused on which tax system to use so that the idea of whether the current tax system is even legal in the first place doesn't occur to the citizens. From the government's oint of view, they don't care which tax system you choose as long as you keep sending in half your money to them.
I cannot believe what wimps and cowards americans have been reduced to! In 1776, we kicked out the government over a 10% tax. Now we are at about 45%, and most people bow and scrape and say "Yes, your lordships, just how do want that check filled out, sir?"
The founding fathers would be ashamed.
THE POWER TO DESTROY
Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series on the validity of the income tax.
By David Franke
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
July 9, 1999
WASHINGTON -- Evidence strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.
"If this evidence is true, the income tax is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," says Robert L. Schulz.
Schulz is head of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., a New York state-based organization that hosted a symposium in Washington last week on the topic, "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?" The foundation twice sent registered letters to President Clinton, Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, asking them to send representatives to the symposium who could explain the government's case for the legality of the income tax. They received no response, much less a speaker, but part of the conference was covered by C-SPAN and that resulted in hundreds of friendly responses from viewers.
A key speaker at the symposium was William J. Benson, author of a two-volume investigative report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment entitled "The Law That Never Was."
Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get his case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount," he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.
What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax -- the granddaddy of the state income taxes -- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.
That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.
In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."
All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.
The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.
Of the 48 states, here's the story:
Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment. Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax. Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox. Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures. Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required. And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)
Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.
Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Suppress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."
Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.
"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."
And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.
"I now have to use a cane and walker, and often a wheelchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."
An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeopardy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.
This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.
The latest chapter in Benson's saga is the counterattack.
"As soon as I get back to Illinois I'm suing them -- every one of them," Benson told WorldNetDaily -- and he started listing them: four U.S. attorneys, a first assistant U.S. attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. All except the judge, that is. "I could sue the judge -- no question -- but I'm not going to do that," Benson added.
"Fear is the worst thing you face," said Benson of his prison experiences. And now it's time for the prosecutors who were his persecutors to be afraid.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]
THE POWER TO DESTROY
Editor's note: This is the second of a two-part series on the validity of the income tax.
By David Franke
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
July 13, 1999
WASHINGTON -- What should you do when your government oppresses you with illegal laws, illegally confiscates your money and property, and refuses to even justify its actions to you?
That was the dilemma facing the Founding Fathers, of course, and it was the dilemma facing a roomful of income tax protesters meeting last week in the nation's capital. The symposium was called by the We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., to discuss the topic "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?"
Friday's article in WorldNetDaily featured William J. Benson's research on the ratification -- "fraudulent," he says -- of the 16th Amendment, which established the income tax. Other speakers at the symposium included Joseph R. Banister, the former investigator and gunslinger for the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS who looked into the arguments of income tax protestors and decided they were right.
Originally the foundation had hoped to have an academic-type format, with arguments and counter-arguments presented on both sides of the issue. "The foundation itself has not taken a position on the legality of the income tax," explained We the People's Robert L. Schulz.
There was just one problem: Nobody in the federal government would send an authority to present the government's case -- if it has one -- for the legality of the income tax. Not the IRS, not President Clinton, not Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, not House Speaker Dennis Hastert. They all refused even to respond to their certified, registered and very respectful invitations to send representatives to the symposium.
"I consider this very newsworthy that they (the IRS) didn't show up," Banister said to the audience. "I somehow found my way from California to this meeting. They're two blocks away and couldn't spare one prosecutor. Is it that the IRS and the Treasury Department still don't have enough people to spare one for a couple of hours?"
"They're one short," shouted a member of the audience.
But Banister could not have been too surprised by the IRS's refusal to talk. The IRS treated him the same way when it was his employer. He had respectfully written to his superiors, explaining that he was concerned about some of the arguments and documentation he had received from opponents of the income tax, and might have to resign if he could not answer those arguments to his satisfaction. He asked for a meeting. Instead his firearm was taken from him, he was placed on administrative leave, and he received a written reply stating that "there is no reason to have a meeting. This will be the last time we will reply to your request." Then he learned from an office memo that his "voluntary resignation" had been accepted.
"Voluntary" -- there was that word again.
The IRS-maintained fiction that the income tax is "voluntary" was raised by a number of the speakers. Banister quoted former FBI Director William H. Webster's April 1999 review of the IRS's Criminal Investigation Division: "CID is staffed with approximately three thousand special agents for the purpose of influencing millions of taxpayers to voluntarily comply with their taxpaying obligations" [emphasis added].
"An IRS special agent," said Banister, who had been one, "is given firearms, pepper spray, and handcuffs. Why would that be necessary if payment is voluntary? Yet three IRS commissioners have stated that the tax system is based on 'voluntary compliance.'"
"One can plainly see there is more to the repeated use of the word 'voluntary' than the IRS wants to admit," Banister added.
"What we've got on our hands here," said Denver-based tax consultant William T. Conklin, "is an Orwellian situation where they say this is voluntary, but we'll prosecute you if you don't volunteer."
He received his first IRS audit notice, Conklin told the audience, three days after he wrote an anti-IRS article for a Denver newspaper. "I realized right then there was a huge problem," he said, "and that became my passion and my life's work."
So, back to the original question: What to do? Benson suggests widespread use of "jury nullification" to defeat tax prosecutions, while Conklin specializes in a Fifth Amendment defense against the income tax.
Variations of "write your congressman" would seem to be hopeless when only one member of Congress (Ohio's maverick Democratic, Rep. James Traficant) even responded to the seminar's sponsors. Still, We the People's Bob Schulz favors starting with that approach.
"I will recommend that our foundation's board urge Congress to hold hearings on this issue," Schulz told WorldNetDaily. "Congress could subpoena the IRS commissioner. After all, they are the people's representatives and that's the way the system is designed to work."
Assuming that doesn't work, though, Schulz feels the anti-IRS movement "should also try to get relief through the legal process. We could try the approach Vietnam veterans took with the Agent Orange issue. Hundreds of them filed individual lawsuits, which were then consolidated and heard by the D.C. circuit court. They eventually won in the Supreme Court."
"We should also consider taking a page out of Mahatma Gandhi's book," Schulz continued, referring to the Hindu nationalist leader in India. "He said it was necessary to have a militant, non-violent, mass movement -- and if any of those three elements are missing, you will fail. Martin Luther King wrote about that formula and employed it as well. Hopefully it will never come to this, but we too may have to consider some civil disobedience of this sort."
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]
An action career with the IRS?
IRS special agent challenges system Agency illegitimate, tax law non-existent, he says
IRS special agent is right, says CPA - "We need to take next step"
"To Quote Alexander, Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury said in Federalist Papers #21:" "It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. "
Chief, Ah, you quote the monarchist, and advocate of the handing down of power to the annointed. And, The stated objective of MANY of today's true socialists. "Limit consumption!!" A "security against excess" by the poor and working poor only. The wealthy and their money changers will just add to the burden on others to continue their lifestyle unabated. Peace and love, George.
While I may also agree that it should be replaced with nothing, that will not happen.
Demidog: That is true as long as you keep voting for the GOP. If you vote for Libertarians, then it definately will happen.
Are you now speaking for all Libertarians or even a substantial minority? I think not! Their statement on taxes certainly does NOT reflect anything so definite as you pretend!
From the Libertarian Web Site topic Taxes and Taxation policy2.html#taxes:
"To the extent that libertarians believe taxes are necessary, they support taxes which are low, flat and unintrusive. Many libertarians have been active in the current movement to limit the arbitrary power of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Some believe a "flat" income tax is the best policy, while others argue that a national sales tax would be preferable."
Certainly does not sound like a statement of NO TAXES does it, nor does it sound like the Libertaries are opposed to the principal of the NRST.
"No tax is fair. THe "FairTax" is the name of a plan. "
Prince, FINALLY!!! Some one admits that "fair tax" is just a tool of salesmen. Our disagreement is which of the tax codes is "the more" fair. I say a tax based on income from whatever source derived with the ONLY exemption being for the first ten thousand dollars of each and every taxed entity is the more fair, because it is the most equitable tax ever devised without giving advantage to any entity, while at the same time, the percentage being paid to government is as easily payed by all, while at the same time allowing equal opportunity for accumulation of wealth equally through all aspects of society.
You seem to think that a NRST that allows the continual growth of investment income {discretionary funds} to be added to exponentially year after year by the investor doing NOTHING except trust in the good graces of godgov and their selected businesses. I have before, said that this pushing of investment for income is telling people they should put their retirement funds at risk in a rigged game. That still stands. Peace and love, George.
DD, I think you mean article I section 9. I see no mention of "income" taxes being banned. I DO see where it is illegal to impose taxes on goods from one state to another, and that all taxes must be equal accross the land. What say you to cigarette taxes and sales taxes that are collected by states where a citizen buys something from out of state?? Peace and love, George.
The wealthy and their money changers will just add to the burden on others to continue their lifestyle unabated.
That sure is true about your "True Flat Tax" George!
Why Flat Tax Isn't A "True" Flat Tax
http://www.cac.psu.edu/ur/archives/BUSINESS/flattax.html
2-23-96
Charles R. Enis, Associate Professor of Accounting
Penn State's Smeal College of Business Administration"The idea of replacing the income tax with a flat tax has had its proponents and detractors for at least 15 years, but a Penn State researcher says that the flat tax concept making news now falls short of the real thing.
"A 'true' flat tax would eliminate all exclusions, deductions, exemptions, and credits," says Enis, who published papers on flat taxes as far back as 1984. "It would achieve the maximum simplicity and impose the lowest possible tax rate on individuals while raising roughly the same revenues as the current income tax system."
In the early 1980s, when a proposed 10 percent flat tax was a big political issue, a study by Enis and colleague Darryl L. Craig, now at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, showed that a "true" flat tax would transfer substantial taxes from the rich to the poor. Enis says this result makes a "true" flat tax the benchmark against which alternative tax reform proposals should be compared.
Hypothesizing a flat tax of 12.72 percent, which would have raised the same amount of revenue as the income tax at the time of the study, Enis and Craig found that a substantial proportion of individual tax returns would experience a tax increase. This "true" flat tax would likely hurt low-income families, provide tax relief for high-income families, and divide middle-income families equally between gainers and losers. The major transfer of the tax burden would have been from the top 10 percent of income earners to the lower 70 percent of income earners.
"Under a 'true' flat tax of this sort, more families in the top group of income earners would profit from a lower tax rate than would suffer from the loss of loopholes,"
Chief, the guy you mentioned would "make" $27,675 per year. At 15% of $17,675 he would pay $2,651.75 of "his" money for taxes. If he used the entire $27,675 at the LOWEST NRST percentage just to buy necessities, he would pay $6,365.25 of "his" money. If we go back to the 12,000 dollars he would pay taxes on, the difference is greater yet. As I wrote before, You guys are scared to death to see the comparison in real numbers. Peace and love, George.
I DO see where it is illegal to impose taxes on goods from one state to another
Sorry George that is a ban on taxation of exports(shipping goods to other nations) and burdening interstate commerce with imposts.
Since the Income Tax is an excise same as the NRST is; under Article I Section 8 of the constitution, it must be Uniformly applied in all the states that it can not be used to advantage one state over another as imports/export taxes act and are intended to do.
Constitution for the United States of America:
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
Therefore Congress operates on the basis:
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
The libertarians will do it. It is their platform.
It doesn't matter what their platform is, DD. They won't get elected in significant numbers. EVEN if they did, the repubs would change just enough to accomodate them.
Keep voting libertarian, I do. But don't expect a majority of libertarians to be elected. Hell, even if they did get elected, they wouldn't abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing- they couldn't. It would have to be a process, taking time. But they're not going to be elected.
If you're hanging your hopes of tax reform on electing libertarians, you'll be disappointed.
Our common ground is that we both want the income tax eliminated. We differ only in that I don't believe it will be eliminated w/out a replacement, and you do.
I can live w/ that.
"Read again George, the sections highlighted were comments about your True(no deductions, no exemptions, no exceptions everyone pays) Flat Tax."
AG, The Armey/Forbes plan was NOT a true flat tax with no deductions and/or exemptions. It exempted godgov approved investment income, and gave the "poor" a graduated rebate of up to 34,000 dollars a year dependant on the number of head of children one had. It left those at the highest end of income and those with government approval, and the "poor" with NO reason to oppose higher taxes. They didn't pay any, so why would they care. Dick Armey's "flat tax" was written by wealthy people to benefit wealthy people and their money handlers. Forbes!! Peace and love, George.
A "security against excess" by the poor and working poor only.
My GOD George! Are you STUPID? Or did you not read the 25,687 posts to you that show that necessities are NOT taxed! There is NO TAX ON NECESSITIES George.
Surely you can't be that stupid, you must not be reading your posts.
"How's that bad for them George?"
Prince, I don't know that I've said it's bad for anybody. But, Compare the meager amount of this guy's "disposable" income that MUST be invested as godgov says, and the "disposable" income of someone who earns 10 or maybe 100 times that amount, and the amount that will be accumulated over the same time frame. If their INCOME was the basis of taxation in a true flat tax system, the end result would be closer. Not much maybe, but closer. And, I doubt if you will see much harm done to those who make the higher amounts due to the little guy being able to buy and invest without any government interference. Peace and love, George.
Prince, FINALLY!!! Some one admits that "fair tax" is just a tool of salesmen.
You're putting words in my mouth, George. You're stooping to the level many children stoop to when they're trapped intellectually...they lie.
You ARE communist. THey told me but I just couldn't believe it. Sheesh. Go to Cuba if you like it so much.
Chief, the guy you mentioned would "make" $27,675 per year. At 15% of $17,675 he would pay $2,651.75 of "his" money for taxes. If he used the entire $27,675 at the LOWEST NRST percentage just to buy necessities, he would pay $6,365.25 of "his" money.
I'm beginning to doubt your intelligence.
You don't know how to calculate the NRST tax, and you don't understand that BUSINESS DOESN'T PAY TAX, ONLY INDIVIDUALS PAY TAX! A flat income tax STILL has 15.3% payroll tax George... you forgot to mention that...ooops.
ALso, under a flat income tax, the amount of HIDDEN tax increases, cuz all deductions/exemptions disappear- thereby increasing the tax cost to the business and thus increasing the cost passed along to buyers in the for mof higher prices, or lower wages.
You don't understand, do you?
Compare the meager amount of this guy's "disposable" income that MUST be invested as godgov says,
Nobody tells anyone how any income must be invested...what are you smoking? Anyone can invest as he/she sees fit...what's worng with you? Are you normal?
Besides, the differences in amounts available to invest under an NRST increase for everyone, not just the "wealthy", additionally, just the fact the someone is wealthy obviously means they'll have more disposable income than someone at the poverty level.
You want everyone to be equal...that's what your post says. Your objection to the NRST is that it doesn't redistribute wealth to your satisfaction. That's what you mean by "it treats wealthy people better".
You've lost all crredibility.
You still don't get it!
You non-filing tax protestors Pay over 40% of your income in taxes NOW!...go ahead, dispute any part of it!
So let me understand this fully George. Are saying that because a person has an income of $100,000.00 his net worth has INCREASED by $100,000.00? If so you are VERY wrong!
The Church(s) in your part of the world must be VERY differient from those in my part because I have NEVER encounterd such a requirement as you describe.
You ignorant twit!
$22,500 X .23 = $5,175.
Did he "earn" the extra $5,175?
Where did that $5,175 come from Georgie. Not one penny of his yearly income of $22,500 went to pay the NRST now, did it?
A family of four that earn twice that amount, $45,000, will have an effective tax rate of 11.5%. That's half of 23% Georgie.
Now tell me what his effective tax rate would be if he were to save, invest or spend 25% of $45K on used items? You have 24 hours to come up with the right answer. (no hints this time)
"In 1776, we kicked out the government over a 10% tax. "
Michael, That was a tax on consumption, and now these guys want to make the minimum on the consumption tax 23%. Tyrants need more these days i guess. Peace and love, George.
"Did he "earn" the extra $5,175?"
CHIEF, You dimbulb! He must have! Godgov GAVE it to him. And, he will undoubtedly spend it too and be taxed on it too under your great plan and add to his taxes and godgov's greatness.Figure out how much he would pay under TODAY's code and how much he would pay under a tax wherein nothing is deducted from ANYBODIES gross income except that which is deducted from EVERYBODIES gross income before deductions and/or exemptions. YOUR plan is the WORST!! Peace and love, George.
AG, The Armey/Forbes plan was NOT a true flat tax with no deductions and/or exemptions.
That is exactly what the article was saying. The Article is describing the effects of YOUR Flat Income Tax, GEORGE!!!
http://www.cac.psu.edu/ur/archives/BUSINESS/flattax.html
- "A 'true' flat tax would eliminate all exclusions, deductions, exemptions, and credits,"
- "A 'true' flat tax would transfer substantial taxes from the rich to the poor."
- This "true" flat tax would likely hurt low-income families, provide tax relief for high-income families, and divide middle-income families equally between gainers and losers.
- "Under a 'true' flat tax of this sort, more families in the top group of income earners would profit from a lower tax rate than would suffer from the loss of loopholes,"
- The researchers' flat tax models eliminated tax free income, deductions, and credits and replaced multiple rates with a single rate.
- a "true" flat tax would eliminate every loophole for taxpayers, including the cherished personal exemption. The tax liability would then be computed by applying a low unitary tax rate to the complete income base for all individuals.
You Have a real problem in reading Comprehension, Don't You George!!!
I've got a machine that figures rates and dollars of tax under ANY scenario. Ask away. C'mon George, what numbers do you want?
AG, The article you pointed me to had the professor saying the "rate" would be higher for low income workers and lower for high income people. In that method, he completely eliminated the no deductions and/or exemptions from his conclusions. As I have written, people like Ross Perot in a 32% tax bracket pay about 10% in taxes on their income because of deductions and/or exemptions. The lower income people generally have few if any deductions, and pay the full percentage of the lowest rate, which is higher than the 10% that Perot pays. Now, this professor is most likely a proponent of Marx. He likes and thinks the graduated part of our present code is great. Though, I doubt seriously that he pays the full amount that his salary would call for if no deductions and exemptions were available. A "flat" tax much like Armey's and Forbes' exists here in the state of Maryland. Because of deductions and/or exemptions, less than two thirds of income in the state of maryland is taxed, making a mockery of the flat tax. If that other third was taxed equally as the two thirds, then the percentage to be paid as tax would be reduced. Peace and love, George.
A person earning $22,500 who is married and has two kids:
flat tax:
payroll tax : $3442.50
embedded tax: $4192.65
income taxes: $0
total tax : $7635.15
Available to spend: $14864.85
NRST:
payroll tax : $0
embedded tax: $0
sales taxes : $0
total tax: $0
Available to spend: $22,500
Under the flat income tax, the poor guy only actually receives 14865 of his earnings! Under the nrst, he keeps all his earnings.
C'mon George...
i'll be back soon, George. I hope you'll have some scenarios to compare flat and nrst... if you dare.
i'll be back soon, George. I hope you'll have some scenarios to compare flat and nrst... if you dare.
I knew you couldn't figure it out. You still haven't a clue, how the rebate works.
Tell me Georgie, since SS and MC will need to be funded under your plan, will the 15.3% payroll taxes just ?
Tell me Georgie, since your plan will tax the income of all corporations, will those taxes now come out of company profit, rather than cascade from business to business that increase the price of a product from 20-30%--as has been done since time began, or will that too just ?
Now tell me hot-shot, what percent of income does your ~~~magic~~~ flat-vat income tax really take out of the pockets of hard working American citizens?
In Regard to "Peace and Love",( peace of the grave[they just can't "belong"], hang em all) George.
You ARE communist. THey told me but I just couldn't believe it. Sheesh.
Just now finding out about Socialists and Communists eh Principled?
I'm beginning to doubt your intelligence.
Never, do that, like the fox trying to convince the bird to drop the grape from its mouth, They LIE alot. (e.g. Hitler, Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Moa, Clinton and company.)
Nobody tells anyone how any income must be invested...what are you smoking?
Probably the same thing Clinton was when he said he didn't inhale!
what's wrong with you? Are you normal?
Normal as any other marxist around. Why do you think he supports the 2nd plank of the Communist manifesto with such fervor and attention to pitting rich against poor. Workers' of the World Unite, or something like that!!!
You've lost all credibility.
Strange thing how that happens isn't it?
I might also add they have a problem called Selective Reading Comprehension Syndrome. The only see what they want to see, then lie through there teeth to achieve their goals.
The principle theory of the socialist/communist, Lie Long enough and loud enough, someone might believe you, "There's a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum on bread & circuses;
Summed it up nicely, Geez...think George will le me run numbers on scenarios comparing flat income tax and nrst?
If not, we could have our own thread doing so!
The article you pointed me to had the professor saying the "rate" would be higher for low income workers and lower for high income people.
He clearly stated, a unitary rate, the same for each and every person with no exemptions, deductions or exclusions, on their entire income.!!!
http://www.cac.psu.edu/ur/archives/BUSINESS/flattax.html
- a "true" flat tax would eliminate every loophole for taxpayers, including the cherished personal exemption. The tax liability would then be computed by applying a low unitary tax rate to the complete income base for all individuals.
Meaning, poor people pay more in taxes, Rich people pay less in taxes than they do under the current system or under the Armey/Forbes et.al. Flat Tax.
What happens to the poor now paying 4.6% under current tax system,less than that under a Forbes flat tax, when they pay the same rate 24.2% as the average family under YOUR Tax.
What happens to the rich now paying more than 29.1% under current tax system,less than that under a Forbes flat tax, when they pay the same rate 24.2% as the average family under YOUR Tax.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0:
Table 1. |
|||||||||||
| Income Category | 1977 | 1979 | 1981 | 1983 | 1985 | 1987 | 1989 | 1991 | 1993 | 1995 | Projected 1999 |
| Effective Total Federal Tax Rate (In percent) (tax rate of total income) | |||||||||||
| Lowest Quintile | 8.7 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 8.5 | 10.2 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 6.0 | 4.6 |
| Second Quintile | 14.7 | 14.9 | 15.0 | 14.2 | 15.5 | 15.2 | 15.3 | 15.1 | 14.3 | 14.6 | 13.7 |
| Middle Quintile | 18.5 | 19.2 | 19.5 | 18.2 | 18.8 | 18.5 | 18.9 | 18.9 | 19.1 | 19.7 | 18.9 |
| Fourth Quintile | 20.9 | 22.1 | 22.9 | 21.0 | 21.3 | 21.2 | 21.5 | 21.6 | 22.0 | 22.5 | 22.2 |
| Highest Quintile | 28.2 | 28.5 | 27.9 | 24.6 | 24.5 | 26.4 | 25.9 | 26.2 | 27.6 | 29.6 | 29.1 |
| All Families | 22.8 | 23.4 | 23.5 | 21.4 | 21.8 | 22.6 | 22.5 | 22.6 | 23.5 | 24.7 | 24.2 |
| Top 10 Percent | 30.7 | 30.5 | 29.0 | 25.2 | 25.1 | 27.6 | 26.8 | 27.2 | 29.0 | 31.3 | 30.6 |
| Top 5 Percent | 33.4 | 32.6 | 30.1 | 25.7 | 25.5 | 28.5 | 27.4 | 27.9 | 30.2 | 33.0 | 31.8 |
| Top 1 Percent | 39.7 | 37.3 | 31.7 | 26.9 | 26.2 | 30.2 | 28.1 | 29.1 | 32.5 | 36.5 | 34.4 |
You DO Have a real problem in reading Comprehension, You had better get professional help with that problem George!!!
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 157 | Top | Last ]
P.S. George
That government table of effective tax rates, does not include the costs of complying with any income tax for the accountants and lawyres it takes to figure out what income(i.e. profit) even is for a business.
Tell us what is your definition of income for a business George, their entire selling price of the product they provide?
http://www.losaltosonline.com/latc/arch/9528/TC63_-_flat_tax.html
"In a book titled "Costly Returns," economist James Payne estimates the nation's bill(1995) for tax record-keeping, audits, filing tax attorneys and accountants totals an astonishing $593 billion. To put it another way, that's more than twice as much as last year's entire defense budget and $240 billion more than all 1996 Social Security outlays."
Principled, see the table in my reply #164, as well as 165, 166 to George.
Oh, yeah Karl Frm G00rky Park, you'd asked for an example of a hate-post you made. Now let's see, does this qualify:
"Pigdog, some of the most lavishly trimmed places I've ever seen looked small and innocuous on the outside. The only difference though in tracing the drug dealers habits would be in the things they bought "legally". The richest man in the world {at the time a Japanese gentleman} appeared on national telivision with a hole in the sole of his shoe. It was apparent for all to see when he crossed his leg to relax. People have been known to have millions and live the life of beggars. I will say again, the most equitable form of taxation would be a flat tax based on income from whatever source derived. And HANG ANYBODY that messed up those three lines or tried to get out of paying their "share" of running this country. Perhaps, I should make a posting to that effect. Peace and love, George.
114 Or maybe this guy just had your screenname, huh?? And just to curdle everyone's buttermilk, how about the real motivation you have for all your attempts at disruption and disinformation: ""You do not determine how to lay and collect taxes ... Congress does "
Pigdog, Nope. Yep. Do you think they will give up the ability to "guide" society and to buy votes from "constituents" through the tax code as I would?
Which is why I am going to run for Congress. Wanna help?? Just send money.
George P. Williams
Peace and love, George.
GO PAT GO!!!p
130 Or maybe that's that same durned guy snitching your screenname again, huh??? Maybe you could just make up a big banner saying "Send Your Communist to Congress!!!" Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
PO Box 3443
Brooklyn Park, Md. 21225
Summore indefensible income tax crap...
Consider this: In addition to being confusing, the present income tax code also results in an unbelievable amount of wasted time. Americans spend more than 5.1 billion hours merely filling out income tax forms. None of this time is for productive enterprises that actually add to the social, economic, or moral well-being of our society. By some estimates, the cost of compliance exceeds $300 billion a year - that's in addition to the $600 billion a year Americans also pay in taxes!
The Internal Revenue Service employs more investigative agents than the FBI and the CIA combined, and with 115,000 employees, employs more people than all but the 36 largest corporations in the United States.
In addition to the $7.2 billion needed to operate the IRS, at least $225 billion (that is $850 for every man, woman, and child in this country) must be added to account for the cost of complying with the tax code. Massive amounts of our national wealth are consumed merely by measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our annual income. 115,000 IRS agents know more about you than your family does!
I move that we totally eliminate the abusive, intrusive, incomprehensible income tax system and their Gestapo collection agents the IRS from our lives!
Do I hear a 2nd?
Harry Browne Proposes scrapping both the income tax and SSI.
He is the Libertarian Presintial candidate.
Your "no taxes" assertion is a red herring. Libertarians do not hold the belief that there should be no taxes. The passage that you quote doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand in that it is not specific to the income tax.
Sorry, I gather you now support an NRST as a replacement method of taxation over the income tax as I do. Seeing that the income tax in all it's forms is inappropriate for a free nation. That is the statement of the Libertarian party you know, and what I pointed out.
Your posts have up to now indicated no taxation as the replacement for the income tax we are now burdened with, or am I wrong in that impression.
Keep voting libertarian, I do. But don't expect a majority of libertarians to be elected. Hell, even if they did get elected, they wouldn't abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing- they couldn't.
There are enough libertarians running for congressional seats to hold a majority in the house.
The question is not whether or not they can do it. The question is whether or not you dare to be free and vote for them.
If you do not wish to be free from the income tax and SSI then by all means continue to vote for the GOP or DNC candidate of your choice.
They will and can do so if elected. There is no question that they can. The only candidates to refuse federal matching funds are Libertarians. If they are that principled even when they stand to lose because of those principles, then there is no question in my mind that these are folks worth voting for.
I want to be free. Do you?
PD, That's me. Go to HERE for the new debate. I hope that someday you do have something to contribute. Keep tryin' peace and love, George.
In addition to the $7.2 billion needed to operate the IRS, at least $225 billion (that is $850 for every man, woman, and child in this country) must be added to account for the cost of complying with the tax code.
More likely more than double the number like more than 1700.00 for man,woman and child.
http://www.losaltosonline.com/latc/arch/9528/TC63_-_flat_tax.html
"In a book titled "Costly Returns," economist James Payne estimates the nation's bill(1995) for tax record-keeping, audits, filing tax attorneys and accountants totals an astonishing $593 billion. To put it another way, that's more than twice as much as last year's entire defense budget and $240 billion more than all 1996 Social Security outlays."
Sorry, I gather you now support an NRST as a replacement method of taxation over the income tax as I do.
Nope. I support the elimination of the income tax and no replacement.
Income taxes and SSI are not necessary in order to fund the constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government.
Taxes are of course and even without the income tax and SSI there is still about 1.7 trillion dollars incoming to the federal coffers.
That is plenty to fund the Military, Post Office, courts.
All the rest can go. And you will never shrink government until you cut off it's food supply.
The NRST is a horrible idea in my opinion because it will create a black market like you have never seen in this country.
Re: Post 80. Thank you for the info. Guess we need to decrease government outlays to balance the budget no matter which way we tax the people.
CATO
Proposes scrapping both the income tax and SSI.
So does the NRST under HR2525 and corporate taxes, gift and estate taxes as well as the fact it is much more likely to pass than ever seeing Harry Brown as president.
That is why the Libertarian party mentions the NRST as a viable tax system to replace the current plethora of Federal taxes.
Low, 15% once the SS/Medicare system is privatized. As is all our desires bur ain't going to happen just by proposing a "tax reform" bill. And less as other forms of liberal largess are repealed and sent back where they belong, to perdition.
From the Libertarian Web Site topic Taxes and Taxation policy2.html#taxes:
"To the extent that libertarians believe taxes are necessary, they support taxes which are low, flat and unintrusive. Many libertarians have been active in the current movement to limit the arbitrary power of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Some believe a "flat" income tax is the best policy, while others argue that a national sales tax would be preferable."
Frankly any form of income tax should be shunned by the Libertarians, and make no mistake about it the "Flat Tax" is indeed still an income tax making claim and taking taxes by force from the individual even before he has first option on the fruit of his own labor. The NRST allows the individual the option of allocating resources towards building personal wealth before govenment gets a crack at taxing him, something no income tax, flat round or graduated will ever do.
The question is not whether or not they can do it. The question is whether or not you dare to be free and vote for them.
You're barking up the wrong tree, DD. I've been voting libertarian for over a decade. Hell, I've only been voting for not much longer than that...
The NRST is un-necessary. Most of what the income tax provides funding for is unconstitutional anyway. It doesn't need to be replaced. The government needs to strictly adhere to the constitution.
The only party that is running enough candidates to make this happen is the Libertarian party.
Neither the GOP nor the DNC believes in doing so nor do they want to do so. They don't count. The only vote not wasted is one cast for the Libertarians.
That is...if you're interested in being free. I can't make that claim if you are not interested in giving up your favorite government programs so that you and I can live without government controlling us. I want that freedom but some people don't. Forgive me if I am assuming too much.
Yes, I like Pat. I like tarriffs too. And I hate capitation/income taxes. Unconstitutional, IMO, but I pay them as protection. I am just like a store owner
who pays protection to the Mafia so his store is not lit up one night. There was a time in this nation when a person could go through their whole life
and never come in contact with a government agent. I would like to see a return to those times. Damn statists can GTH, FWIW!
Regards,
CATO
H.R. 2525 defunds the IRS? NOW you have my attention. Let me look at this some more and I will get back with you.
Regards,
CATO
You have a second, and I'm sure you have hundreds of thousands of seconds.
The IRS is the most hated governmental agency in existence, not only because they take our money, but also because they take it so arrogantly.
It's good to note the George W. has promised to overhaul the tax system; Algork has not.
I'm sure this doesn't mean the abolition of the I.R.S., but we've got to start somewhere.
Do I hear a 2nd?
COB1 seconded my motion, all in favor say Aye.
re: #169 You have a second here! The income tax has got to go. What we replace it with is the only question. We also need to downsize the government to it's original Constitutional size. We could fire 1/2 the government workers and we all would be happier and the budget and the taxes to pay for it would be smaller. I am not to sure how this thing will fly with all the government workers, especially the IRS scum, as this is their how they make a living. But sacrifices must be made and I can think of no better group of people to make that sacrifice than our government servants. Make them serve by finding productive employment, heh, heh, heh!
Regards,
CATO
all in favor say Aye.
Aye, Aye. Dump em and lets get on with trimm'n the beast down.
. We also need to downsize the government to it's original Constitutional size. We could fire 1/2 the government workers and we all would be happier and the budget and the taxes to pay for it would be smaller.
One step at a time Cato, the NRST is designed to educate the people to the real cost of government in their lives and to encourage economic self determination when they have free reign to allocate their income resources Before gubermint can make a claim on it. If there is another viable tax system that can do that, I'd like to know about it, I haven't see such yet.
It is up to the American people to act on the knowledge and trim government if they so wish to do so.
Hopfully knowledge of their real burdens, along with exercise of newfound liberty will help make the case for the substantive majority to make a change.
You may wait as long as you wish for Libertarian control of the congress. I will go for what is achievable in a life time thank you. And yes I have voted for libertarians president, congress, and local.
And you do assume to much.
Having said that, A Liberterian in the whitehouse is not going to happen this year and neither is a libertarian controlled Congress.
I have to work with what's available today and try to convince Congress Critters and other such nuckleheads as are present there now to go for a plan which is a big step in the right direction. The NRST is a real bill, and has potential thus I will push it regardless of who happens to be in Congress or the Whitehouse.
Guess we need to decrease government outlays to balance the budget no matter which way we tax the people.
Now that I can whole heartedly agree with. In fact it is the only way we will actually reduce the size of government and ultimately the tax burden.
You're dead on.
We've got to work with what we have; it does no good to wish for what we don't.
In case you may have missed it, Cato, here's a good article about the NRST from the standpoint of the Constitution
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
So, you find the US Tax Code to be a profit center for you? Sounds like we have another reason to replace the income tax code.
Woooooa, tiger.
If your going to pop off, please first take a few moments and read the links I provided.
Everyone on this thread needs to read and comprehend the information presented. I assure you this is time well spent.
http://www.nite.org/results/results.htm - begin with 'No Time Delay Electronics'
http://www.nite.org/taxlaw/gross_income.htm
http://www.nite.org/articles/quick_study.htm
Also, Cato, FYI a few threads ago (quite a few) a poster who also like tariffs came up with some estimates from government figures that looked pretty much on the money. His idea was to eliminate only the corporate income tax and replace it with tariffs. Corporate tax typically runs about 10 or 11% of all taxes collected. He determined that to do only this fairly small tax revenue switch would require a 20% tariff rate.
This means, then, that tariffs won't provide the necessary revenue even with dramatically decreased government spending (which will take at least 2 or 3 weeks to bring about). This is one of the reasons that something like the FairTax offers some real benefits.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Thornton Bell, I've read your "stuff" on your present website as well as your former one. I am not impressed with the contents of either and find it to be more of the same old Tax Protester misinformation that has misled so many people.
I would urge everyone to stay away from such sites since they can only bring you grief in the long run (if not the short run).
Even if you did not do this for profit (which you do), I would feel no differently about it.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
You're dead on.
We've got to work with what we have; it does no good to wish for what we don't.
As ole GGGGranPappy, George Washington Archer, us'd tah say: "If'n them wishes were fishes, we'd all have a feast!"
BTW, please close out your HTML tags.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
After closing your tags:
You apparently like the income tax, so enjoy while you may. Its end is coming just like them ole horse drawn buggies came to their end.
It is look past due, the day to end the Karl Marx memorial tax(a.k.a. income tax) and bid a happy fair thee well to it.
You may wish to retain it, that's fine, They will still have one up in Canada or over in Australia for you. Have a good trip.
"Hopefully knowledge of their real burdens, along with exercise of newfound liberty will help make the case
for the substantive majority to make a change."
I really like this quote of yours, especially the part, "exercise of newfound liberty". I am reading the Robert Heilein novel "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" and your original quote is similiar to what is discussed by the characters as they plan a liberaterian revolution, generate support by the masses, and how they create their own government on the Moon colony. Good quote and a good book.
Thanks,
CATO
Could we combine low tarriffs with a low NRST to pay the bills? I like tarriffs for two reasons.
1. We can raise revenue, however low it may be, and 2. we need protection ,however little it may be, from third world-spelled Chinese slave labor.
Regards,
CATO
I really like this quote of yours, especially the part, "exercise of newfound liberty".
I wasn't conscious of a quote, though I must admit that Heinlein has been a favorite author from early youth. I am sure his writings have alot to do with the way I think. So if at time I express myself in similar manner I not too surprising, I have read and re-read his works for over 40 years.
Tanstaffel!! Ain't no free lunch. A sentiment straight out of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" as I recall.
"Could we combine low tarriffs with a low NRST to pay the bills? I like tarriffs for two reasons. 1. We can raise revenue, however low it may be, and 2. we need protection ,however little it may be, from third world-spelled Chinese slave labor."
The FairTax means Fair Trade and will greatly benefit export companies. Exports will leave at cost minus 20 to 30%. Imports will come in at cost plus 23%. That is a 43 to 53% advantage for American businesses and workers!
Rep. Bill Archer, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee: "A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America."
Not to mention the effect on our economy the NRST will have on the thousands of our most wealthy American's that have expatriated offshore and taken their wealth with them. They have "Escaped" because of high income taxation and the "death" tax that will take half of their wealth.
I too believe in a much smaller government with much lower taxes, but it took us 86 years for the "tax and waste" liberals to get us into this mess and we won't be able to get out of it overnight. Let's take "one small step for man", before we take "one giant leap for mankind". In other words, let's tackle one dummy at a time...and the NRST is an excellent first step.
Forget The Counterfeit "FRN" - POKER CHIPS Are Now Legal Tender!
~~~SHOCKER~~~Non-Filers pay over 40% of their income in taxes!
You might also check Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"; a fine story. He does pretty good for an ex-Navy type since most of them are functional illiterates (just ask ancient_geezer).
Actually he (RAH, not a_g) and Ray Bradbury are a couple of my more favorite modern authors.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
The reason that tariffs are problematical is that to raise any significant amount of money they run the risk of triggering trade retaliation.
To find out more about the REAL difficulty that tariffs bring about, I would recommend you to the smallest economic text in existence that I know of - and yet one of the best. It is the Henry Hazlitt minor classic "Economics In One Lesson".
There are only two or three chapters in the book (which is pretty short, anyway) that you would need to read. Chapter I, "The Lesson" which is by way of an introduction; Chapter II, "The Broken Window" (only one page long), and then the main tariff presentation, Chapter XI, "Who's 'Protected' By Tariffs?". After you read those, we can talk again.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Please explain to me what law currently makes you liable for an income tax. Allow me to give you a hint - YOU CAN'T. Silly me, I thought this was a nation of laws. The plain truth is that income must first come from a taxable 'Source.' 'Items' of income do not get it done. "Whatever source" means "any and all"? Wrong - the law does not work that way. You need to read 26 CFR 1.861 series of regulations.
You are failing to appreciate the fact that employers hold the real power here; according to the code it is the employer that is required to know whether or not it pays taxable income to then withhold and report that taxable income. But the vast majority of employers do not pay taxable income per the statutes/regs. Employers are slowly starting to wake up to this fact of law and are now correcting past records and receiving full refunds and most importantly, are no longer withholding and reporting! Why don't you recognize the significance of this development?
Now the ideal situation would be for the Congress to eliminate the code and the IRS and get the Gestapo off the people's backs, but what motivation does it have at this time to do so? The fact that it is unfair? That the people are unhappy with it? Phantom "surpluses"? Please. The fact is the IRS is over a barrel, and they know it. The IRS has no defense against the 'source' argument, except to attempt to deny due process of law. Denying due process has been their hallmark - and we cannot tolerate that. If we do, then we no longer live in a free society and America is no more. Changing the system by placing into law that which does not now exist plays right into their hands. High fives all around for the power elite!
The IRS is running scared because they fear that the people will eventually realize the truth. The truth always surfaces eventually. Knowledge is power. If we are to ever achieve true reform, the people must become educated; real, effective change will only occur when the people deal from a position of strength.
The income tax code is your friend, too.
Thanks Chief, will read these two offerings tonight.
Right - "the people" have been fooled for most of this century by a cabal of congress and the courts who know that no one legally has to pay income taxes and yet haven't plugged up such a glaring oversight in the tax statutes!!! They just don't want us citizens to know the truth!!! Grow up.
I don't know who you think you're fooling. Go back to your website and collect money fom those foolish enough to fall for such unmitigated crap. Neither I (nor anyone else) has to prove to you that all citizens are required to file and pay income/payroll taxes - the courts have already decided that in many different opinions. If you believe so firmly they do not, then go get in a court battle with the IRS and get us the court decision you lack that says no American has to file and pay income/payroll taxes, because indeed they do.
I'll not help you shill for you TP websites; you are, simply, wrong ... and most people with any sense realize that.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
The income tax code is your friend, too.
Convince the Courts, and bring me ruling that states unequivocally that Unites States citizens are not liable to the income tax code, Thurston.
That way we can benefit by closing down the IRS and the income tax code all the faster and get a clean and moral tax, the NRST in its place.
The income tax may be your friend Thurston, it's certainly not mine. I note that Kark Marx, the communists, and socialists are rather fond of it as well.
One should never forget the philosophical core and soulmate of the income tax, which can be found here: Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. Among their recommendations are these:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
The Original Intent of the "Income Tax"
"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"
"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.
There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed --- nor should it. The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?"
"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."
"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."
"To Distribute the Wealth
The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax."
It is time to end the income tax, repeal it through HR2525, then abolish it through constitutional amendment through HJRes45.
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/14/99)
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 sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Sam (introduced 4/14/1999)
Latest Major Action: 4/21/1999 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
And you consider the Income Tax YOUR friend?
YOU sir, are certainly no friend of mine!
Actually he (RAH, not a_g) and Ray Bradbury are a couple of my more favorite modern authors.
OOOOOOOh! you have struck me to the very quick. And here I
though you loved my erudite masteful scholarly~~ oh
well never mind.
please read the 26 CFR 1.861-series of regulations.
Already have, a source is any activity taxable under the income tax:
Constitution for the United States of America:
COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1,17 (1916)
STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
Therefore Congress operates on the basis:
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
- "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 26, Volume 9, Part 1, Sections 1.851 to 1.907] [Revised as of April 1, 2000] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 26CFR1.861-1] [Page 119-120]
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE (CONTINUED) Normal Taxes and Surtaxes (Continued)--
Table of Contents Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
(a) Categories of income.
Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax. These sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United States, as the case may be; and, with respect to the remaining income (particularly that derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the United States), authorize the Secretary or his delegate to determine the income derived from sources within the United States, either by rules of separate allocation or by processes or formulas of general apportionment. The statute provides for the following three categories of income:
(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or apportioned to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See Secs. 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and Sec. 1.863-1. The taxable income from sources within the United States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely [[Page 120]] be allocated to some item or class of gross income. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter N - Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States
PART I - SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME
Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States:(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;EXCEPT that compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if -
(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during the taxable year,
(B) such compensation does not exceed $3,000 in the aggregate, and
(C) the compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of or under a contract with -(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or
(ii) an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or
a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or
place of business maintained in a foreign country
or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership,
or corporation,
In addition, except for purposes of sections 79 and 105 and subchapter D, compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual in connection with the individual's temporary presence in the United States as a regular member of the crew of a foreign vessel engaged in transportation between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States.
In Summary, if you are a United States citizen, and receive compensation for labor or compensation for other activities(i.e. sources) in the United States you are subject to income taxes.
Aw, hell, a_g I haven't been able to read nearly as many wordz from U as those other two. Maybe if you'd get busy and post some more stuff I'd change my mind.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
I'm trying, I'm trying. and they ain't even pay'n me by the word :o(
Anything YOU write is a quote by YOU in my book. Anyway, I "liked it".
Let me read the rest of the posts and I will get back with you on this tax issue.
You take care,
CATO
I read "Stranger in a Strange Land" thirty years ago in college. Reqired reading almost for every student at that time. The story is the Jesus story in sci-fi.
Did you know that Robert Heinlein is a devout Christian too? Just found this fact out several months ago in the New American.
I had always suspected this of Heinlein and I was pleasantly surprised to find this out about a truely great American writer.
I am going to read everyone's posts as to this tax issue, before I jump in to the fray.
After finding out the dollar amount of all imports, tarriffs will not pay the bills at this time.
But, I still favor a small tarriff though. At least to cover the cost of customs and Border patrol.
Later,
CATO
Re: Post #203. I will read this as soon as possible. Thanks.
CATO
Hazlitt's book I mentioned is in most libraries of any size, but can also be purchased from various Internet sources (and some bookstores). It's well worth having your own copy to re-study from time to time.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts later on ...
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Yes, I knew that about RAH. Saw something he wrote to that efffect years ago (don't remember where, though - wish I did).
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Why, Churches did just fine before the income tax came along, Principled.
In the period of U.S. History prior to 1913, when giving to a charity or your church was not a taxable event, the private "Welfare" infrastructure was doing a pretty good job. But that was before government got into the welfare business and screwed it up.
Of course, in those days, before the down-and-out soul could eat, he/she had to chop a cord of wood or sew a dress, or perform some other meaningful (and self-esteem building) chore.
Then the government's Experimental Sociologists came along, and started giving food and shelter away. Destroyed the Church welfare system, and damn near destroyed America.
One could say that the government "muscled" its way into the poverty business at the behest of an early group of "Welfare Warriors" who stood to gain in power, money and influence (Churches do not, as a rule, pay the big bucks for charity workers like government does.) if they could wrest control of the welfare business from the churches.
Just like the Mafia takovers of certain industries we have all heard about, the government outmuscled the private charities and took over.
But there is hope: The NRST will, because donations to charity are no-tax donations, restore the ability of private charities to raise money and provide the kinds of services their historical tradition calls for.
In short, the NRST will be a boon to charities. Citizens will have more money, and they can give it to whomever they please without the heavy hand of government interfering.
Won't that be nice?
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
Scrap the Code! Scrap the IRS! Abolish the VLWC!
We will never be a truly free people so long as we have Clinton/Gore, the income tax and the IRS.
Again, I am not Thurston, but I am a NITE member.
We are closer to being friends than enemies. Our goals are the same; I just see a different approach to solving the same problem. I'll try to do a better job in communicating my views, perhaps a post of my own. If I do, I would be honored if you (and the rest) will take some time to tear it a new one!
Nice??? Hardly the word ... that'd be wonderful!!
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
"Tearing" anything is not the objective, but trying to help enlighten people about the NRST and its functioning IS the objective.
We'd be delighted to look at and comment on your post (or at least I would) so long as it's not more of the TP hype encountered on so many of those sites.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
If your analysis is objective, as opposed to the hype of a conclusion driven agenda, I'd be more than happy to engage in a real debate, or even agreement where objective truth is actually sought and established.
I prefer to fit the conclusion to explain the observations, not pick over data to support a pre-conceived notion or agenda. Anything less than that amounts to the blind leading the blinder.
Peer review is a strong tool of investigation when one is able adjust views under objective and valid criticism.
Yes, high tarriffs do trigger retaliation. But most other countries charge a tarriff on our goods now so a low tarriff would not, IMO, trigger retailation.
This would be especially true if the tarriff was low OR was the same as the other country charges for entry of our goods. Tit for tat.
CATO
I understand what you have said, but dig a copy of the book I mentioned our of a library and read the part on tariffs.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]