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.
Reason magazine -- August/September 1997
|
Taxing Times
Imagine, if you will, a damsel in distress. She has been captured by an evil ogre, who is dragging her into a dark forest for unspeakable purposes. Riding to her rescue are two gallant knights, each possessing strength, virtue, and courage. But both knights are so anxious to be the hero that they fight each other for the privilege of defending the lady's honor. They are so consumed by this contest that the ogre is able to sneak off with the damsel, giving our story an unhappy ending. Unfortunately, the same thing may happen with tax reform. Economists have long argued that America's multiple-rate, loophole-ridden tax code penalizes productive behavior. The good news is that most Americans, including a surprisingly large number of politicians in Washington, agree that the current system stinks. The bad news is that advocates of change are divided between proponents of a flat tax and proponents of a national sales tax. (For an outline of the debate, see "Rewriting the Code," July 1995.) And just as the squabbling between the knights allowed the ogre to escape, any disunity among the tax reformers will strengthen the ability of special interest groups to defend the status quo. Since congressional Republicans haven't decided upon a unified strategy for replacing the current Internal Revenue Code, flat tax and sales tax advocates will spend the next couple of years vying for the hearts and minds of Americans who want genuine reform. The flat tax advocates include House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.), likely GOP presidential contender Steve Forbes, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, while the Cato Institute and Citizens for an Alternative Tax System back a retail sales tax. Armey has introduced a bill that would replace the current income tax with a 17 percent flat tax. A proposal backed by Deputy Majority Whip Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-Colo.) would replace the income tax with a 17 percent retail sales tax.
What makes this split particularly frustrating is that the flat tax and sales tax are virtually identical. Both would junk the current system. Both would restore fairness by taxing at one low rate. Both would eliminate all forms of double taxation, and both would wipe out special preferences. The only real difference between the two would be the collection point: The flat tax imposes one low tax rate on income when it is earned, and the sales tax imposes one low tax rate on income when it is spent. In the long run, the biggest winner in the debate between the flat tax and the sales tax may turn out to be the current system. There is an obvious solution: Either sales tax fans have to rally behind the flat tax, or flat tax partisans must shift their allegiance to the sales tax. That transition should happen in the next year or two so that both sides are united and fully prepared for the tax reform battle after the next presidential election. The question, of course, is which side should give in. As a flat tax advocate, I clearly have some biases. Nonetheless, I have defended the sales tax in speeches, in the press, and in congressional testimony. I am perfectly willing to abandon the flat tax if there is compelling evidence that the sales tax is a more politically realistic way of achieving our goals. But to convince me that the sales tax is better than the flat tax, supporters of the sales tax need to answer some questions. Their inability to answer these questions may suggest that they, rather than advocates of the flat tax, need to change horses.
If enacted as its supporters envision, a national sales tax would yield spectacular benefits for the American economy. Like the flat tax, it would increase after-tax incomes, stimulate job creation, boost savings, safeguard civil liberties, and reduce political corruption. The key question, however, is whether the sales tax can overcome the political obstacles outlined. The flat tax, of course, faces political obstacles as well. The home mortgage and charitable contribution deductions have been thorny issues. Defenders of the status quo also have scored points by falsely claiming that dividend and interest income would be tax-free in a flat tax world, and they have had some success making the same argument about capital gains. There are other politically sensitive issues that haven't yet been exploited by opponents of the flat tax, such as the elimination of the tax preference for employer-provided health care. On the other hand, the flat tax has been battle-tested. Not only has it been widely condemned by the left, it also was attacked by much of the Republican establishment during the 1996 presidential primaries. These attacks chipped away at the flat tax's popularity, but it still generates 40 percent to 65 percent support in polls (depending on how the question is worded). The sales tax, by contrast, attracts only about 30 percent support--a figure that might well erode during a negative campaign. In the short term, proponents of the flat tax and sales tax should spend less time attacking each other and more time mounting a unified assault on the current system. Then, as we get closer to 2001, both sides should honestly assess the political landscape and unify behind the reform with the greatest chance of passing. The main objective, at least for those of us who believe in equal treatment under the law and who want a tax system that does not penalize productive behavior, is that one or the other of these good plans replaces what we have now.
Daniel J. Mitchell is senior fellow in political economy at the Heritage Foundation.
|
How to subscribe
Return to the Reason Magazine home page
With the exception of pigdog for one, who publicly states when his sales "gross payment" tax scam is in place, repealing the law to take your income is NOT necessary.
If the sales tax becomes a value-added tax, which taxes the "value added" to a product or service at each stage of the production process (with the result that the final effect on the retail price would be the same), would supporters of the sales tax back away?...
No! Their "gross payment tax is no different. The sales "gross payment" tax, taxes all other taxes included in or imposed on the "gross payment"
"sales tax supporters would impose a payroll tax, paid by the employer, on government wages."
"And it's misleading to claim that the IRS would be abolished simply by giving it a new name or shifting tax collection to the state level."
"Taxing Times:Squabbling could allow the Internal revenue code to go unscathed. "
The whole reason for the squabbling (mostly created by government plants) is to keep peoples' attention from the fact that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified and the income tax is illegal.
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"
Good to see someone posting some real information.
Thanks Michael, I once saw William Benson on C-SPAN. He was a state revenue/tax(?) agent, his job among others, was to bust senior citizens at the first of every month for buying and selling cigarettes with out state tax stamps.
He, in so many words said he didn't know what the answer was for taxes but he knew it wasn't a sales tax, a sales tax is more susceptible to fraud and corruption than the income tax.
Of course we all know, the proposals are not a "sales tax" in the same sense as a states sales tax would be...
They're a government hacks answer to the VAT.
Rather than tax producton at each level it includes all taxes, fees and any other sort of tax they can add into the "gross payment" then imposes a (exorbitant) tax on that...including itself...they're a tax on taxes...
If you want to see how it would work in real life, use your phone bill. None of the taxes in your phone bill will go away with a sales "gross payment" tax.
Take the amount due (including all the taxes,fees etc. imposed) + 30% (that's the "gross payment") , then go back and look at what the actual phone charges are VS what the taxes paid is...it will exceed 50% tax....NOT 23% as they would like for us to believe.
Thanks for the post. I hope it doesn't get filled with all the Charts from the NRST brigade.
Dan Mitchell does a great job (a lot better than I could have done) of articulating the concerns I have with the Fair Tax. One point he left out(he wasn't addressing HR 2525) HR 2525 is being co-sponsored by Dems, Dems are liars and socialist I just DO NOT TRUST ANY DEMOCRAT.
I don't disagree with a NRST in principle. I do think POLITICALLY it is far more difficult to IMPLIMENT CORRECTLY. If it isn't done correctly it will be worse than the current situation.
To the FAIR TAXERS, try to avoid the personal attacks Let's have a discussion of the points raised by Dan Mitchell in his article. They are concerned with the politics of taxing rather than the advantages on either system (I agree with him that the Flat Tax and NRST are basically the same).
(I agree with him that the Flat Tax and NRST are basically the same).
Frankly, they're all the same in that income is their basis for the rate, including the sales "gross payment" tax...the difference is how much control YOU have over YOUR MONEY...not your spending...anyone who beleives a (VAT) tax on tax printed on a receipt, then thrown away in the bag it was carried home in is more visible than the most talked about/feared day of the year, April 15th, is a fool.
I agree, the Armey proposal to end witholding and making taxpayers send a check to Uncle Sam every quarter is one of the best aspects of his Flat Tax proposal. With the current surplus maybe we could go to a 15% rate as suggested by Forbes.
"I agree, the Armey proposal to end witholding and making taxpayers send a check to Uncle Sam every quarter is one of the best aspects of his Flat Tax proposal."
Yeah, let's overlook the fact that every American with a job will continue to be forced to report their income to the Gestapo IRS - face penalties, interest, audits, liens, searches, seizures, garnishment of wages and even prison!
WHOOPEE!!!!!
Income Tax vs National Retail Sales Tax - You be the judge
Since no political jurisdiction in the world has ever successfully replaced an income tax with a sales tax, why should we believe the United States is different?
No other country has even tried, so to sayit can't be done is an assumption based on a false premise. Besides, lower-lever jurisdictions, such as some states, do or did (until citizens allowed themselves to be hoodwinked, as in Connecticut) rely solely on sales tax income.
Advocates of the sales tax rightly insist that it be accompanied by complete, irreversible abolition of the income tax, which would require repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax is legal regardless of the 16th Amendment, as they define it as an exise tax on privileged activities. (Argue with them if you like, but they're the final recourse, barring revolution.) There is nothing preventing Congress from enacting a sales tax now, so why isn't this argument used in reverse against the flat tax? The NRST, as specified in HR 2525, defunds the IRS, destroys their records, and legislatively prohibits any tax on income. HJR 45 is a prposed Constitutional Amendment that not only repeals the 16th Amednment but also prohibits the government from levying any form of tax on incomes.
Would repeal of the income tax entail elimination of payroll taxes?
HR 2525, introduced after the date on this article does that.
While these taxes are not as economically harmful as the personal income tax (largely because they are a version of the flat tax, imposing one rate on a proper definition of income)
What is this guy smoking? SSA/Medicare taxes unduly burden those who rely on wages as their primary source of income. The Social Security component (roughly 80% of that tax) is regressive, affecting only the first $70,000 or so in wages per person per year (making the effective SSA tax rate lower for those with higher wage incomes).
Trying to eliminate payroll taxes would bring Social Security into the tax reform debate.
Social Security benefits and eligibility are not affected by HR 2525. Social Security reform is a matter best left separate from tax reform, as the author correcty states.
If the income tax is eliminated, how will the government determine eligibility for means-tested programs?
I don't know. I do admit I'm against the idea of government giveaway programs that are based on (reported) income. This is the best points I've seen the author make.
Many Americans flinch at the thought of paying a sales tax on such big-ticket items as cars.
Education is the answer. Not only will the buyer have more income (all payments are made with previuosly untaxed money under the NRST) but the price, after taxes, of the item should be roughly the same as today, effectively increasing the buyer's purchasing power. Additionally, on large-ticket items, interest rates will be lower, making these items easier to finance. Speaking of demagoguery, what is the most politically astute way to answer those who would exempt from the sales tax services such as leukemia treatments for poor children or products such as wheelchairs for muscular dystrophy sufferers?
He points out the dangers of making any form of exemptions quite well, That is why the NRST is a single-rate, single-stage tax with no exemptions. Again, these purchases are made with pre-tax money on prices that will be appx. the same as today's prices. Under the current system, those same services are bought with income already subjected to the payroll taxes, as well as the first 7% or so of AGI under the income tax. While items such as food and medicine are considered worthy of exemptions, there are many which could receive hostile treatment.
Single-stage, single-rate, no exceptions.
Is it realistic to believe that a sales tax would pull in revenue from the underground economy, as supporters often assert?
I'm actually not convinced one way or the other on this issue, which is why I avoid saying it's one of the NRST benefits.
If the sales tax becomes a value-added tax...
This is a specious argument. Would flat tax supporters back off from their plan if it was modified to have multiple marginal rates? Of course they would, for the same reason -- the plan would have been so far changed from it's original intent as to be unrecognizable. The NRST requires a single-stage, single rate tax with no exceptions. Period. Anything else isn't the same plan.
Is it an overstatement to argue that the sales tax would eliminate the IRS?
No, it isn't. The big and intrusive part of the IRS has to do with the reporting of income, not the collection of the tax. Defining "income" and ensuring enforcement is a huge hassle that goes away under the NRST. The burden is shifted to the states, but not nearly as bad as the author suggests. 45 states, plus DC, already have sales tax agencies. The NRST would simplify the sales tax system, removing the extant loopholes and exceptions. The larger base to collect from would offset that simplification, but, on the whole, the minor increase in the size of the state agencies in no way compares to the size and scope of the IRS, even under the flat tax. To prevent giving government a big competitive advantage over the private sector, sales tax supporters would impose a payroll tax, paid by the employer, on government wages.
Incorrect. This is based on the misreading of the bill (the same section lewislynn is so fond of misreading). There is a tax levied on the wages, salaries, and benefits of contract employees only, and only if those contractors are "employed" by the consumer (which can be government or the private sector, even individuals) instead of directly compensated as a retail service. This is the same provisiong that collects taxes on the services provided by nannies, housekeepers, and the like, who are paid directly rather than working for a retail service company. The language is there to close a loophole, it has nothing to do with "competitive advantage".
Current sales tax proposals include a universal rebate to protect the poor...
It treats everyone the same, and is far simpler than the alternatives. It doesn't matter who you are, how much you make, you race, color, creed, religion, or sexual preference. It is specifically there to untax necessities without requiring exemptions or complicated rebate forms.
Besides, income isn't a perfect way to determine need anyway. Net worth would be better, but that would be an order of magnitude more intrusive than the current IRS! The government shuld get out of the business of "need" and treat everyone exactly the same.
I really should learn to proofread... bump to the NRST supporters to come and play with the misinformation brigade again...
Is there some specific reason you left this one out?:
* To prevent giving government a big competitive advantage over the private sector, sales tax supporters would impose a payroll tax, paid by the employer, on government wages. Barring a reduction in the gross pay of government workers, this would boost government spending. With both parties worshiping at the shrine of budget balance, how would this spending increase be financed?
Hey, Looey, explain the logic of posting an article that calls for unity while you continue to promote discord? Or is this just another of your desperate attemtps to revive the dead Flat Tax issue?
Time To Abolish Income Taxes
Our current tax system has created a nation of "haves and have-nots". Why continue to endorse a tax system that has been shifting the tax burden down the income scale onto the backs of American workers from the time of its enactment?
Why not support the ONLY tax proposal that would completely "untax" the poor by:
(1) getting rid of the most regressive tax in our history - the payroll tax - and letting wage earners take home their entire paycheck, with NO withholding (but still getting all their Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits just like they did before)
(2) by abolishing ALL hidden federal taxes - 20 to 35 percent in hidden corporate income and payroll taxes - that are thrust upon the backs of unsuspecting working poor in the form of higher consumer prices; and
(3) by ensuring that no American pays taxes on the purchase of necessities.
Why continue to support a system that wastes more than $250 billion dollars in precious resources every year (that's $800 for every man, woman and child in this country) to comply with a tax code that is beyond the reach of even our brightest citizens, let alone the average working man? Doesn't every American have that right to be governed by laws that he can understand, or should tax advantages and "gaming the system" only be available to those who can afford tax accounts and tax lawyers? Those precious resources could be put to a far better use than complying with our tax code. We could provide much need education and health care to more families, couldn't we? We could give families more ability to save for education, to buy a home for the first time or for a better retirement, couldn't we?
Our current tax system isn't providing more for our people, it's providing less, and if the current trend continues, we have very little to show for shouldering the largest federal tax burden in the history of our country.
It's time to trash the current system and replace it with one that will benefit every American, not just those with capital gains and estate tax issue. The FairTax will lower tax rates on middle-income Americans, will completely "untax" those living at or below the poverty level, and will let Americans, not government, decide how much to pay in federal taxes by deciding how much an what to buy. It's the best choice for America!
Is there some specific reason you left this one out?
I didn't leave it out -- I just missed putting in a paragraph tag in my post, so the quoted section runs in at the end of the previous comment I made. Perhaps if you'd actually read it rather than make knee-jerk comments, you might learn something for a change.
BUSTED, again, Looey. We knew you weren't reading NRST posts for comprehension, just for things to limply refute.
You're late to the party once again, Looey. Perhaps because of your "little problem" with reading comprehension, you don't realize that this 1997 article has been referenced before and refuted several times. The fact that you don't realize this hardly makes it a reason to repeat the rebuttal again (though perhaps it will help others learn).
And BTW Looey, you once again mistate and warp what I have said (that's a frequent practice with you, it seems, as is true of most demagogues). What I did say on the repeal the 16th subject was that it not only should be repealed but that wording to make income taxes, etc. unconstitutional should be included in the repeal amendment. I also said that repealing the 16th was not necessary to eliminate the income tax and the IRS as either NRST bill does that. You have intentionally attempted to alter and miscommunicate my meaning. Shame on you!!
The same intentional misstatement of yours holds true by calling the FairTax a "gross payments" tax in that same sentence as though that is something I also said. I didn't nor would I since it is not a gross payments tax at all but the term "gross payments" is defined in the bill to mean the cost of a thing plus the NRST tax on the thing and NRST means in that definition only federal sales tax, Looey. Your attempt to fool everyone into believing the term "gross payments" means taxes on top of taxes on top of taxes in some sort of never-ending stream is despicable. It does not, that is merely your lie. With the NRST, a thing is taxed once and only once. That means state (or other) sales taxes are not taxed again by the NRST.
Also as you know full well there is no NRST on government (nor any other) wages. In addition, the IRS is clearly abolished by the FairTax (unless the IRS employees wish to work for no pay and have no facilities or supplies) as the FairTax both defunds the IRS for any expenses (other than current follow on cases) and the income tax records are required to be destroyed.
You seem unjustifiably proud of your innumerable and never-ending lies as I see all of the links you give are to your own vanity posts where you have spewed out your misinformation in the lead-ins to those threads. I would hope that anyone going to those threads will read the entire thread and they will certainly realize that you know not whereof you speak. Your deceit is almost overpowering and should serve as a warning to any reasonable person that you are not to be believed - on anything.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Hello, Rambo. Have you temporarily suspended your calls for sedition (your "death to the tyrants" tirade, etc.)? I see you're now lapsing in to the Tax Protester view that no one has to file and pay income/payroll taxes. Most people know that's not at all correct and will ignore you (except for some other TP soldiers that make money at it, such as taxtruth).
In any event, it's more of a strecth than ever to try to understand what the TP approach (which is breaking the law) has to do with creating a new tax system lawfully by the means specified in the Constitution. Perhaps you feel we should all mount up in our M1A1's and descend on the Capitol Mall?? Wonderful idea, will you buy the gas??
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Sure enough ... here comes one of the TP'ers hoping to suck in a little business.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Bill Benson ... isn't he a convicted felon??? You present him as knowing something definitive about the NRST (when in fact his only knowledge is about a particular state's sales tax - a greatly different thing)? Relatively speaking, even if he's right that many state sales taxes MAY BE (but not necessarily are) more susceptible to fraud and corruption than the income tax it means little. That has absolutely no relevance to the NRST since the NRST mechanism is both much more straightforward and much easier to administer than existing state sales taxes.
As you know, Looey, but continue to deceive about, the NRST taxes a thing once and only once and does not tax state sales taxes - and that is in the bill. And no, the NRST is not 30% as you know but a 23% tax inclusive amount. Even when stated as a tax exclusive amount the correct figure is less than 30% (29.87%) but either percentage describes the same amount of tax in dollars. The NRST applies its 23% only on the price of the thing itself plus the amount of the NRST - that's exactly what the term "gross payments" is defined as in the HR2525 bill.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
So what?
I believe that Bill Benson and Joe Banister et al are right. But, so what?
Yours is a marginal argument, at best, and offers those who buy (literally) into your siren song only less money in their bank accounts and a visit to some Club Fed somewhere.
Particularly yours and the other Tax Protesters vain attempts to "Bill Clintonize" ("depends on what your definition of 'is' is") the tax code.
We need to scrap the damn code! Not argue over arcane meanings.
The only way to stop this insanity is to work within the system to abolish the income tax and repeal the 16th Amendment. All else is futile.
In fact Michael (and you other TP scam artists our there Lurking on these threads), I'll bet that you don't event take the advice you sell. The only reason you are holding the position you hold is to profit from the stupidity and gullibility of others.
I'll wager that you account for your income garnered selling bogus "De-Taxification Schemes" and file tax returns and pay your taxes every year, because you know you'll go to prison if you don't.
Get real, Michael and the rest of you TPers. Find honest work, and help us abolish the income tax and the IRS.
“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.
Well, Leto since you have never read the FairTax bill nor any of the other information presented on the FairTax website it's almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion because you lack knowledge. Read the bill itself by cling on "Legislative News" on the homepage for the FairTax and go on from there. There are also a couple of other very good websites: this one and this one. When you've done your homework, come back and we'll talk - and gladly so.
Dan Mitchell, BTW, is well known as an ardent flat-VAT income tax devotee and his comments need to be seen in that light. As I said, they have been rebutted before as this is a (very) old hitpiece.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
In fact, Looey, as you know but won't admit, the NRST is quite different than the flat-VAT income tax (which is a subtraction-method VAT). They are as different as night from day. The two mechanisms operate on completely different tax bases - income for the flat-VAT income tax and consumption for the NRST. They also have quite different mechanisms as the flat-VAT income tax retains income taxation AND the IRS while the NRST makes use of the sales tax collection that has existed in 45 states for many years.
Also, to correct some of your other misstatements in you short reply (are you perhaps trying to set a new personal record for lies per inch?), I would note that the NRST is in no respect a VAT and cannot be converted into one. In addition, there is no tax on tax with the NRST as you continue to claim (and as the FairTax bill clearly defines), nor is the term "gross payment" defined in the bill anything like your use of the term to mean "everything forever and including government wages and benefits" (all of which are incorrect). The HR2525 bill defines the term:
"`(5) GROSS PAYMENTS- The term `gross payments' means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title.
and, as you also know the term taxable property or services is defined, as you would think, to be
"`(14) TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE-
`(A) GENERAL RULE- The term `taxable property or service' means--
`(i) any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property) but excluding--
`(I) intangible property, and
`(II) used property, and
`(ii) any service (including any financial intermediation services as determined by section 801)."
Over and above all that, Looey, the NRST is hugely more visible and apparent to taxpayers than their tax burden with the present income/payroll taxes and hidden taxes. With these present taxes no one knows (including you) how high your taxes really are while with the NRST that tax burden will be available to see on every receipt.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
I've read the Fair Tax Bill, why would you assume I haven't?
Merely beacuse I don't agree with you?
I think the Flat Tax is the best way given our current situation.
My judgement is that the downside risks of a poorly implimentd NRST ( I don't think the 16th can be repealed in the next 10 years) outweigh any potential advantages over a Forbes style flat tax.
You've done a wonderful job of addressing all the points presented by Mitchell who is a long-time flat-VAT income tax proponent (and a very vocal one). He often speaks about how the NRST proponents are raining on his parade and yet never seems to make the connection that the flat-VAT income tax proponents do far more than their share of the same for the NRST. Right now, there is far more support both in congress and out for the NRST approach rather than the flat-VAT income tax approach for a number of excellent reasons, yet most flat-VAT income tax proponents (Mitchell excepted) never speak of supporting any form of NRST but often speak of it as though the present income tax system would be better.
In addition to your refutation of his italicized main points there are a number of other outright errors in the article. He speaks, incorrectly, of a 17% NRST as he is pspeaking of what is now HR2001. It is a 15% rate, not 17%. He refers to the flat-VAT income tax and the NRST as being "virtually identical" when they are, in fact, different in almost every respect: tax base, collection mechanism, and effect on the economy. Is all three of those respects, the NRST clearly is both different AND superior to the flat-VAT income tax.
More than that, Mitchell speaks of both tax forms eliminating all forms of double taxation and wiping out special preferences. This statement is erroneous in the extreme since the flat-VAT income tax not only continues but intensifies the type of double taxation that is the most pernicious, the hidden taxes talked about here many times, that do nothing but raise prices from 20 to 40% and which the NRST eliminates.
The wiping out of special preferences is hardly accurate either since two entirely new classes on taxpayers are created which certainly qualify as preferences under the flat-VAT income tax: the low income individuals who would no longer pay ANY taxes and the high income individuals who would also no longer pay any taxes (if they have any sense). Both types of non-taxpayers would certainly be clamoring for "their share" of tax benefits paid by others (and the well to do could afford the lobbyists that would remain fully intact under that tax system). The NRST has no such special preferences but instead treats all taxpayers the same ... all pay taxes at the same rate.
Mitchell had said several times (and says in this article) that he would be willing to support the NRST if certain things could be shown him ... as you have clearly done in your response. This article was written before the FairTax came into being and I have reason to believe that he has changed his position to a fair degree since 1997. That still does not mean he's given up the flat-VAT income tax since despite his claim in the article, he hasn't. Perhaps he will as time goes on, though, since as you illustrate, his points have actually all been well addressed by the FairTax. It is certainly is more politically practical since, for one thing, it gives all wage earners what (as they would correctly view) is a 30% or more wage increase and there are other political plusses as well.
At any rate kevkrom, you've done a fine job of presenting objective information!!
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
At any rate kevkrom, you've done a fine job of presenting objective information!!
You are too kind, sir. Now I just have to learn to proofread and preview a bit better... :)
I have no objection to you disagreeing with me so long as you are willing to hold your views up to the light of inspection by all (and you do not indulge in the intellectual dishonesty that some on these threads do). I assume that you have not read the FairTax bill because I see nothing in any of your posts to indicate that you have read it. Let's find out. What, specifically, is it you believe is to be preferred in the flat-VAT income tax system as contrasted with the FairTax - and why.
Additionally, you speak of a poorly implemented FairTax without telling us what, specifically, is poorly implemented. Please elaborate in some detail.
So far, all you have indicated are very general subjective things ("... the Flat Tax is the best way ...") which don't tell us much except that you prefer the flat-VAT income tax, but nothing about why you do so except for statements that are also vague such as "... a poorly implimentd (sic)NRST ...". Please be more specific.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Don't sweat it ... I kain't even spel spel-checker.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Well the biggest Realpolitick problem is the necessity to repeal the 16th amendement. If we don't we will eventually (within 10 years) end up with another income tax.
I know that HR 2525 abolishes the Income Tax and "gets rid" of the IRS, But the tresuary will still employ many of the xIRS'ers. To believe otherwise is politically naive. When is the last time there was a layoff of govt bureaucrats (Military personel don't count ;-) ) ?
Someday there will be another democrat administration and congress. They will play the class warfare card and use it as an excuse for another income tax.
I cane see it now, A study by the progressive policy institute showing Bill Gates didn't buy enough Ding Dongs and wasn't paying his "Fair Share" and if we were to tax the Top 1% of Taxpayers we could provide free pampers to the poor and every child would get theor own private tutor certified by the NEA.
So Pigdog, tell me the plan to get rid of the 16th amendment and you will get rid of my biggest objection to HR 2525.
Try to refrain from calling the Forbes/Armey Flat Tax a VAT. Milton Freidman, Walt Williams and Thomas Sowell don't think it is. Argue your proposal on it's own merits without misrepresenting other proposals. We'll all have more fun.
Well the biggest Realpolitick problem is the necessity to repeal the 16th amendement. If we don't we will eventually (within 10 years) end up with another income tax.
See my #9. The 16th Amendment is irrelevant. The question that really needs to be asked is how long are we going to keep from having a national sales tax imposed in addition to the income tax, if we don't eliminate the income tax? The Internet is the lynchpin there -- it focuses on the state sales tax problems with out-of-state orders (like mail and phone orders) and will eventually "necessitate" a federal "solution". (As such, I am all in favor of moratoriums on Internet taxes unless and until the NRST is passed.)
How can the flat tax prevent a federal sales tax? There's certainly nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from adding one now. Can you guarantee the passage of a Constiutional Amendment such that we won't eventually have both types of taxes if the flat tax gets passed? Of course not, but then why hold the NRST to a higher standard than the flat tax?
I should add -- support HJR 45, a proposed Constitutional Amendment that repeals the 16th Amendment and specifically prohibits any form of federal tax on income!
Because we already have an Income tax. we don't currently have a NRST. I am aware of the "problem" the Internet poses for to the state taxmen. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I also like the idea Armey has to get rid of withholding and making people paying Income Tax send a check to Uncle Sam every quarter. IMHO this would spark a real tax revolt and demands to reduce govt spending. Which in my view the real goal.
Reducing goverment to it constittuional duties and not the additional crap we currently fund.
Reducing goverment to it constittuional duties and not the additional crap we currently fund.
I certainly agree with the goal, but not the approach. Yes, writing a check instead of paying via withholding would help the situation, but it still leaves the taxes embedded into the cost of goods and services (20-40%) as hidden. The only way the American people will ever wake up and fix the government is if they truly know how much it costs them. The NRST eliminates the hidden taxes and slaps people in the face with a "this-is-how much-government-costs" number on the receipt, every time they buy retail services or new goods.
Additionally, the 17% flat-tax rate doesn't include the 15.3% SSA/Medicare payroll tax, so those under the exemption level are still paying 15.3%, whereas those over the exemption but under the SSA max get really hammered -- 15.3% up to the exemption threshold, then 32.3% up to the SSA max, then 19.9% on anything above that. You're still left with a graduated tax that manages to be both progressive (comparing the "middle" to the "poor") and regressive (comparing the "middle" to the "rich") at the same time!
Besides, the real abuse of the IRS comes from the need to define and report "income". Flat or graduated really isn't the point, it's individual sovereignty and the right to have first claim on your own production.
To illustrate, I've created the tables below. My assumptions (made mostly for simplification): Flat Tax rate of 17% and exemption of $35,000, SSA tax cap of $70,000, NRST rate of 23%, family consumption allowance (rebate) based on poverty line of $22,500.
| Income | SSA/Medicare Tax | Income Tax | Total Tax | Effective Tax Rate | Marginal Tax Rate |
| 35000 | 5355 | 0 | 5355 | 15.30% | 32.30% |
| 40000 | 6120 | 850 | 6970 | 17.43% | 32.30% |
| 45000 | 6885 | 1700 | 8585 | 19.08% | 32.30% |
| 50000 | 7650 | 2550 | 10200 | 20.40% | 32.30% |
| 55000 | 8415 | 3400 | 11815 | 21.48% | 32.30% |
| 60000 | 9180 | 4250 | 13430 | 22.38% | 32.30% |
| 65000 | 9945 | 5100 | 15045 | 23.15% | 32.30% |
| 70000 | 10710 | 5950 | 16660 | 23.80% | 19.90% |
| 75000 | 10855 | 6800 | 17655 | 23.54% | 19.90% |
| 80000 | 11000 | 7650 | 18650 | 23.31% | 19.90% |
| 90000 | 11290 | 9350 | 20640 | 22.93% | 19.90% |
| 100000 | 11580 | 11050 | 22630 | 22.63% | 19.90% |
| 200000 | 14480 | 28050 | 42530 | 21.27% | 19.90% |
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 32 | Top | Last ]
| Consumption | NRST Paid | Rebate | Net Tax | Effective Tax Rate | Marginal Tax Rate |
| 35000 | 8050 | 5175 | 2875 | 8.21% | 23.00% |
| 40000 | 9200 | 5175 | 4025 | 10.06% | 23.00% |
| 45000 | 10350 | 5175 | 5175 | 11.50% | 23.00% |
| 50000 | 11500 | 5175 | 6325 | 12.65% | 23.00% |
| 55000 | 12650 | 5175 | 7475 | 13.59% | 23.00% |
| 60000 | 13800 | 5175 | 8625 | 14.38% | 23.00% |
| 65000 | 14950 | 5175 | 9775 | 15.04% | 23.00% |
| 70000 | 16100 | 5175 | 10925 | 15.61% | 23.00% |
| 75000 | 17250 | 5175 | 12075 | 16.10% | 23.00% |
| 80000 | 18400 | 5175 | 13225 | 16.53% | 23.00% |
| 90000 | 20700 | 5175 | 15525 | 17.25% | 23.00% |
| 100000 | 23000 | 5175 | 17825 | 17.83% | 23.00% |
| 200000 | 46000 | 5175 | 40825 | 20.41% | 23.00% |
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 33 | Top | Last ]
Vote pubbicrat for more of the same. They know how to scam the Americans. Now NATO is going to add some more tax, thanks to the pubbicrats. We are voting American.
And it would be fair to point out that with the FairTax table, it assumes ALL income is spent for taxable items and nothing is saved or invested (something not too likely to be true even on the low end of the scale).
In addition, the income tax table does not take into account the hidden taxes embedded into prices which actually represent a whopping amount of money as well.
In other words, the real world results of these two tables are greatly biased in favor of the flat tax and against the FairTax.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
The reply #29 by kevkrom expressed it nicely. Nothing in our laws prevents having both right now. With the FairTax, not only is the income tax (etc.) eliminated from the tax code and the IRS defunded and abolished, but the income tax records are required to be destroyed. The bill also calls for wording in the repeal bill to make income tax (etc.) unconstitutional.
There have actually been many large scale layoffs of government employees from time to time. They are called RIF's (Reduction In Force) and certainly I know people who were RIF'd. They got no offer of a "replacement" job anyplace else in government simply enough because there was not budget in any department for that. Certainly the Treasury Department may have a few slots available but certainly not for 115,000 people. Most would have to find real jobs no matter how much that hurt. And I would think being ex-IRS would not be a great job-seeking help many places.
The plan to get rid of the 16th is simple enough; get rid of the income tax and the IRS by defunding and eliminating it (and destroy the records) while passing the repeal bill with the wording called for in the FairTax. With such an NRST plan in place and operating, there would be no use at all for the 16th amendment - it would be an anachronsim much like the prohibition amendment and would be easily passed by congress. Can you imagine a congressman dumb enough to get up on the floor of his chamber to argue for keeping such an amendment in case it is needed for another income tax??? Not likely and if so, not many. The functioning NRST will give plenty of time for ratification (specified as 7 years).
In the meantime, any attempts to restart an income tax could be defeated by a determined minority in any of several different ways. If you think otherwise, you need to look into parliamentary procedure in congress.
Unless the 16th has wording declaring the income(etc.) tax to be unconstitutional, it will be of little import even if repealed since twice before in our history we have had income taxes voted upon us - and that was before any 16th amendment existed.
The danger of having both sales and income taxes at the same time is real and passing one of the NRST bill is the only thing that can prevent that.
The three economists you cite are welcome to their opinion if that's what they believe. I disagree and it is indeed a flat-VAT income tax, in fact a subtraction-method VAT and I think that most economists realize that. If you can provide links to their statements saying it is not a VAT I'd very much like to see them since it is a multi-level cascading tax.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
The plan to get rid of the 16th is simple enough; get rid of the income tax and the IRS by defunding and eliminating it (and destroy the records) while passing the repeal bill with the wording called for in the FairTax.
What wording is that exactly?...the same wording as the rest of his plan? -could be- should be- might be-I think-?
With such an NRST plan in place and operating, there would be no use at all for the 16th amendment .
Then why be so worried about repealing it?...on the one hand he claims to "call for it in the bill" which happens to be a lie, there is no legislative language in the bill that would repeal the 16th amendment...on the other hand he claims the repeal of the law that allows the taking of your income isn't necessary. And then has the balls to suggest the only way to keep from having both an income tax and a sales "gross payment" tax is to pass a NEW TAX LAW while keeping the law that allows for the taking of your income intact...
---------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
It looks to me like the only records to be destroyed would be the estate and gift tax records, all others (income, self employment and payroll) would be "necessary to calculate social security benefits"
It makes no sense to destroy the very records they require to be reported under the new tax:...
`SEC. 903. WAGES TO BE REPORTED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
`(a) IN GENERAL- Employers shall submit such information to the Social Security Administration as is required by the Social Security Administration to calculate social security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act, including wages paid, in a form prescribed by the Secretary. A copy of the employer submission to the Social Security Administration relating to each employee shall be provided to each employee by the employer.
`(b) WAGES- For purposes of this section, the term `wages' means all cash remuneration for employment (including tips to an employee by third parties provided that the employer or employee maintains records documenting such tips) including self-employment income; except that such term shall not include--
`(1) any insurance benefits received (including death benefits);
`(2) pension or annuity benefits received;
`(3) tips received by an employee over $5,000 per year; and
`(4) benefits received under a government entitlement program (including social security benefits and unemployment compensation benefits).
`(c) SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME- For purposes of subsection (b), the term `self-employment income' means gross payments received for taxable property or services minus the sum of--
`(1) gross payments made for taxable property or services (without regard to whether tax was paid pursuant to section 101 on such taxable property or services), and
`(2) wages paid by the self-employed person to employees of the self-employed person.
They claim it's to "calculate benefits", but it's also to "determine" the sales "gross payment" tax rate:
......"The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration.
The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income)" ........
The hospital insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration.
The hospital insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 2.9 percent tax on the Medicare wage base (including self-employment income......
Of course the only way they'd know what the sales "gross payment" tax rate would have to be to extract 15.3% of the SS and Medicare "wage base" is to have you or someone report your income to them....
Using thier theory of saving more and spending less to reduce your tax burden and the known way of computing the tax rate "necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised ".....you don't have to be Einstein to know what that would do to the tax rate and who would be hurt most by it.
Just more lies from the liarmeister.
Once again he completely misstates what is both said and printed. The wording is:
"(f) FINDINGS RELATING TO REPEAL OF PRESENT FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM- Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed and that the repealing amendment should prohibit Federal taxation of incomes, wages, estates, and gifts."
While Looey doesn't realize it the wording in the bill IS legislative language and a tax revenue bill may not also be a Constitutional amendment repeal bill but must be written to be a statute (that means a law, Looey) when passed. AS anyone can see, the bill indeed clearly calls for the repeal of the 16th with the wording I mentioned to prohibit income, etc. taxes.
Nor have I ever said the repeal isn't "necessary" (that's Looey merely trying to put words in my mouth again - one of his favorite techniques). What I HAVE said is that the income tax and the IRS are eliminated by the bill and repeat is not needed to rid us of those at once. That in no way means they cannot return eventually (if the Dems control enough politically) if they are not made unconstitutional by wording such as called for by the FairTax bill.
I have also pointed out that nothing in our laws right now prevents both an income tax and a sales tax at the same time - NOTHING - but that passing one of the NRST bills will prevent that from happening for a sufficient time to allow repeal and ratification of the repeal of the 16th. After that is done, it would take another Constitutional amendment (and then some) to bring back the income tax.
Passing the NRST bill indeed does just the opposite of the Looey claim in that it in no way allows "... keeping the law that allows for the taking of your income intact... " since it defunds and eliminates the IRS (as the passages titled APPROPRIATIONS and RECORDS posted by Looey actually state - just ignore his boldfacing and read what the passages actually say) and requires the income tax records to be destroyed. The part he boldfaces merely refers to transferring the wage tax information to the SSA for purposes required by present S/S law. Only payroll wage records are retained and not income records as Looey claims - those are destroyed as required in the bill. It certainly does nothing to retain any part of the IRS.
Looey knows all of the things I have just said very well but has consistently (and still is) more than happy to lie about them in hopes of fooling someone. He loves to pretend that wages and income are the same thing.
As you'll see in the last few paragraphs of his reply, he babbles unintelligbly about the SSA, Medicare and "gross payments" (which is specifically defined in the bill and is not at all as Looey attempt to present it), mixing apples and peanuts as ho goes along (claiming they are all fruit). In fact the 15.3% figure he uses has nothing to do with the sales tax but is based upon wages (again as required by the current S/S law)
Looey also does not understand that revenue neutral does not mean the same amount of money, so his very last paragraph make no sense at all. The FairTax will not only put more takehome pay in people's pockets by 30% or more, it will also lower prices and government spending by the same mechanism that causes it to lower consumer prices.
Looey, it would be a lot more fun if you'd find some new lies. These you're still using after 20 or 30 times of getting refuted really are no challenge at all. You can be sure, though, that as long as you continue these lies you will continue to be refuted. You seem to think that repeating the lies will somehow make them come true. It won't.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
And it would be fair to point out that with the FairTax table, it assumes ALL income is spent for taxable items and nothing is saved or invested (something not too likely to be true even on the low end of the scale).
I did specifically label that column, Consumption, you know. ;) But thanks for pointing it out in case there are lurkers who might not have caught the distinction.
I should also mention, in case some may not understand, that Marginal Tax Rate means the rate of tax on the next dollar earned/spent. The marginal rate under the flat tax for incomes under the deduction amount (assumption of $35,000 in the example) is still 15.3%, due to SSA/Medicare taxes. The marginal rate under the NRST is always 23% (or whatever the current NRST rate is), though as can be plainly seen, the effective rate is always lower.
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!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |