[johnwk]

Just thought you guys might be interested in a new ongoing poll concerning tax reform

Flat, H.R. 25., current, or Constitution`s original tax plan?

At present the results are:

Current system______________________0

Forbes flat tax______________________12

H.R. 25 [asserted ``FairTax``]_________13

Constitution`s original tax plan_________11

Other [explain]_______________________2


One thing seems certain____ people want a change!

Regards,

JWK

[BRussell]

I think it would be cool if they cut taxes and raised spending. Can I vote for that?

[spacefreak]

I like Forbes' flat tax. I'd like to read critical analysis of it other than what I've seen so far, which has amounted to people whining about Forbe wealth - ala "Forbes will keep more of his money, so this plan sucks".

As for tax cuts, how about them Treasury receipts...

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...;from=business

WASHINGTON (Reuters), SEP 18 2006 - Record high U.S. corporate tax receipts in the third quarter signal stronger-than-expected corporate profits for the period and the likelihood of a smaller budget deficit than forecast for 2006 and possibly 2007, analysts said on Monday.

Corporate tax receipts reached $71.8 billion in the third quarter, making Friday's gross receipts of $85.8 billion the largest in a single day in history, the Treasury Department said on Monday.

Tax receipts for the year are running 11.7 percent higher than last year, Treasury Undersecretary Randal Quarles said in a statement. Even so, analysts expected corporate tax receipts for the quarter to be in line with or lower than the $63 billion collected in September 2005 because of a one-time bump from a temporary repatriation of foreign earnings last year.

"In fact, we seem to have beat it by something on the order of 10 percent," said Lou Crandall, chief economist with Wrightson-ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey.

"That means, significantly larger revenues in general, and it's something that carries forward to a certain extent to next quarter," he added.

A strong quarter for businesses suggests the federal budget deficit for fiscal 2006, which ends September 30, is likely in line with or lower than the $260 billion forecast by the Congressional Budget Office, analysts said. The White House Office of Management and Budget projects a $296 billion budget gap for fiscal 2006.

"You're beating the OMB numbers -- a slam dunk," said Ed McKelvey, senior economist at Goldman Sachs. "And the CBO number looks like it's a pretty good guess," he said.

September's strong corporate performance may also signal that despite expectations of subpar economic growth ahead analysts may trim deficit forecasts for next year as well, Crandall said.

"The rally in profits isn't over," he said.

The Congressional Budget Office expects a deficit of $286 billion in fiscal 2007, which begins October 1. Corporate tax receipts from the third quarter may lower expectations for the next fiscal year to between $200 billion and $250 billion, Crandall said.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I like Forbes' flat tax. I'd like to read critical analysis of it other than what I've seen so far, which has amounted to people whining about Forbe wealth - ala "Forbes will keep more of his money, so this plan sucks".

One major problem with the flat tax on “income” is, Congress gets to “legislate” what is and what is not taxable “income”, and those who pony up the largest brown bag money into political campaign war chests get to experience tax free “income”.

Why do you not support the founder’s original tax plan?

JWK

[johnwk]

Some questions for H.R. 25 [alleged fair tax] supporters.

Now why would you support H.R. 25 which would create a new tax in America, a 23 percent tax calculated from the value of property within each of the various states, real and personal, and maintain Congress` power to also calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other ``income``?

In addition, H.R. 25 would create a massive and very dangerous voting constituency under its family consumption entitlement, an entitlement which would make Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed and is estimated to cost approximately $ 600 BILLION a year.

Why do you want to create another voting block, one which would not only be dependent upon a monthly government check___ but would dwarf our nation`s social security recipients already receiving a monthly government check? Bad idea! Very, very bad idea!

We don`t need another voting constituency dependent upon a monthly government check!

Why do you not support a return our Constitution`s original tax plan which can be reactivated by demanding our public servants add the following words to our Constitution?

``The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money``

Supporting a return to the founder`s original tax plan would in fact accomplish the fairy tale version of H.R. 25, and without its undesirable consequences or effects!

Why do you not support the founder`s original tax plan?

You do know that socialists worked very hard to establish an income tax in America and remove the constitutional requirement of apportioning such a tax [a tax calculated from wealth] among the states. Seems to me that same crowd is back and this time they want to establish another tax calculated from wealth [the value of property, real and personal] without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

You do know H.R. 25 proposes to subjugate the rule of apportionment for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury. Our founding fathers agreed that if Congress found it necessary to call upon the states to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states, those states paying the largest share of the burden would likewise exercise a vote in Congress proportionate to their financial contribution.

I know socialists love the one man one vote idea when it comes to deciding how to spend money from the federal treasury, but when it comes to filling the national treasury, they run and hide from the constitutional rule requiring one vote one dollar.


Those who support H.R. 25 seem to also love enforcing the following formula to exercise their vote in Congress when spending federal revenue:


State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s votes in Congress
population of U.S.

But when it comes time to paying the tab, those who support H.R. 25 want to subjugate our Constitution`s fair share formula for filling the national treasury, just like socialists run and hide from the formula:



State`s population

------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

HERE IS A LIST which includes Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution`s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury..


Regards,

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" Justice Story

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

One major problem with the flat tax on “income” is, Congress gets to “legislate” what is and what is not taxable “income”, and those who pony up the largest brown bag money into political campaign war chests get to experience tax free “income”.

Why do you not support the founder’s original tax plan?

JWK

I would support a flat tax system if everything a person or business took in as revenue was taxed at the flat-tax rate. You couldn't get a penny from anywhere without paying a percentage of it to the government. As a citizen I could expect that xx% of every dollar I accrued, through whatever means, would be given to the government to fund the governments functions and the remaining percentage would be all mine. I would want this to apply to corporate entities as well with them paying a fixed percentage of every dollar accrued--on gross revenues, not net revenues--would go to the government.

And I think everything should be legislated as "income"; Although I prefer the term revenue. If you have a job and get paid, get dividends from investments, sell stuff on eBay, get money from a dead relative, get child support or alimony payments, earn some pocket money shoveling the neighbors sidewalks after a snow-storm, it ALL should be income and should be taxed according to the flat-tax percentage. No money should enter a person's possession without that person paying a flat tax on it.

[macintologist]

One thing I oppose is tax-exempt status for sham religious and "non-profit" groups.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by macintologist

One thing I oppose is tax-exempt status for sham religious and "non-profit" groups.

Of course, that means someone has to be put in authority of determining what you believe are real religious and non-profit groups.

Which is by extension endorsing some religions as 'real' and rejecting some as 'sham.'

Now, I don't know about you, but I think there's this thing about Congress making no law regarding the establishment of religion, and determining what is a 'real' religion even if it isn't establishing one religion above all others is still establishing a class of approved religions.

Is that what you really intend?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Of course, that means someone has to be put in authority of determining what you believe are real religious and non-profit groups.

Which is by extension endorsing some religions as 'real' and rejecting some as 'sham.'

Now, I don't know about you, but I think there's this thing about Congress making no law regarding the establishment of religion, and determining what is a 'real' religion even if it isn't establishing one religion above all others is still establishing a class of approved religions.

Is that what you really intend?

If we are going to be taxed, taxes need to be fair and equally applied to everyone. That's why I support FairTax HR 25

[itai195]

My understanding is that the 'FairTax' would cause double taxation on pre-existing savings. If true, no way would I support that.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I would support a flat tax system if everything a person or business took in as revenue was taxed at the flat-tax rate. You couldn't get a penny from anywhere without paying a percentage of it to the government. …No money should enter a person's possession without that person paying a flat tax on it.

Well, almost every business in America would have to close down, especially those who have very high overhead costs and could not deduct those costs to calculate their taxable ’income”.

EXAMPLE

A used car dealer purchases a car for $500. Spends $200 fixing it up. Sells car for $1000 and under your idea would pay a tax on the total $1000 even though $700 is out of his pocket and that does not even take into account other business expenses such as electric, rent, water, etc.

Before I continue keep in mind I do not support any form of income taxation unless that income is from illegal activity.

So, what was the intention of the 16th Amendment___ what was intended to be taxed?

As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law." 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).


Mr. HEFLIN. "An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share." 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909).

And, in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) the SCOTUS gave the characteristics defining “income” as the word is used in the 16th Amendment…the characteristics being “profit” and or “gain”.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy.

So, all money that comes in is not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, but only that portion which represents a “profit” or “gain”.


And, “profits“ or “gains, are calculated by deducting all necessary expenses and outlay from gross receipts …the remaining portion being “profits” and or “gain“.


It should also be noted that The income from a business which is wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to income tax in that case . . .

And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in Court. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”

The point being, even crooks engaged in illegal activities may deduct their outlays and expenses in computing a “profit” which is then taxed. But the way things are today, working people get shafted and are not allowed to deduct their necessary expenses and outlays such as transportation to and from work, the cost of food which fuels their body during working hours, the cost of medical expenses which are essential to health so they may work, nor is there a calculation for working people to deduct the most important outlay they make in pursuit of earning a wage___ eight hours of their lives each day which they invest and make available to their employer, the value of which the employer deducts from gross receipts and not the employee who has made the outlay of labor in pursuit of a wage.

As I said, One major problem with the flat tax on “income” is, Congress gets to “legislate” what is and what is not taxable “income”, and those who pony up the largest brown bag money into political campaign war chests get to experience tax free “income”.



And what did our founding fathers think about taxing a working person’s wage?

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address


Regards,

JWK

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by itai195

My understanding is that the 'FairTax' would cause double taxation on pre-existing savings. If true, no way would I support that.

What are you talking about?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by macintologist

What are you talking about?

If you already have savings that you've paid income tax for, what's to keep the government from making you pay the massive sales tax when you spend those savings? You said in another thread that you have a Roth IRA, this kind of thing is a Roth proponent's worst nightmare. Plus, I don't trust the government to get rid of the federal income tax. Most likely this sales tax would just end up as another additional tax on top of everything else.

Congress should improve the current system rather than starting another one.

[vmarks]

He's saying that if everytime you use a penny, it is taxed, and you're taxed for keeping the penny, that at every step of the way, you get double-taxed.

It's the classic:

"If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidise it."
-- Ronald Reagan.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by macintologist

If we are going to be taxed, taxes need to be fair and equally applied to everyone. That's why I support FairTax HR 25

Funny how all do not pay an equal amount into the federal treasury under H.R. 25. As a matter of fact, the most productive states would pay the lions share of the federal tax burden under H.R. 25.

Our founding fathers provided a fair share formula to correct that injustice:

State`s population

------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


Would you apply the founder’s fair share formula [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3] to H.R. 25 to keep in line with the legislative intent our Constitution’s fair share formula?


Regards,

JWK

[johnwk]

Well, not only does Neal Boortz make things up when talking to his listening audience about H.R 25, but now he has made something up while testifying before a Congressional Committee!

Neal Boortz testified:

Secondly, the FairTax relieves all households of the responsibility for paying sales taxes on the basic necessities of life through a rebate system. Nobody pays federal taxes on the basic necessities of life. This means that The FairTax is truly the only tax reform plan that completely eliminates the responsibility for the payment of any federal taxes whatsoever on the poor. (my emphasis.)

This turns out to be an outright lie! The truth is, all consumers pay the 23 percent tax on the basic necessities of life under H.R.25. The authors of H.R.25 concocted what they call a “family consumption allowance”__ a monthly check which is doled out by folks in government to qualified households who must register with government to receive the allowance. The family consumption entitlement is intended to be earmarked by each consumer to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life.

In essence, the so called fair tax rations tax-free basic necessities of life, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each household. Those who are sickly and have enormous doctor and medical bills, once exceeding the rationing allowance, will in fact pay federal taxes on the necessities of life and not with money from the family consumption entitlement check.

Hey Boortz, why did you give your fairy tale version of H.R. 25 to Congress? It's not nice to make things up Neal, especially to a Congressional Committee!

Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Regards,

JWK

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Well, not only does Neal Boortz make things up when talking to his listening audience about H.R 25, but now he has made something up while testifying before a Congressional Committee!

Neal Boortz testified:



This turns out to be an outright lie! The truth is, all consumers pay the 23 percent tax on the basic necessities of life under H.R.25. The authors of H.R.25 concocted what they call a “family consumption allowance”__ a monthly check which is doled out by folks in government to qualified households who must register with government to receive the allowance. The family consumption entitlement is intended to be earmarked by each consumer to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life.

In essence, the so called fair tax rations tax-free basic necessities of life, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each household. Those who are sickly and have enormous doctor and medical bills, once exceeding the rationing allowance, will in fact pay federal taxes on the necessities of life and not with money from the family consumption entitlement check.

Hey Boortz, why did you give your fairy tale version of H.R. 25 to Congress? It's not nice to make things up Neal, especially to a Congressional Committee!

Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Regards,

JWK

As far as I know, Neal doesn't read these pages.

If you really want his attention, email him, phone his show, or send him a letter.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by vmarks

phone his show.

I sincerely hopes he does fairly regularly. He would probably find it most satisfying.