[johnwk]

Representative John Linder has reintroduced H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax, in the House of Representatives and there are 27 co-sponsors supporting this proposal which is designed to subjugate, as income taxation now does, our Constitution’s fair share formula stated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 which commands the tax described in H.R. 25 “shall be apportioned among the several states”.




State`s population

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

Total U.S. Population

Keep in mind our socialist friends in American and the friends of big government worked very hard in the early 1900’s to have a constitutional amendment adopted to remove the requirement of apportioning a specific wealth based tax among the states involving “taxes on incomes“ [see the 16th Amendment]..

Now they are back and want to tax property, real and personal [proposed to be taxed by H.R. 25] without apportionment among the states and without regard to any census or enumeration as required by our Constitution, and thereby close the circle of a socialist and big government friendly taxing structure which reaches not only “property“, real and personal, but keeps alive Congress‘s power to also tax “incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”

Here is a list of those who are working to further erode federalism and subjugate the rule of apportionment which our founding fathers intended to apply to wealth based taxes:

Rep. John Linder [R-GA]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL]
Rep. Dan Boren [D-OK]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R-TX]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R-FL]
Rep. John Culberson [R-TX]
Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA]
Rep. Kay Granger [R-TX]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX]
Rep. Charles Norwood [R-GA]
Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Tom Price [R-GA]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL]
Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. Donald Young [R-AK]


For a great article on taxation in America see: Taxation and Representation which concludes:

Any long-term strategy for relieving the American people of the inquisitorial, inefficient income tax must begin with a withdrawal of the United States from the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although the WTO was sold to the American public as a step toward international tax reduction (by cutting tariff revenues), the WTO and previous GATT agreements merely proposed to transfer tax collecting from the U.S. Customs Department to the IRS. To overturn the income tax will require that the American people demand that Congress abolish this tax and replace that remnant of Marxism with the system which America's Founders designed.

Funny that Rep. John Linder is the mouthpiece on Capitol Hill for the internationalist one world crowd who are behind the NAFTA, WTO, GATT, CAFTA, etc.

The only tax reform freedom loving people need is to have the following words added to their Constitution, bringing us back to our founding father’s original tax plan which was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than have Congress control the people:

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

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

[chadralnc]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Representative John Linder has reintroduced H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax, in the House of Representatives and there are 27 co-sponsors supporting this proposal which is designed to subjugate, as income taxation now does, our Constitution’s fair share formula stated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 which commands the tax described in H.R. 25 “shall be apportioned among the several states”.

I don’t think you’ve read the FairTax Book or visited the website (www.fairtax.org).

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Keep in mind our socialist friends in American and the friends of big government worked very hard in the early 1900’s to have a constitutional amendment adopted to remove the requirement of apportioning a specific wealth based tax among the states involving “taxes on incomes“ [see the 16th Amendment]..

This much is correct. Self-serving politicians did an end run around the Constitution and the people in 1913, taking power for themselves the Constitution denied them.

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Now they are back and want to tax property, real and personal [proposed to be taxed by H.R. 25] without apportionment among the states and without regard to any census or enumeration as required by our Constitution, and thereby close the circle of a socialist and big government friendly taxing structure which reaches not only “property“, real and personal, but keeps alive Congress‘s power to also tax “incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”

The FairTax is a federal tax on retail consumption. That’s all. Spending. We agree: income should not be taxed directly, and the FairTax doesn't touch anyone's income. Property taxes are a local issue, and the FairTax doesn't address it. See your local and state representatives.

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Here is a list of those who are working to further erode federalism and subjugate the rule of apportionment which our founding fathers intended to apply to wealth based taxes:

Correction: this is a list of congressmen who co-sponsor the FairTax Act of 2007. There are now 33 cosponsors. Here's the link, to save space:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Originally Posted by johnwk 

For a great article on taxation in America see: Taxation and Representation

To overturn the income tax will require that the American people demand that Congress abolish this tax and replace that remnant of Marxism with the system which America's Founders designed.

That's what the FairTax wants to accomplish; replace, or abolish, the entire tax code with one that is consistent with Constitutional principles. In the Federalist Paper #21, Alexander Hamilton writes about "the signal advantage of a consumption tax. The FairTax is a modified consumption tax. I'm sure the Founders would approve.

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Funny that Rep. John Linder is the mouthpiece on Capitol Hill for the internationalist one world crowd who are behind the NAFTA, WTO, GATT, CAFTA, etc.

How does that relate to the way we levy federal taxes to fund our government?

Originally Posted by johnwk 

The only tax reform freedom loving people need is to have the following words added to their Constitution, bringing us back to our founding father’s original tax plan which was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than have Congress control the people:

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

In the 109th Congress, two bills were introduced to start the repeal process for the 16th amendment; HJR 14 (a "hard" repeal) and 16 (a "soft" repeal) were co-sponsored by several congressmen. This legislation will be introduced again this Congress.


Regards,

Chad Sargent
FairTax Volunteer
Raleigh, NC

[torsoboy]

From the 5 minutes of research I did, it sounds pretty good to me.

[chadralnc]

That's good to see. On the FairTax site there is a section called "What can I do?'

Grassroots pressure is the only way to get the FairTax Act passed. Your petition signature will help our effort.

Please continue your research and tell others what you found!

Chad

[macintologist]

I support FairTax. The only big spending I do is tuition but Fairtax counts that as an investment So other than that, I'd be getting the poverty-level spending check every month.

[aaroncd]

I also support the FairTax, obviously since I do a podcast on it. I have yet to find any other serious detractions from it. Is it perfect? No. Is it orders of magnitude better than the insane system we currently have in place? Yes. So lets do something about it everyone, letting your representatives know you care counts for a lot.

Aaron Drake

FairTax Podcast
The Fairtax Podcast

Celtic Music News Podcast
Celtic Music News Podcast - Your home for Celtic Music online!

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by chadralnc 

I don’t think you’ve read the FairTax Book or visited the website

Now why would I want to read the fairy tale version of H.R. 25 when I have studied THE ACTUAL TEXT

Originally Posted by johnwk

Keep in mind our socialist friends in American and the friends of big government worked very hard in the early 1900’s to have a constitutional amendment adopted to remove the requirement of apportioning a specific wealth based tax among the states involving “taxes on incomes“ [see the 16th Amendment]

Originally Posted by chadralnc 

This much is correct. Self-serving politicians did an end run around the Constitution and the people in 1913, taking power for themselves the Constitution denied them.

Well, H.R. 25 proposes to calculate a tax from property, real and personal, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, and would violate the very reason for which the rule of apportionment was put into our Constitution.

H.R. 25 is proposed to be a tax laid among the states and is intended to be the primary tax used to meet Congress’s expenditures.

Under the Articles of Confederation the national treasury was filled by a general tax among the states calculated from the value of property, real and personal just as is proposed under H.R.25 ___ a wealth based tax! During the framing of our existing Constitution this became a bone of contention. Delegates from States with superior wealth objected to having to carry the federal tax burden and argued wealth was not a proper object for the federal government to use in laying a tax among the states to fill the national treasury.

Eventually, a compromise was reached [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3] “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” the intention being, contrary to the popular myth that it made Blacks 3/5 of a person, was an agreed upon rule determining each states voting strength in Congress Assembled, and another rule by which the people of the states may be called upon to fill the national treasury in a general tax, and especially if the general tax among the states was based upon wealth [property, real and personal].

Socialists and the friends of big government are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a tax which reaches income and property, they run and hide from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave them their one man one vote. H.R. 25, like income taxation now does, seeks to subjugate the rule of apportionment!

In addition to having power to calculate a tax from “income” “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, a taxing power of Congress which H.R.25 does not repeal, the architects of H.R. 25 are attempting to extend Congress’s reach and go after property, real and personal, and calculate a tax from the value of property “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, and thereby close the circle of an iron fisted socialist taxing system which not only reaches “income” but property___ real and personal!

Originally Posted by chadralnc 

The FairTax is a federal tax on retail consumption. That’s all. Spending. We agree: income should not be taxed directly, and the FairTax doesn't touch anyone's income. Property taxes are a local issue, and the FairTax doesn't address it. See your local and state representatives.

H.R.25 is a tax which reaches property, real and personal, and as such, is considered to be a direct tax and requiring apportionment.

SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.

`(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.

b.

Rate-
`(1) FOR 2005- In the calendar year 2005, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable propertyor service.

`SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX.

`(a) LIABILITY FOR COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF THE TAX- Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).

`(f) BARTER TRANSACTIONS- If gross payment for taxable property or services is made in other than money, then the person responsible for collecting and remitting the tax shall remit the tax to the sales tax administering authority in money as if gross payment had been made in money at the tax inclusive fair market value of the taxable property or services purchased.

Who would have thought that a power to lay and collect taxes on incomes would have led to the tyrannical tax code we now live under and has sadly made the American taxpayer a mere object of abuse and subservient to hired public servants? I shudder to think of the massive exposure which a federal tax on property, real and personal, would create for every American taxpayer ensnarled by the tentacles of the tax described in H.R. 25, which would be in addition to our present misery, “income taxation” which H.R. 25 conveniently does not remove from Congress’s taxing powers.

Heck, under H.R. 25 even the property which a teenage girl has in her labor when she baby sits is taxed as “taxable property“ and will be subject to any rules and regulations which Congress may impose under the guise of taxation!

Originally Posted by johnwk

For a great article on taxation in America see: Taxation and Representation

To overturn the income tax will require that the American people demand that Congress abolish this tax and replace that remnant of Marxism with the system which America's Founders designed.

Originally Posted by chadralnc 

That's what the FairTax wants to accomplish; replace, or abolish, the entire tax code with one that is consistent with Constitutional principles. In the Federalist Paper #21, Alexander Hamilton writes about "the signal advantage of a consumption tax. The FairTax is a modified consumption tax. I'm sure the Founders would approve.

H.R. 25 is nothing like the founder’s intended method of taxing consumption, and they would never have agreed to the tax described in H.R. 25.

Our founder’s method of taxing consumption imposes a self regulating feature allowing the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected for taxation! As Hamilton states with reference to a tax on articles of consumption, they:

may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided bya judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions__ 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 can not be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue__

Hamilton then goes on to explain the self regulating feature in this way:

"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.

The beauty of limiting Congress’ power to taxing specifically chosen articles, and in particularly luxury is this: if Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation’s labor force impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury, just as Hamilton explains above___ it prevents an extension of the revenue! In clear and understandable language, our founder’s method allows the market place to determine the limit of tax, and, a free market is something socialists and the friends of big government hate with a passion. For a constitutional method of taxing “consumption” and confirmation of Hamilton’s thinking see: CLICK HERE and then click on 4. “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.5835.ENR]”, after which you may scroll down to TITLE XI--REVENUE PROVISIONS, and then click on PART III--TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS:

SEC. 11221. TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS.

`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.

`SEC. 4002. BOATS.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.

`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.

`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.

`SEC. 4007. FURS.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of the following articles a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000

Of course the 10 percent tax was too high and repealed the following year, see:
the 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax

Had the tax only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance or outcry and would have helped to fill the national treasury. But, the bottom line is, when Congress is forced to tax each specific article, as our founding fathers intended, the market place determines the limit of taxation on each article chosen..a very important check upon Congress!

Originally Posted by chadralnc 

In the 109th Congress, two bills were introduced to start the repeal process for the 16th amendment; HJR 14 (a "hard" repeal) and 16 (a "soft" repeal) were co-sponsored by several congressmen. This legislation will be introduced again this Congress.

The only thing which H.R. 25 says about the 16th Amendment is that it “should be repealed” just like Congress says the budget “should be balanced”.

You have been coned into supporting a big government friendly, socialist friendly tax scheme!

The only tax reform freedom loving people need is to have the following words added to their Constitution, bringing us back to our founding father’s original tax plan which was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than have Congress control the people:

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

JWK

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson

[macintologist]

Ok, both of you need to stop the lame appeal to authority ie. using the founding fathers to justify your point. It doesn't work and we're living in a different time, so it's completely irrelevant.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Ok, both of you need to stop the lame appeal to authority ie. using the founding fathers to justify your point. It doesn't work and we're living in a different time, so it's completely irrelevant.

Lame appeal? Interesting! Are you suggesting that Congress ought to be free to impose taxes and any other legislation without an adherence to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted? Tell us, what form of government do you support? I know in our system of government the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to carry out the legislative intent of our Constitution as it was contemplated by those who framed and ratified it. Your “appeal” to our “living in a different time” does not negate the taxing provisions of our Constitution and Congress’ duty to adhere to those provisions.

In sum, what is irrelevant is your contribution to this thread.


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.



"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




JWK

[macintologist]

Just read what the Constitution says, and forget all the extraneous quotes by men who lived in a completely different time.

[ghporter]

I don't see this as a particularly fair thing at all. Apportioning the cost of the nation by population ignores the fact that there are several million rather poor people living in several rather poor states-apportioning by INCOME makes more sense. That would be something like finding the proportion of overall U.S. income for a particular area and using that to determine how much that area should contribute. In fact, it would be MUCH fairer if it were done on an individual basis rather than by state, but that would mean that Congress couldn't farm out the work to the states.

Our current tax situation is in serious need of change, but this works out to a flat tax AMOUNT on everyone-rich or poor-and not at all a fair distribution of the burden.

[Eug]

Every time I see this thread title I think of QuickTime H.264.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Just read what the Constitution says, and forget all the extraneous quotes by men who lived in a completely different time.

Maybe you should take your argument up with the SCOTUS which often references the words of our founding fathers as recorded in the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1787 as recorded by Madison; The Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers; and, in addition, Elliots Debates, which records the actual ratification proceedings of several states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state ratification.

As a matter of fact, the SCOTUS referenced the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to document the legislative intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)]

The purpose quoting the framers and ratifiers it to document the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted and enforce those intentions beliefs, which, as I have previously stated, is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law to be followed.

In the recent Kelo decision the SCOTUS did not abide by this rule and gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, a meaning never before contemplated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution, and, a meaning which defies the legislative intent for which the power to take property was granted to the united states and various state governments.
But we only know this by studying the historical record! And, although the Kelo case stands, we do know that the SCOTUS has engaged in judicial tyranny, but only because we can documentation the intentions and beliefs under which our constitutions, state and federal, were adopted.

Heck, even the Congress of the United States is aware of this rule even though they no longer follow it:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Bottom line: our federal government is America’s most formidable domestic enemy, and is accomplishing with their fountain pens that which terrorists would attempt to do with terrorists acts____ suspend our written constitutions.


JWK

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I don't see this as a particularly fair thing at all. Apportioning the cost of the nation by population ignores the fact that there are several million rather poor people living in several rather poor states-apportioning by INCOME makes more sense.

Well, its part of our Constitution and only an amendment can change it. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted, the intention being, that those states contributing the lion’s share of the federal tax burden would be compensated with a vote in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e. representation with proportional obligation, something which socialists and the friends of big government hate with a passion.

I get the feeling you would prefer something to the effect : “from each state according to its ability”. Is that what you advocate?

Tell me, if we followed your idea, to remove the tax burden from the poor people you mention, would you have a problem with also removing from them their vote?

JWK

[macintologist]

See that's the problem with you Constitution jackers. You don't really care a bit for freedom and fairness, instead all that matters to you is procedure.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

See that's the problem with you Constitution jackers. You don't really care a bit for freedom and fairness, instead all that matters to you is procedure.

People who support our constitutional system don’t care about freedom and fairness? Did you learn all that from your local tea leaf reader?

JWK

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

People who support our constitutional system don’t care about freedom and fairness? Did you learn all that from your local tea leaf reader?

JWK

You should read Scalia's dissent to Lawrence v Texas. He doesn't give a crap for freedom, he's concerned about the method by which freedom was obtained.

I'll tell you straight, if it means more freedom, I couldn't give two hoots about what some piece of paper says on how we should be running the country.

Freedom = good. Everything else can come second, including the Constitution.

[G Barnett]

His arguments seem to me to be nothing but a severe case of reductio ad absurdum, i.e., taking the worst possible interpretation of how it would be implemented and automatically assuming that it will be implemented in that fashion.

He's arguing against a worst-case scenario that does not at all seem inevitable.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Just read what the Constitution says, and forget all the extraneous quotes by men who lived in a completely different time.

Really?

So, where do we draw the chronological line on wisdom?

1776? 1789? 1863? 1920? 1939? 1963? 1973?

All dates with important wisdom cited to this day. All basis for law in this country.

T

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I'll tell you straight, if it means more freedom, I couldn't give two hoots about what some piece of paper says on how we should be running the country.

Freedom = good. Everything else can come second, including the Constitution.

Well then, why would you support H.R. 25? In addition to having power to calculate a tax from “income” “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, a taxing power of Congress which H.R.25 does not repeal, the architects of H.R. 25 are attempting to extend Congress’s reach and go after property, real and personal, and calculate a tax from the value of property “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, and thereby close the circle of an iron fisted socialist taxing system which not only reaches “income” but property___ real and personal!

JWK

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

His arguments seem to me to be nothing but a severe case of reductio ad absurdum, i.e., taking the worst possible interpretation of how it would be implemented and automatically assuming that it will be implemented in that fashion.

He's arguing against a worst-case scenario that does not at all seem inevitable.

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson



JWK

[smacintush]

I haven't read this bill, I don't have to. Our tax system is so bizarre and complicated and unfair that it is sickening and Congress isn't going to fix it. Especially a Dem congress who wouldn't know a fair tax if they saw one.

Show me a bill that scraps and rewrites the tax code then we'll talk.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson



JWK

And that addresses my comment on your arguments, how exactly again? Prove to me that you're not looking at the most extreme intepretation and arguing against a straw man built on that. From this perspective, that's all you're doing.

Also, as some others have stated, there have been introduced alongside this separate bills to repeal the current tax code, a practice I'm quite in favor of. Separate bills for separate things. I'm rather annoyed with all the riders, clauses and other current obfuscatory practices out there.

Now, stop tossing out quotes and start arguing for yourself, ok?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

And that addresses my comment on your arguments, how exactly again? Prove to me that you're not looking at the most extreme intepretation and arguing against a straw man built on that. From this perspective, that's all you're doing.

Prove to me that some of the arguments I already presented are “extreme” interpretations and arguing against a straw man built on that.

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Also, as some others have stated, there have been introduced alongside this separate bills to repeal the current tax code, a practice I'm quite in favor of. Separate bills for separate things. I'm rather annoyed with all the riders, clauses and other current obfuscatory practices out there.

H.R.25 merely says the 16th Amendment “should be repealed”, just like Congress tells us a thousand times a year the budget ‘should be balanced. I guess you just know in your little heart that if H.R. 25 were adopted and enforced, Congress, especially our current socialist Congress, would have the 16th Amendment repealed and never again attempt to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages, tips, and other “income”.

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Now, stop tossing out quotes and start arguing for yourself, ok?

Oh, but I have, you just have not responded to some of my above arguments.

H.R. 25 would violate the very intention for which the rule of apportionment was adopted and is therefore unconstitutional.

H.R. 25 violates the founder’s intended method of taxing consumption, and does not contain the self regulating features of the founder’s method which essentially allows the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected for taxation___ a very important self regulating feature not present in H.R. 25!


Of course, the above does not even take into account that the proposed family consumption entitlement under H.R. 25 would create a very dangerous and dependent voting constituency which would dwarf the number who now receive a monthly Social Security check.

Keep in mind the Nancy Pelosy/Ted socialist Kennedy/Reid crowd has already bribed voters with an increase in the minimum wage. But unlike the number of voters the minimum wage would actually affect, which is relatively small, the family consumption allowance bribery check would significantly affect the majority of voters in America and make the majority of voters in America dependent upon a monthly government subsistence check. If one believes Social Security has become a troublesome and financially crushing entitlement, just think of the consequences which a monthly entitlement geared to every household in America would bring, and how it would help to keep our socialists in Congress.

H.R. 25 is the epitome of a massive redistribution program projected to cost approximately $600 BILLION a year making Hillary Health Care look like chicken feed and would take from hard working Americans and redistribute that money to slugs, leeches and thieves in our society who do not contribute into our federal treasury.

Keep in mind that thieves who pay a tax with stolen money and people already on the public dole, such as our beloved welfare moms, who would pay a tax using a government welfare check is not the same as a hard working American paying a tax from an earned paycheck , and thus, contributing into the federal treasury.

NEWSFLASH!

The ACLU filed a class action suit in federal court today on behalf of five hundred inmates in the Skunks Hollow County Jail who are demanding they receive the monthly family consumption allowance check under H.R. 25 to offset the 23 percent tax they pay on articles purchased at their jailhouse commissary, and pay on other articles purchased through the mail.

A spokesman for the ACLU claimed the family consumption allowance being excluded to inmates under a provision of H.R. 25, simply because they are in jail, is a violation of equal protection of the law.

The Judge, Lefty Leftotwit, told the Attorney General who is defending the exclusion of the allowance to inmates, that he is inclined to rule in favor of the inmates and sees no reason why inmates should be subject to different tax law simply because they are inmates. The Constitution requires the uniformity of such taxes and until the Constitution is amended, he stated, his hands are bound by the Constitution and it appears each inmate is entitled to the monthly allowance check.

Judge Leftotwit gave the Attorney General two weeks to prepare a brief as to why federal tax law should apply differently in this case.

Rumors were afloat that a lawyer named Boortz was being contacted by the Attorney General to assist in the case.

Regards,

JWK

[G Barnett]

That little Newsflash of yours right there is all the proof needed of the extreme interpretation and strawman arguments you've been using.

Thanks much!

[macintologist]

Hey Johnwk, why shouldn't inmates be getting their monthly check allocated to them?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Hey Johnwk, why shouldn't inmates be getting their monthly check allocated to them?

I don't know, but Judge Lefty Leftotwit and the ACLU think they should get the family conusmption allowance doled out under H.R. 25!

JWK

[urgener]

Of course HR25, John Linder's bill in congress (the FairTax), is fair. Definition of "Fair": free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; showing lack of favoritism
What could be more fair than treating everyone the same. Under the FairTax.org plan, everyone is taxed exactly the same and receives the same refund (prebate). Even as fair as this plan is, the poor will end up paying NOTHING in taxes. Bottom line: This plan is fair for everyone, but even MORE fair to the poor.

<BTW> It's past 55 co-sponsors right now. MAYBE it'll happen with the 2008 elections. The sooner the better, I'd say! Wish it had happened decades ago.

[urgener]

Quote: The only thing which H.R. 25 says about the 16th Amendment is that it “should be repealed” just like Congress says the budget “should be balanced”.

Well... maybe so. Rest assured before it's brought to vote, though, it'll have a "sunset" clause saying everything will revert back to the old system (what we've got now) if Ammendment 16 is NOT repealed within 5 years. There's a snowball's chance we MIGHT have 5 years of BOTH systems (all three if you count the Alternative Minimum Wage system). NOBODY that supports the FairTax.org plan will agree to having it ALONG WITH the current system. Better we let the current system continue to mutate into a bigger monster, than to ADD a national slaes tax to it.
Right now the current system wastes $265,000,000 to $300,000,000 in overhead compliance costs. This ammounts to $900 per legal man woman and child in the country. It's a miracle our economy can continue dragging behind it such inefficiency, like a $900 per person anchor.
"But it can't possible happen", you might say. I answer back: What's the alternative, in case you're right? Sell out to China?

The 23/30 percent number is a best guess. It can be tweaked up or down if we find it's not totally revenue neutral (though I'm not sure how often). With all the benefits the economic professors say it'll bring, I'd say let's start with OVERfunding the fed gov, and nibble down the national debt.

"But gross salaries will come down." you say? FairTax.org says gross salaries (wages might even go UP (which I admit I don't understand). If gross salaries HAVE to come down in order to prevent prices (expenses) from rising, bring it on! My salary will be the first to drop, since I'm civil service.

There's no way prices will rise. Old timers on fixed income won't allow it. If prices remain constant, and take home pay remains constant, the only change anyone will notice is that April 15 becomes just another spring day. See FairTax.org. Google HR25 John Linder. Get smart.

[urgener]

Quote: H.R. 25 is the epitome of a massive redistribution program projected to cost approximately $600 BILLION a year making Hillary Health Care look like chicken feed and would take from hard working Americans and redistribute that money to slugs, leeches and thieves in our society who do not contribute into our federal treasury.

Huh? Where'd that come from?

Since 45 states already have sales tax systems in place, the FairTax will have minimal "collection" costs. States will be paid a small percentage to forward the national sales tax to the fed gov. A few of the 144,000 IRS employees might take jobs with the states. The rest will HOPEFULLY go to medical school.

"Oh, so instead of one IRS, we'll have 51 IRSes!" you might say. Bull! Show me one person that will have to "deal with" more than his/her state and possible the federal "overseeing" agency (US Treasurey department?). I count 2 IRS-type agencies, for any one person. Big deal.

[macintologist]

Does anyone here have to deal with the sales tax administrators already? I dont think so.

We might see more intervention in areas like Ebay and such. But that's nothing compared to the IRS thugs.