Arthur Laffer’s flat tax: its pitfalls and oppressive nature! [Archive] - Debate Policy

johnwk

11-25-2010, 08:12 PM

There are a number of irrefutable problems with a federal tax which would tax everyone on their “income” by calculating the share using a fixed percentage.

1.

The first problem encountered is a working definition of “ taxable income”. The current definition of “taxable income” is both arbitrary and capriciously invented from day to day by those who hold political power.

2.

A tax calculated from “income” ___ which I imagine would include earnings realized by our productive members of society ___ is a tax under which government force is intentionally used in a fashion which forcefully penalizes and punishes our productive members of society for their productivity while it rewards the unproductive members of society by allowing them to escape from shouldering an equal burden in supporting the functions of our federal government.

3.

An income tax imposed as a general tax among the States violates the Great Compromise made during the framing of our Constitution which commanded representation in Congress, but only with proportional obligation!.

The delinquency in enforcing this rule has encouraged members of Congress to use their vote to engage in reckless spending and borrowing, knowing full well they will not have to return home with a bill for their constituents to pay when spending exceeds revenue raised, in order to balance the budget.

In a nutshell, if Congress did not raise sufficient revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge, nor from internal “excise” taxes imposed upon “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, preferable articles of luxury, and found it necessary to borrow to meet its expenses, the deficit so created was to be extinguished using a general tax among the States that observed the rule of apportionment which predetermined each State’s share of a total sum being raised based each state’s population size.

This tax boils down to an equal per capita tax if the tax were laid directly upon the people! For example, if the tax were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were distributed evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, we must remember New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when creating a deficit, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula and commands representation with proportional obligation!

Under a “flat income tax” the people of those states who would be contributing the lion’s share of the tax would not be receiving their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their State’s contribution.

Socialists, “progressives”, 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 general tax among the states, as would be the case under the proposed “flat income tax”, they are relieved 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.

Our founding father’s fair share formula for both representation and taxation are as follows:

State`s Population
_______________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.

State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population

For the historical documentation concerning the rule of apportionment being applied to extinguish a deficit CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf).

Bottom line is, a “flat income tax“, if adopted, would not only continue to punish our nation’s productive citizens while relieving the unproductive from an equal burden in filling the national treasury, but it would continue to encourage big spenders in Congress who are relieved from our founder’s rule of representation with a proportional obligation.

The question is, what would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2010 federal deficit? I kinda think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties all over the country and our irresponsible big spenders in Congress would REAP THE REWARDS (http://www.1776mag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/tar-and-feather1.jpg) of their tyrannical and big spending practices.

JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil 3 Elliot’s, 243 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink), “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink)

fj1200

11-25-2010, 08:43 PM

The question is, what would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2010 federal deficit?

I think NY is a donor state when it comes to taxes paid vs. received.

But your post seems to be a big pile of WTF.

DragonStryk72

11-25-2010, 08:47 PM

johnwk

11-25-2010, 08:59 PM

Basically, he's saying the flat tax is bad. Actually, I would agree with his overall point, but then I'm a Fair Tax supporter, so that's not particularly shocking.

The income tax itself, I feel, is punishing success, and the progressive income tax is even worse, punishing success, while rewarding those who do only just enough to not get ahead.

And why would you support the “fair tax” over our Constitution‘s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), when the “fair tax” like the flat income tax denies the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share into the federal treasury representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution?

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

fj1200

11-25-2010, 09:00 PM

DragonStryk72

11-25-2010, 09:11 PM

And why would you support the “fair tax” over our Constitution‘s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), when the “fair tax” like the flat income tax denies the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share into the federal treasury representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution?

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

Actually, the fair tax is a purely consumption-based tax that allows me the choice of how much I am contributing, by either simply saving my money, or by buying used goods where I can. Since it is based on consumption instead of income, higher population states, such as New York or California would pay in more.

And how would we rate contribution? Almost every state contributes in a variety of ways. Yeah, sure when there were only 13 states with no internet businesses, it was pretty easy to tally that one up. Nowadays, it isn't practical.

DragonStryk72

11-25-2010, 09:14 PM

Maybe but you can make the same argument for almost any tax. Certainly the nightmare we have now but even the Fair Tax. If you are in a higher cost of living state or city then you'd pay a higher burden I would think.

I think the reason WHY he's saying the flat tax is bad is specious.

Apparently, he's leaning toward going back to the original tax system the US used, back when we were 13 states, with the federal government only being called into session sporadically, as opposed to a continuously operating federal.

Actually, the fair tax wouldn't change the price of goods, cause you're already paying the taxes on the goods now, it's just broken up between the numerous stages of Wal-Mart or other retailers getting the item onto the shelf. You would just keep your full paycheck to use as you see fit.

Joe Steel

11-25-2010, 09:23 PM

Joe Steel

11-25-2010, 09:32 PM

The income tax itself, I feel, is punishing success, and the progressive income tax is even worse, punishing success, while rewarding those who do only just enough to not get ahead.

You're welcome to your opinions but they're silly. Taxes aren't punishment. Government costs money. Better to get it from those who have it to spare than from those who don't.

fj1200

11-25-2010, 09:34 PM

Apparently, he's leaning toward going back to the original tax system the US used, back when we were 13 states, with the federal government only being called into session sporadically, as opposed to a continuously operating federal.

Actually, the fair tax wouldn't change the price of goods, cause you're already paying the taxes on the goods now, it's just broken up between the numerous stages of Wal-Mart or other retailers getting the item onto the shelf. You would just keep your full paycheck to use as you see fit.

I don't really want to live in the 1700's and I'm guessing the tax system wouldn't work either.

I'm aware of the FT and it's workings, I would certainly take it over the current system, I'm just saying that a higher cost of living would result in a higher tax burden. Not saying it's bad it just is.

fj1200

11-25-2010, 09:37 PM

You're welcome to your opinions but they're silly. Taxes aren't punishment. Government costs money. Better to get it from those who have it to spare than from those who don't.

More success = higher tax rate = Punishment? That's not a silly view, taxes are a disincentive of working, try the 90% marginal rates of mid-last century on for size. Nobody is saying government doesn't cost money, just the best way to raise the money to fund the government.

Joe Steel

11-25-2010, 09:52 PM

More success = higher tax rate = Punishment? That's not a silly view, taxes are a disincentive of working, try the 90% marginal rates of mid-last century on for size. Nobody is saying government doesn't cost money, just the best way to raise the money to fund the government.

Taxes are a contribution to a common cause not a penalty for an infraction of some law, rule, etc. An they're not a disincentive. As many taxpayers say they would work more as say they would work less when faced with high marginal tax rates.

Mr. P

11-25-2010, 10:09 PM

Maybe but you can make the same argument for almost any tax. Certainly the nightmare we have now but even the Fair Tax. If you are in a higher cost of living state or city then you'd pay a higher burden I would think.

I think the reason WHY he's saying the flat tax is bad is specious.
Remember, the Fair tax is fed not state or local. Everyone pays the same and chooses how much tax they'll pay based on how much they buy. They have freedom to make those choices to spend the same as they have the freedom to choose where to live. The COL will decrease under the fair tax, by approximately 23% due to the removal of embedded taxes currently in all produces. In addition, all the folks operating on a cash basis, illegals, tourists that don't pay tax now will. Not to mention the foreign corps that will flock here due to the removal of the corp tax along with our own corps that fled, in part, due to the high corp tax rate in the U.S. IMO..folks would have to hide under a rock not to have a job. I see no downside to the fair tax as of now.

Mr. P

11-25-2010, 10:22 PM

Taxes are a contribution to a common cause not a penalty for an infraction of some law, rule, etc. An they're not a disincentive. As many taxpayers say they would work more as say they would work less when faced with high marginal tax rates.
I know you've been away for awhile and it seems you still haven't learned anything. Contributions are voluntary, Slow Joe. Income taxes despite what the fed says are NOT voluntary..

DragonStryk72

11-25-2010, 10:25 PM

You're welcome to your opinions but they're silly. Taxes aren't punishment. Government costs money. Better to get it from those who have it to spare than from those who don't.

Really? So my mom's recent raise wasn't just enough to knock her up into the next tax bracket, taking more money from her than she got from the raise itself? She'll be so happy to know that.

johnwk

11-25-2010, 11:09 PM

Actually, the fair tax is a purely consumption-based tax that allows me the choice of how much I am contributing, by either simply saving my money, or by buying used goods where I can.

The “fair tax” according to the text of the proposed legislation is tax upon property, including the property which working people have in their labor.

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.

`(d) Liability for Tax-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

`(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER-A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 510.

`(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

`(a) In General- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

Now let us examine how this tax upon “property” would affect Mary and Joe Sixpack, ordinary working people. Mary and Joe have two children and find it necessary to earn extra money to pay their bills. Mary baby sits for neighbors in the community and cleans homes on weekends to raise extra money while Joe, who works for a pluming company as a full-time job, also provides the same plumbing service on his own time to people living in his community to raise extra cash.

Under the “fair tax” Mary and Joe Sixpack’s inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor becomes a taxable event, and, they must first register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

It seems to me the proposed “fair tax” is carefully crafted to extend the iron fist of the federal government’s taxing arm, extending it to reach every new manufactured good in America in addition to the property which working people have in their labor, while the proposal keeps alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.

What would be your objection to adding the following 32 words to our Constitution which would compel Congress to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan which allowed for internal excise taxes imposed upon articles of consumption in addition to taxes at our water’s edge, and, an emergency apportioned tax among the states to make up for any shortfalls?

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

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

SassyLady

11-26-2010, 02:58 AM

What I hate about taxes is that the government is taking my money to pay themselves to pass legislation to take more of my money. Arrrrrggggghhh!!

So this fair tax is a consumption tax? It's late and I'm tired so forgive me if I'm not really clear about all these different types of taxes.

Consumption/Fair tax .... how much does it have to increase in order to pay for the infrastructure that our income taxes currently cover? Sales tax in my city is 9.25% ... outside the city in all other areas of the county is 9.0%. So, how much would the tax have to go up in order to cover everything? Because I have to tell you, the city/county are always crying broke as it is.

fj1200

11-26-2010, 07:55 AM

Remember, the Fair tax is fed not state or local. Everyone pays the same and chooses how much tax they'll pay based on how much they buy. They have freedom to make those choices to spend the same as they have the freedom to choose where to live. The COL will decrease under the fair tax, by approximately 23% due to the removal of embedded taxes currently in all produces. In addition, all the folks operating on a cash basis, illegals, tourists that don't pay tax now will. Not to mention the foreign corps that will flock here due to the removal of the corp tax along with our own corps that fled, in part, due to the high corp tax rate in the U.S. IMO..folks would have to hide under a rock not to have a job. I see no downside to the fair tax as of now.

I am aware of all that and I like the FT, I'm only saying the higher COL may result in higher taxes for those living in or visiting or... those areas. It is not a criticism of the FT only an observation. If milk costs more in NYC than Wisconsin then there will be more tax based on that milk.

fj1200

11-26-2010, 07:58 AM

Taxes are a contribution to a common cause not a penalty for an infraction of some law, rule, etc. An they're not a disincentive. As many taxpayers say they would work more as say they would work less when faced with high marginal tax rates.

Now THAT is silly. By your own logic and admission, people are punished with more work so that they can retain their standard of living. Are you saying people wouldn't think of working more as punishment?

And spare me the civics lesson on taxes.

fj1200

11-26-2010, 08:05 AM

Under the “fair tax” Mary and Joe Sixpack’s inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor becomes a taxable event, and, they must first register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

Are you being purposefully obstinate? What requirement above is a HIGHER burden than Mary and Joe opening a business under the current regime?

johnwk

11-26-2010, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by johnwk
Under the “fair tax” Mary and Joe Sixpack’s inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor becomes a taxable event, and, they must first register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

Are you being purposefully obstinate? What requirement above is a HIGHER burden than Mary and Joe opening a business under the current regime?

Obstinate? I didn’t know stating something factual concerning the proposed “fair tax” was being obstinate.

I’m not sure why you ask “What requirement above is a HIGHER burden than Mary and Joe opening a business under the current regime?” Is it not the object of tax reform to rid ourselves of the existing oppressive nature of taxation? The “fair tax” proposes to extend the iron fist of the federal government in such a fashion as to require Mary and Joe Sixpack to register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, and then compells them to give a piece of the action to the federal government for exercising an inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor.

I find the “fair tax” repulsive when recalling our nation’s history with slavery and when blacks were forced to surrender the property they had in their labor.

Is it not time to resist any slavish tax which encumbers a fundamental and inalienable right of mankind?

What specific objections do you have in adding the following 32 words to our Constitution which would bring us back to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), as they intended it to operate, and does provide for inland excise taxes on articles of consumption?

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

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

PostmodernProphet

11-26-2010, 09:53 AM

Taxes aren't punishment. Government costs money. Better to get it from those who have it to spare than from those who don't.

if only that were true.....it is pointless to deny that the government uses tax credits to encourage or deny certain behaviors.....yes, the government costs money, but yes, taxes are used to encourage or discourage particular acts......

Mr. P

11-26-2010, 10:45 AM

The “fair tax” according to the text of the proposed legislation is tax upon property, including the property which working people have in their labor.

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.

`(d) Liability for Tax-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

`(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER-A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 510.

`(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

`(a) In General- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

Now let us examine how this tax upon “property” would affect Mary and Joe Sixpack, ordinary working people. Mary and Joe have two children and find it necessary to earn extra money to pay their bills. Mary baby sits for neighbors in the community and cleans homes on weekends to raise extra money while Joe, who works for a pluming company as a full-time job, also provides the same plumbing service on his own time to people living in his community to raise extra cash.

Under the “fair tax” Mary and Joe Sixpack’s inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor becomes a taxable event, and, they must first register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

JWK

...

.
Your conclusion is simply not true. Joe and Mary may continue to earn extra money under the "Fair Tax" as they do now without registering or paying tax to anyone.

Anyone that takes the time to read 101(2), 103 and 501 in context can see that.

My conclusion is you're intentionally trying to mislead folks and vilify the "Fair Tax" of which you seem to have little to no understanding.

johnwk

11-26-2010, 11:04 AM

Your conclusion is simply not true. Joe and Mary may continue to earn extra money under the "Fair Tax" as they do now without registering or paying tax to anyone.

Anyone that takes the time to read 101(2), 103 and 501 in context can see that.

My conclusion is you're intentionally trying to mislead folks and vilify the "Fair Tax" of which you seem to have little to no understanding.

I suggest you read the text again. Mary and Joe are required to register as a seller of “taxable property or services” on which the “fair tax“ imposes a 23 percent tax.

In addition, the tax is also applied to bartering if Mary and Joe barter their services and are reimbursed in something in “other than money“.

I’m surprised at your conclusion since I am only pointing out what the text of H.R.25 indicates.

JWK

johnwk

11-26-2010, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Joe Steel
Taxes aren't punishment. Government costs money. Better to get it from those who have it to spare than from those who don't.

if only that were true.....it is pointless to deny that the government uses tax credits to encourage or deny certain behaviors.....yes, the government costs money, but yes, taxes are used to encourage or discourage particular acts......

You are absolutely correct that taxes are used to encourage or discourage particular acts. And another objection to the “fair tax” is its monthly “family consumption” entitlement check.

The family consumption entitlement would create a number of undesirable incentives, one of which is the firing up of baby manufacturing machines of those already on the public dole to increase their monthly government check.

Keep in mind also that the propose monthly family consumption entitlement check creates a massive redistribution of money taxed away from our productive and gainfully employee Citizens to those already on the public dole, not to mention its redistribution of federal revenue to pimps, gamblers, drug dealers, and even those who steal other people's money and property, who would all be entitled to received the monthly family consumption bonus check under the “fair tax”.

But the most dangerous incentive is bribery, and our progressive gang on Capitol Hill promising to increase the family consumption entitlement to get themselves re-elected during federal elections.

What is relevant on this point is, how important is the size of the check to specific economic classes.

I believe the average annual earnings in America is about $50K. And the family consumption entitlement is about $450. While the monthly entitlement check would mean a great deal to your average wage earner and those who earn less than $50K, and mean even more to those already on the public dole and not working, and considering the above mentioned groups account for an overwhelming majority of voters, that same check to a person earning about $150-200K would mean very little, and surely not enough to be bribed during federal elections.

But the wage earner with $50K a year and those earning far less would more than likely gravitate to our progressive gang on Capitol Hill during federal elections who would promise to increase the family consumption allowance to bribe these voters. And our progressive gang on Capitol Hill already have their speech ready to increase the family consumption entitlement in order to buy votes during federal elections.

"How dare those who have imposed the fair tax on our nation’s poor, now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon every imaginable necessity of life!"

Were we not warned in the Federalist papers about the political consequences of the alleged fair tax family consumption subsistence check?

A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

fj1200

11-26-2010, 12:00 PM

Mr. P

11-26-2010, 12:12 PM

I suggest you read the text again. Mary and Joe are required to register as a seller of “taxable property or services” on which the “fair tax“ imposes a 23 percent tax.

In addition, the tax is also applied to bartering if Mary and Joe barter their services and are reimbursed in something in “other than money“.

I’m surprised at your conclusion since I am only pointing out what the text of H.R.25 indicates.

JWK
‘‘(d) LIABILITY FOR TAX.—
15 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The person using or con
16 suming taxable property or services in the United
17 States is liable for the tax imposed by this section,
18 except as provided in paragraph (2) of this sub
19 section.
20 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELL
21 ER.—A person using or consuming a taxable prop
22 erty or service in the United States is not liable for
23 the tax imposed by this section if the person pays
24 the tax to a person selling the taxable property or
service and receives from such person a purchaser’s
2 receipt within the meaning of section 510.

Who pays tax..the housekeeper or the consumer (employer)..If the housekeeper is a registered business the consumer pays the tax to the business which collects the tax and tenders it to the fed. If the housekeeper is not a registered business it is the end consumer who is suppose to pay the tax to the fed. Essentially, in private transactions such as this, or with the kid that mows yards for cash, no tax will be paid by either party. The same as now.

johnwk

11-26-2010, 12:40 PM

‘‘(d) LIABILITY FOR TAX.—
15 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The person using or con
16 suming taxable property or services in the United
17 States is liable for the tax imposed by this section,
18 except as provided in paragraph (2) of this sub
19 section.
20 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELL
21 ER.—A person using or consuming a taxable prop
22 erty or service in the United States is not liable for
23 the tax imposed by this section if the person pays
24 the tax to a person selling the taxable property or
service and receives from such person a purchaser’s
2 receipt within the meaning of section 510.

Who pays tax..the housekeeper or the consumer (employer)..If the housekeeper is a registered business the consumer pays the tax to the business which collects the tax and tenders it to the fed. If the housekeeper is not a registered business it is the end consumer who is suppose to pay the tax to the fed. Essentially, in private transactions such as this, or with the kid that mows yards for cash, no tax will be paid by either party. The same as now.

Under the alleged fair tax Mary and Joe Sixpack’s inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor becomes a taxable event, and, they must first register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

JWK

johnwk

11-26-2010, 12:48 PM

Obstinate? I didn’t know stating something factual concerning the proposed “fair tax” was being obstinate.

I’m not sure why you ask “What requirement above is a HIGHER burden than Mary and Joe opening a business under the current regime?” Is it not the object of tax reform to rid ourselves of the existing oppressive nature of taxation? The “fair tax” proposes to extend the iron fist of the federal government in such a fashion as to require Mary and Joe Sixpack to register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, and then compells them to give a piece of the action to the federal government for exercising an inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor.

I find the “fair tax” repulsive when recalling our nation’s history with slavery and when blacks were forced to surrender the property they had in their labor.

Is it not time to resist any slavish tax which encumbers a fundamental and inalienable right of mankind?

What specific objections do you have in adding the following 32 words to our Constitution which would bring us back to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), as they intended it to operate, and does provide for inland excise taxes on articles of consumption?

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

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

The FT is slavery? :laugh: The FT is not a tax on property, it's a tax on goods and services which is exactly what you state above; see last sentence above.

Besides, you didn't answer my question. Everyone who works is required to "register" with the government so that they can tax wages, etc. So I ask again, how is the FT a HIGHER burden?

It may be nice to rid ourselves of the oppressiveness of taxation but let's live in the real world for a little while.

Oh, but I did anwer your question, I wrote:I’m not sure why you ask “What requirement above is a HIGHER burden than Mary and Joe opening a business under the current regime?” Is it not the object of tax reform to rid ourselves of the existing oppressive nature of taxation?

But you did not answer my question: What specific objections do you have in adding the following 32 words to our Constitution which would bring us back to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), as they intended it to operate, and does provide for inland excise taxes on articles of consumption?

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

johnwk

11-26-2010, 12:52 PM

The FT is not a tax on property,

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.

JWK

Mr. P

11-26-2010, 05:20 PM

Under the alleged fair tax Mary and Joe Sixpack’s inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor becomes a taxable event,

JWK
Sorry you're wrong. The property you claim they are selling is "labor".Labor is intangible property and exempt:

‘‘(14) TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE.—
24 ‘‘(A) GENERAL RULE.—The term ‘taxable
25 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, they must first register with government to sell the property they have in their labor,Nope, see above.

collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor. See above. Better yet read the "Fair Tax" it's only 133 pages long.

Wanna argue it's a Taxable service instead? Wrong again.

‘‘(B) SERVICE.—For purposes of subpara
10 graph (A), the term ‘service’—
11 ‘‘(i) shall include any service per
12 formed by an employee for which the em
13 ployee is paid wages or a salary by a tax
14 able employer..

What's a "Taxable Employer"?
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘taxable em
2 ployer’ includes—
3 ‘‘(i) any household employing domes
4 tic servants...
(In general anyone that hires one to fix,sit,garden,cut grass etc on their property and that individual is NOT registered as a business in the state the tax burden falls to them not Joe or Mary.

Celebrate the fact that lil Johnny can still cut grass in the summer for a few bucks and NOT be oppressed by the government. Just like now.

johnwk

11-26-2010, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by johnwk
Under the alleged fair tax Mary and Joe Sixpack’s inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor becomes a taxable event,

JWK
Sorry you're wrong.

So you say, but the TEXT OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, H.R.25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.25:..) indicates something far different, than your torturing of its language.

Even bartering is a taxable event!

`(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

In any event, apparently we disagree.

And how do you feel about the monthly family consumption entitlement check which I touched upon in POST NO.25 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29949-Arthur-Laffer's-flat-tax-its-pitfalls-and-oppressive-nature!&p=451610#post451610)?

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

Mr. P

11-26-2010, 09:00 PM

So you say, but the TEXT OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, H.R.25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.25:..) indicates something far different, than your torturing of its language.

No it doesn't indicate anything different. What I posted is directly from the "Fair Tax" legislation H.R. 25 with the exception of my comments.

Even bartering is a taxable event! (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.
Only for those bartering property or a service from a registered seller, not transactions between private individuals.`

In any event, apparently we disagree.Indeed.. and we will until you understand the legislation as written.

And how do you feel about the monthly family consumption entitlement check which I touched upon in POST NO.25 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29949-Arthur-Laffer%27s-flat-tax-its-pitfalls-and-oppressive-nature%21&p=451610#post451610)?

JWKIt's bunk, just like the baby sitter that you claim must register, collect and pay sales tax. It's not Congress that sets FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE, it's The Department of Health and Human Services that does. So no politicians making deals with the public to increase/decrease the monthly allowance. I'll give you the possibility that some will pump out babies for a larger check..Just like now. But there is a process to qualify for this monthly check and penalties for false claims (see 505) "False rebate claim – civil penalty, the greater of $500 or 50 percent of the claimed annual rebate amount not actually due, must repay any falsely due rebates; criminal penalty, imprisonment for up to one year.

johnwk

11-26-2010, 09:35 PM

It's bunk, just like the baby sitter that you claim must register, collect and pay sales tax.

What I said was Mary and Joe will have to register with government, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

But SEE:

Huckabee's 'FairTax' has appeal, problems (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/13289246.html)

By TOM REDBURN, New York Times
Last update: January 5, 2008 - 5:48 PM

“Under the plan, Americans would pay only one federal tax, which would be applied to just about everything they buy -- not just goods but nearly all services, including health care and insurance, a home purchase or apartment rental, even things like neighborhood baby-sitting“

JWK

fj1200

11-26-2010, 09:45 PM

Oh, but I did anwer your question, I wrote:I’m not sure why you ask “What requirement above is a HIGHER burden than Mary and Joe opening a business under the current regime?” Is it not the object of tax reform to rid ourselves of the existing oppressive nature of taxation?

But you did not answer my question: What specific objections do you have in adding the following 32 words to our Constitution which would bring us back to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), as they intended it to operate, and does provide for inland excise taxes on articles of consumption?

But I did answer your question, we don't live in the 1700's and I'd rather not start.

You keep harping on these onerous requirements yet they are virtually identical to the current system.

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.

The operative phrase is "use or consumption" not a tax on the property just because it is in someone's possession.

Mr. P

11-26-2010, 09:53 PM

What I said was Mary and Joe will have to register with government, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

But SEE:

Huckabee's 'FairTax' has appeal, problems (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/13289246.html)

By TOM REDBURN, New York Times
Last update: January 5, 2008 - 5:48 PM

“Under the plan, Americans would pay only one federal tax, which would be applied to just about everything they buy -- not just goods but nearly all services, including health care and insurance, a home purchase or apartment rental, even things like neighborhood baby-sitting“

JWK
I know what you said and yer still wrong. And the author of this 2008 piece doesn't know much about the "Fair Tax" himself. You're not gonna spread lies like that are you?

johnwk

11-26-2010, 10:34 PM

The operative phrase is "use or consumption" not a tax on the property just because it is in someone's possession.

You're funny. But tell me, under what constitutional provision has Congress been granted the power to impose the general tax among the states described in H.R.25, without apportioning the tax?

JWK

fj1200

11-26-2010, 10:37 PM

You're funny. But tell me, under what constitutional provision has Congress been granted the power to impose the general tax among the states described in H.R.25, without apportioning the tax?

JWK

That was helpful.

johnwk

11-26-2010, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by johnwk
What I said was Mary and Joe will have to register with government, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

But SEE:

Huckabee's 'FairTax' has appeal, problems

By TOM REDBURN, New York Times
Last update: January 5, 2008 - 5:48 PM

“Under the plan, Americans would pay only one federal tax, which would be applied to just about everything they buy -- not just goods but nearly all services, including health care and insurance, a home purchase or apartment rental, even things like neighborhood baby-sitting“
I know what you said and yer still wrong. And the author of this 2008 piece doesn't know much about the "Fair Tax" himself.

I'm getting the impression every one is wrong except you.

JWK

johnwk

11-26-2010, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by johnwk
You're funny. But tell me, under what constitutional provision has Congress been granted the power to impose the general tax among the states described in H.R.25, without apportioning the tax?

JWK

That was helpful.

You forgot to answer the quesion. Answering the question would indeed by helpful.

JWK

johnwk

11-26-2010, 10:42 PM

It's not Congress that sets FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE, it's The Department of Health and Human Services that does.

Congress has authority to amend the annual poverty level any time it chooses!

A while back, Congress took action to keep the 2009 poverty guidelines in effect until at least May of 2010

H.R. 25 reads as follows:

SEC. 303. MONTHLY POVERTY LEVEL.
`(a) In General- The monthly poverty level for any particular month shall be one-twelfth of the `annual poverty level.' For purposes of this section the `annual poverty level' shall be the sum of--
`(1) the annual level determined by the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines required by sections 652 and 673(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 for a particular family size, and .......

JWK

fj1200

11-26-2010, 10:46 PM

You forgot to answer the quesion. Answering the question would indeed by helpful.

JWK

I had no intention of answering the question. I haven't brought up the constitutionality of any tax system in this thread and I don't intend to start. So far here you've been challenged on issues and have either repeated your statements or diverted to something unrelated.

johnwk

11-26-2010, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by johnwk
You forgot to answer the quesion. Answering the question would indeed by helpful.

JWKI had no intention of answering the question. I haven't brought up the constitutionality of any tax system in this thread and I don't intend to start. So far here you've been challenged on issues and have either repeated your statements or diverted to something unrelated.

What I have done is provide documentation and repeat my answers when repeatedly asked the same question. My answers do no change as truth and facts do not change with the passage of time.

But another objection to the alleged fair tax is that it violates the rule requiring an apportionment for a general tax laid among the states which reaches the people's property, real or personal.

JWK

Mr. P

11-27-2010, 12:00 AM

I'm getting the impression every one is wrong except you.

JWK
Nah, just the folk who haven't a clue as to what the "Fair Tax" really is all about nor understand it. FJ gets it, so does NightTrain..Oh and John Linder too, who first introduced it in Congress in 1999 to start with then again in 07..it's not Huckabee's "Fair Tax" as the author of the 08 article refers.

Mr. P

11-27-2010, 12:06 AM

Congress has authority to amend the annual poverty level any time it chooses!

A while back, Congress took action to keep the 2009 poverty guidelines in effect until at least May of 2010

H.R. 25 reads as follows:

SEC. 303. MONTHLY POVERTY LEVEL.
`(a) In General- The monthly poverty level for any particular month shall be one-twelfth of the `annual poverty level.' For purposes of this section the `annual poverty level' shall be the sum of--
`(1) the annual level determined by the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines required by sections 652 and 673(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 for a particular family size, and .......

JWK
But Congress didn't set the level just extended it..Gotta link for that BTW.

EDIT: Never mind I have one.

DragonStryk72

11-27-2010, 12:10 AM

Obstinate? I didn’t know stating something factual concerning the proposed “fair tax” was being obstinate.

I’m not sure why you ask “What requirement above is a HIGHER burden than Mary and Joe opening a business under the current regime?” Is it not the object of tax reform to rid ourselves of the existing oppressive nature of taxation? The “fair tax” proposes to extend the iron fist of the federal government in such a fashion as to require Mary and Joe Sixpack to register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, and then compells them to give a piece of the action to the federal government for exercising an inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor.

I find the “fair tax” repulsive when recalling our nation’s history with slavery and when blacks were forced to surrender the property they had in their labor.

Is it not time to resist any slavish tax which encumbers a fundamental and inalienable right of mankind?

What specific objections do you have in adding the following 32 words to our Constitution which would bring us back to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), as they intended it to operate, and does provide for inland excise taxes on articles of consumption?

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

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

Yeah, work that spin. Look, you didn't start this thread to debate and discussion, just scream at people about using a tax system that's not workable today.

Fine, I will concede all of my prior points if you explain this: How does the government, whether through the federal or state, collect taxes without using force? You act like this system of yours is bereft of the necessity for the government using a forceful manner of collecting said tax?

You also haven't put up anything as to how the individual states' contributions would be measured for purposes of determining representation? Also, how does your tax allow for a year round military force (Didn't have that back then), along with a year round federal government such as we have now?

Until you can answer these questions, you're really little more than having a hard rant at us.

fj1200

11-27-2010, 01:04 AM

What I have done is provide documentation and repeat my answers when repeatedly asked the same question. My answers do no change as truth and facts do not change with the passage of time.

But another objection to the alleged fair tax is that it violates the rule requiring an apportionment for a general tax laid among the states which reaches the people's property, real or personal.

No, not really. But yes you repeat answers, the problem is they were insufficient in the first place.

Your link:
http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360

references "taxes on articles of consumption." How is that unlike the Fair Tax?

johnwk

11-27-2010, 09:22 AM

But Congress didn't set the level just extended it..Gotta link for that BTW.

EDIT: Never mind I have one.

The point is that Congress has authority to amend the annual poverty level any time it chooses, and progressives in Congress can promise to increase the family consumption entitlement check to get themselves re-elected.

Do you think the fair tax monthly entitlement check would not create a massive voting block with a vested interest in voting for progressives who would promise to increase the monthly entitlement check to get themselves re-elected? If so, you haven’t kept track of how social security entitlement checks have ballooned over the years and how progressives have pandered to this particular voting block to get themselves re-elected.

The alleged fair tax creates the very same situation and is therefore a very, very bad idea!

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

fj1200

11-27-2010, 09:40 AM

johnwk

11-27-2010, 09:46 AM

Yeah, work that spin. Look, you didn't start this thread to debate and discussion, just scream at people about using a tax system that's not workable today.

I started the thread to express my objections to Arthur Laffer's flat tax idea. You were the one who introduced the alleged “Fair Tax”. I merely responded and expressed my opinion that H.R. 25 is a bad idea, and ever since, fair tax supporters have decided to use the thread to argue in favor of the alleged fair tax and pile on me, in most cases ignoring factual information I have posted.

YOU WROTE (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29949-Arthur-Laffer's-flat-tax-its-pitfalls-and-oppressive-nature!&p=451526#post451526)

Basically, he's saying the flat tax is bad. Actually, I would agree with his overall point, but then I'm a Fair Tax supporter, so that's not particularly shocking.

JWK

johnwk

11-27-2010, 10:00 AM

The point is that Congress has authority to amend the annual poverty level any time it chooses, and progressives in Congress can promise to increase the family consumption entitlement check to get themselves re-elected.

Do you think the fair tax monthly entitlement check would not create a massive voting block with a vested interest in voting for progressives who would promise to increase the monthly entitlement check to get themselves re-elected? If so, you haven’t kept track of how social security entitlement checks have ballooned over the years and how progressives have pandered to this particular voting block to get themselves re-elected.

The alleged fair tax creates the very same situation and is therefore a very, very bad idea!
Yes, but everyone would be in that voting block and not everyone is going to demand increases. Besides, no one said that eternal vigilance is not required to keep legislators from screwing up the system.

What is relevant is, how important is the size of the check to specific economic classes.

I believe the average annual earnings in America is about $50K. And the family consumption entitlement is about $450. While the monthly entitlement check would mean a great deal to your average wage earner and those who earn less than $50K, and would mean even more to those already on the public dole and not working, and, the above mentioned groups account for an overwhelming majority of voters, that same check to a person earning about $150-200K would mean very little, and surely not enough to be bribed during federal elections.

But the wage earner with $50K a year and those earning far less would more than likely gravitate to our progressive gang on Capitol Hill during federal elections who would promise to increase the family consumption allowance to bribe these voters.

The fair tax family consumption entitlement would encourage class warfare and be used to bribe voters during federal elections! And our progressive gang on Capitol Hill already have their speech ready to increase the family consumption entitlement in order to buy votes during federal elections.

How dare those who have imposed the fair tax on our nation’s poor, now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon every imaginable necessity of life!

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

Mr. P

11-27-2010, 02:10 PM

fj1200

11-27-2010, 02:55 PM

What is relevant is, how important is the size of the check to specific economic classes.

What's truly relevant is that all citizens are treated the same. A raise for one is a raise for all without room to play one group against the other which is the source of power for Washington.

BTW, you didn't answer my question above.

johnwk

11-27-2010, 04:03 PM

As far as SS, the check hasn't really "ballooned"

Is that so? . Do you want to start with the cost of living increase which started in 1975, or, how about the Social Security Disability Pay, Vocational Rehabilitation, Supplemental Security Income…where do you want to begin with how social security has ballooned in its reach and expenditures while pandering to special interests?

The fair tax opens the door to the exact same pandering, especially via its family consumption entitlement check. How about the first class-warfare theme being a means testing to receive the family consumption allowance to help reduce the annual deficit? We have seen how the "income tax" code has exploded over the years. And you think a tax which allows government to extend its taxing arm to reach every newly manufactured product and every "service" provided will not lead to a tax code which dwarfs our existing one?

JWK

Indy

11-27-2010, 04:03 PM

Really? So my mom's recent raise wasn't just enough to knock her up into the next tax bracket, taking more money from her than she got from the raise itself? She'll be so happy to know that.

That's exactly what is wrong with our current tax system. A fair tax is just simply fair. But that would illuminate the liberals class warfare. The wealthy would actually be paying more in taxes. Of course they already do, it's just that it's easier to frame their current argument using the current tax system. Illuminate it, and the argument falls on deaf ears.

johnwk

11-27-2010, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by johnwk
What is relevant is, how important is the size of the check to specific economic classes.

What's truly relevant is that all citizens are treated the same.

You bet they are treated the same, especially under the family consumption entitlement which promises to send a monthly check to unwed stay-at-home moms who do not contribute into the federal treasury. Even pimps, gamblers, drug dealers, and even those who steal other people's money and property are treated the same under the alleged fair tax and are entitled to the family consumption entitlement check which become a bonus to them, because it is the productive and employed members of society who fill the national treasury which finances the monthly family consumption entitlement. Socialists and progressives always claim to treat everyone the same, except of course when it comes time to fill the national treasury.

The simple truth is, the alleged fair tax begins with a special interest group in mind, a monthly government subsistence check to silence the mouths of our nation’s lower economic class who would revolt if a 23 percent tax were imposed on the necessities of life.

The only reason for the “progressive” family consumption entitlement check is to keep poor folks quiet so our government can go on to rape our productive members of society with a slavish tax that would make it an offense for Mary and Joe Sixpack to not register with government when exercising an inalienable right --- their right to sell the property they have in their labor.

Our founding fathers tax plan did in fact provide for equal taxation whenever Congress decided to lay and collect a general tax among the states. But instead of supporting our constitution's original tax plan, you seem to like the "progressive" fair tax proposal.

JWK

fj1200

11-27-2010, 05:09 PM

Is that so? . Do you want to start with the cost of living increase which started in 1975, or, how about the Social Security Disability Pay, Vocational Rehabilitation, Supplemental Security Income…where do you want to begin with how social security has ballooned in its reach and expenditures while pandering to special interests?

The fair tax opens the door to the exact same pandering, especially via its family consumption entitlement check. How about the first class-warfare theme being a means testing to receive the family consumption allowance to help reduce the annual deficit? We have seen how the "income tax" code has exploded over the years. And you think a tax which allows government to extend its taxing arm to reach every newly manufactured product and every "service" provided will not lead to a tax code which dwarfs our existing one?

JWK

There's a difference between the check ballooning and every other thing you want to throw into the boat ballooning. Keep a consistent argument please. I'll certainly grant you that SS has huge problems but keep a grip on reality. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think prior to indexing SS increases were done by Congressional fiat where now it's specifically indexed, that seems to be a system that limits Congressional pandering.

But I'm done going round and round, you think the FT opens up pandering but have little to base it on. I don't think it does because it removes power from elected officials and there is little evidence that pandering to a minority of the electorate will destroy the value of the FT.

But to base your hatred of the FT on your argument above is extremely short sighted compared to the vast benefits of the FT. And please get a grip on your argument that "allows government to extend its taxing arm blah blah blah..." because its arm is ALREADY THERE.

fj1200

11-27-2010, 05:14 PM

You bet they are treated the same, especially under the family consumption entitlement which promises to send a monthly check to unwed stay-at-home moms who do not contribute into the federal treasury. Even pimps, gamblers, drug dealers, and even those who steal other people's money and property are treated the same under the alleged fair tax and are entitled to the family consumption entitlement check which become a bonus to them, because it is the productive and employed members of society who fill the national treasury which finances the monthly family consumption entitlement. Socialists and progressives always claim to treat everyone the same, except of course when it comes time to fill the national treasury.

The simple truth is, the alleged fair tax begins with a special interest group in mind, a monthly government subsistence check to silence the mouths of our nation’s lower economic class who would revolt if a 23 percent tax were imposed on the necessities of life.

The only reason for the “progressive” family consumption entitlement check is to keep poor folks quiet so our government can go on to rape our productive members of society with a slavish tax that would make it an offense for Mary and Joe Sixpack to not register with government when exercising an inalienable right --- their right to sell the property they have in their labor.

Our founding fathers tax plan did in fact provide for equal taxation whenever Congress decided to lay and collect a general tax among the states. But instead of supporting our constitution's original tax plan, you seem to like the "progressive" fair tax proposal.

JWK

You're an XXXXX misguided because you just shot your arguments in the foot. All those black market individuals you just mentioned would now start paying taxes.

You've now devolved, OK about 20 posts ago, into the realm of talking point repetition. Are you going to answer my question?

Mr. P

11-27-2010, 06:13 PM

You're an XXXXX misguided because you just shot your arguments in the foot. All those black market individuals you just mentioned would now start paying taxes.

You've now devolved, OK about 20 posts ago, into the realm of talking point repetition. Are you going to answer my question?

Not only that but the ones that have the law looking for them are not going to file for the prebate anyway, unless they're total idiots, we can just round them up.

Now, when one is shown one day how wrong their position is with proof over and over and then comes back the next day with the same drivel it's time for me to just shake my head and move on.

johnwk

11-27-2010, 07:52 PM

johnwk

11-27-2010, 08:03 PM

But to base your hatred of the FT on your argument above is extremely short sighted compared to the vast benefits of the FT. And please get a grip on your argument that "allows government to extend its taxing arm blah blah blah..." because its arm is ALREADY THERE.

Benefits of the fair tax? The only benefit I see, and one not benefiting the America People, is that which enlarges the taxing arm of the federal government___ extending its reach to newly manufactured goods and services rendered while keeping alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

JWK

fj1200

11-27-2010, 08:45 PM

Start paying taxes? I believe those people now pay all those “embedded taxes” that the fair tax is supposed to remove.

JWK

Can you tell me the percentage of embedded taxes for hookers and blow?

fj1200

11-27-2010, 08:47 PM

DragonStryk72

11-27-2010, 11:16 PM

That's exactly what is wrong with our current tax system. A fair tax is just simply fair. But that would illuminate the liberals class warfare. The wealthy would actually be paying more in taxes. Of course they already do, it's just that it's easier to frame their current argument using the current tax system. Illuminate it, and the argument falls on deaf ears.

Actually, oddly enough, I think that the rich people are mainly sick of having more and more heaped on them in general. Think about it, Everyone keeps vilifying them, and talking about how they have to pay "their fair share", but they're always the first people our politicians seem to go to for tax increases.

Then, they get bitched at cause they have to cut back to keep their business afloat by laying off workers, or moving production to a country. Even the CEO of Starbucks doesn't catch a break on this point, and hell, a couple years back, he voted his own salary down to $10k a year to try and keep on workers.

Seriously, wouldn't you get a bit sick of it after a while?

DragonStryk72

11-27-2010, 11:19 PM

Benefits of the fair tax? The only benefit I see, and one not benefiting the America People, is that which enlarges the taxing arm of the federal government___ extending its reach to newly manufactured goods and services rendered while keeping alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

JWK

You mean that part, mentioned earlier in this thread, where a specific part of the Fair Tax requires the removal of the 16th amendment, specifically to stop the government from taxing profits, gains and other income?

Yeah like I said, no debate or real discussion. You never really answer anyone, and don't concede any real points. You throw out decrees in bold type, and shirk away from really answering people.

johnwk

11-28-2010, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by johnwk
Benefits of the fair tax? The only benefit I see, and one not benefiting the America People, is that which enlarges the taxing arm of the federal government___ extending its reach to newly manufactured goods and services rendered while keeping alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

JWK
You mean that part, mentioned earlier in this thread, where a specific part of the Fair Tax requires the removal of the 16th amendment, specifically to stop the government from taxing profits, gains and other income?

Yeah like I said, no debate or real discussion. You never really answer anyone, and don't concede any real points. You throw out decrees in bold type, and shirk away from really answering people.

Well, let us examine what H.R. 25 really proposes rather than take pokes at one another.

.
H.R.25 proposed to enact and enforce the collection of a 23 percent tax on all new goods and services And, the promise under the language of the legislation, and it is only a “promise” because a future Congress is not bound by a previous Congress’ legislation, that if the 16th Amendment is not repealed seven years after the enactment of the alleged fair tax, then Congress will stop laying and collecting the alleged fair tax which the people have become accustomed to paying for seven years. And if one believes that crap …..

The text of the proposed fair tax reads:

TITLE IV--SUNSET OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED.

“If the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not repealed before the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, then all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to any use or consumption in any year beginning after December 31 of the calendar year in which or with which such period ends, except that the Sales Tax Bureau of the Department of the Treasury shall not be terminated until 6 months after such December 31.”

If the authors of the alleged fair tax were sincere about removing from Congress’ powers its power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” and not trying to pull something slick over the American People, the proposal would contain a stipulation in its language that the fair tax will not go into operation until the 16th Amendment is repealed. Keep in mind that our existing Constitution contained such a stipulation which required its ratification by nine States before it could be put into operation.

Also keep in mind that if the 16th Amendment were repealed as provided for in the language of H.R. 25, Congress would still maintain the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes because Congress had this power prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment which was upheld in Flint vs. Stone Tracy which upheld the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909! In other words, the ringleaders behind the “fair tax” want to establish a national sales tax, and they want to maintain Congress’ power to lay and collect “excise” taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” so they can maintain the power to lay and collect a “windfall profits excise tax” on those “evil” corporations and small businesses who dare to earn over $250K a year. And the “Excise Tax Bureau” which is in addition to the “Sales Tax Bureau” created under H.R. 25, will be there to enforce those windfall profits “excise taxes”. And these two new tax collecting agencies created under H.R. 25 are in addition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms which will also be collecting taxes. But not to fret, the IRS is proposed to be closed down under H.R. 25.

Too bad there are so many here who are more interested in “debating” rather than getting to the truth and facts concerning the “progressive” and alleged “fair tax”.

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

fj1200

11-28-2010, 08:13 AM

... just shake my head and move on.

True.

DragonStryk72

11-28-2010, 02:50 PM

TITLE IV--SUNSET OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED.

“If the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not repealed before the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, then all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to any use or consumption in any year beginning after December 31 of the calendar year in which or with which such period ends, except that the Sales Tax Bureau of the Department of the Treasury shall not be terminated until 6 months after such December 31.”

I removed the italicized bold and italics (Seriously, could at least attempted to have proved me wrong on this?), since I assure I can read perfectly fine without them. Actually, you just argued my point beautifully for me. This is a fail-safe, which you would realize if you weren't so busy hopping up and down. To keep the government from say, just instituting the Fair Tax and keeping the progressive income tax system, you have to have a way to make certain that doesn't happen.

By giving a deadline to it, it allows for the smooth transition off of the progressive income tax, and onto the Fair Tax, rather than say just slamming on the breaks, and fucking people over. I realize that's an alien concept to you, but generally, things go better if plans are made to make sure that if something goes wrong, there's enough time to handle it.

Also note, still not a single question answered, as expected. You have no real answers, just pokes, prods, and your obstinate insistence on using a tax system that wouldn't work these days. You ignored my questions about how contributions would be determined, just as you've ignored every other person's legitimate challenges.

johnwk

11-28-2010, 04:50 PM

Well, let us examine what H.R. 25 really proposes rather than take pokes at one another.

.
H.R.25 proposed to enact and enforce the collection of a 23 percent tax on all new goods and services And, the promise under the language of the legislation, and it is only a “promise” because a future Congress is not bound by a previous Congress’ legislation, that if the 16th Amendment is not repealed seven years after the enactment of the alleged fair tax, then Congress will stop laying and collecting the alleged fair tax which the people have become accustomed to paying for seven years. And if one believes that crap …..

The text of the proposed fair tax reads:

TITLE IV--SUNSET OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED.

“If the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not repealed before the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, then all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to any use or consumption in any year beginning after December 31 of the calendar year in which or with which such period ends, except that the Sales Tax Bureau of the Department of the Treasury shall not be terminated until 6 months after such December 31.”

If the authors of the alleged fair tax were sincere about removing from Congress’ powers its power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” and not trying to pull something slick over the American People, the proposal would contain a stipulation in its language that the fair tax will not go into operation until the 16th Amendment is repealed. Keep in mind that our existing Constitution contained such a stipulation which required its ratification by nine States before it could be put into operation.

Also keep in mind that if the 16th Amendment were repealed as provided for in the language of H.R. 25, Congress would still maintain the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes because Congress had this power prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment which was upheld in Flint vs. Stone Tracy which upheld the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909! In other words, the ringleaders behind the “fair tax” want to establish a national sales tax, and they want to maintain Congress’ power to lay and collect “excise” taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” so they can maintain the power to lay and collect a “windfall profits excise tax” on those “evil” corporations and small businesses who dare to earn over $250K a year. And the “Excise Tax Bureau” which is in addition to the “Sales Tax Bureau” created under H.R. 25, will be there to enforce those windfall profits “excise taxes”. And these two new tax collecting agencies created under H.R. 25 are in addition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms which will also be collecting taxes. But not to fret, the IRS is proposed to be closed down under H.R. 25.

Too bad there are so many here who are more interested in “debating” rather than getting to the truth and facts concerning the “progressive” and alleged “fair tax”.

JWK

you just argued my point beautifully for me. This is a fail-safe, which you would realize if you weren't so busy hopping up and down. To keep the government from say, just instituting the Fair Tax and keeping the progressive income tax system, you have to have a way to make certain that doesn't happen.

.

So, allow the sales tax to take effect, and then when the 16th is not repealed, your pals in Washington will stop collecting the sales tax which the people have become accustomed to paying for seven years. Are you that guy who keeps buying the Brooklyn Bridge?

In any event, as I have demonstrated above, even if the 16th is repealed, Congress still maintains the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.

You must really be looking forward to having a national sales tax in addition to having progressives in Congress left with a power to lay and collect “windfall profits excise taxes” on those “evil” corporations and small businesses who dare to earn over $250K a year.

Did you vote for Obama?

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

DragonStryk72

11-28-2010, 06:23 PM

So, allow the sales tax to take effect, and then when the 16th is not repealed, your pals in Washington will stop collecting the sales tax which the people have become accustomed to paying for seven years. Are you that guy who keeps buying the Brooklyn Bridge?

In any event, as I have demonstrated above, even if the 16th is repealed, Congress still maintains the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.

You must really be looking forward to having a national sales tax in addition to having progressives in Congress left with a power to lay and collect “windfall profits excise taxes” on those “evil” corporations and small businesses who dare to earn over $250K a year.

Did you vote for Obama?

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

So apparently, you prefer double taxing people? Clearly you do, since you would apparently be against stopping double taxation in the event that Congress. Are you that guy who wants all the checks and balances removed? See, I can act like a dickhole as well, I just have better manners than to do so.

And you still haven't answered any of the questions asked, so now it's time to say it this way: Stop being an intellectual coward, sack up, and answer the questions. Save your trolling for another board.

johnwk

11-28-2010, 07:04 PM

So apparently, you prefer double taxing people? Clearly you do, since you would apparently be against stopping double taxation in the event that Congress. Are you that guy who wants all the checks and balances removed? See, I can act like a dickhole as well, I just have better manners than to do so.

And you still haven't answered any of the questions asked, so now it's time to say it this way: Stop being an intellectual coward, sack up, and answer the questions. Save your trolling for another board.

I’m not the one promoting a sales tax to be legislated into law and collected which also allows Congress to lay and collect excise taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “income’, and also allows countless other taxes to be collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

I’m the one promoting the following 32 words to be added to our Constitution which would bring us back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), as they intended it to operate:

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

And as for answering questions, I don’t answer rhetorical questions which are intentionally designed to suggest things by innuendo, i.e., I don’t participate in stupid debating tricks. If someone has a point to make regarding the “fair tax“, then make the point in clear language without attempting to use me to assist in making your point.

JWK

fj1200

11-28-2010, 10:05 PM

I’m not the one promoting a sales tax to be legislated into law and collected which also allows Congress to lay and collect excise taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “income’, and also allows countless other taxes to be collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

I’m the one promoting the following 32 words to be added to our Constitution which would bring us back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), as they intended it to operate:

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

And as for answering questions, I don’t answer rhetorical questions which are intentionally designed to suggest things by innuendo, i.e., I don’t participate in stupid debating tricks. If someone has a point to make regarding the “fair tax“, then make the point in clear language without attempting to use me to assist in making your point.

JWK

Again, so how is the State Rate Tax Plan, which is a "tax laid on articles of consumption," NOT like the FairTax? Or is that a stupid debating trick?

johnwk

11-29-2010, 07:53 AM

Again, so how is the State Rate Tax Plan, which is a "tax laid on articles of consumption," NOT like the FairTax? Or is that a stupid debating trick?

Before answering your question, let me first ask if there is a general agreement in the thread that Arthur Laffer’s flat tax is a bad idea and if adopted would keep alive the onerous and slavish tax calculated from “incomes” which is the real problem?

JWK

fj1200

11-29-2010, 09:01 AM

Before answering your question, let me first ask if there is a general agreement in the thread that Arthur Laffer’s flat tax is a bad idea and if adopted would keep alive the onerous and slavish tax calculated from “incomes” which is the real problem?

JWK

I like the flat tax, I like the fair tax, they are better than what we have now.

Answer the question.

DragonStryk72

11-29-2010, 06:45 PM

I’m not the one promoting a sales tax to be legislated into law and collected which also allows Congress to lay and collect excise taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “income’, and also allows countless other taxes to be collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

I’m the one promoting the following 32 words to be added to our Constitution which would bring us back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360), as they intended it to operate:

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

And as for answering questions, I don’t answer rhetorical questions which are intentionally designed to suggest things by innuendo, i.e., I don’t participate in stupid debating tricks. If someone has a point to make regarding the “fair tax“, then make the point in clear language without attempting to use me to assist in making your point.

JWK

Oh, questions such as the one you asked? Nice cop out there.

johnwk

11-29-2010, 07:57 PM

Again, so how is the State Rate Tax Plan, which is a "tax laid on articles of consumption," NOT like the FairTax? Or is that a stupid debating trick?

I’m assuming your reference to the “State Rate Tax Plan” is a references to our Constitution’s original tax plan, part of which allows for taxing consumption which includes taxing consumption at our water‘s edge and also allows for internal taxes levied upon consumption.

With regard to taxing “consumption” internally, unlike the alleged fair tax which seeks to impose a general tax among the states which violates the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted, and under which all new manufacture goods and services provided in each of the States are to have a 23 percent tax levied upon such goods and services, our founder’s method for internal taxing of consumption begins with a “judiciously selected” list of articles to be taxed, and/or the use of specific articles, and requires a specific amount of tax to be placed on each article or on the use of specific articles selected for taxation.

As such, our founding fathers method for taxing consumption does not need a family consumption entitlement to be created as the necessities of life and supplies necessary to conduct business are easily excluded from taxation. Taxing consumption in this manner also allows the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected.

Federalist No 21 explains taxing consumption as follows:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, 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 at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

This was born out when an outrageous 10 % luxury tax was imposed upon a number of selected articles under the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

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?

Had the tax only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance or outcry. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded. People refused to purchases articles selected; the affected industries began to feel the consequences and the market place rejection of the tax led to its immediate repeal! see: 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263).

Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic climate of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our free market system.

And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected.

Finally, some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation, and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse its powers. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.

Finally, keep in mind that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more that is brought in which creates a deficit, then the dreaded apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for their Governor and State Legislature to deal with.

Bottom line, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2010 federal deficit? I kinda think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties all over the country and big spenders in Congress would REAP THE JUST REWARDS (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) of their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

JWK

fj1200

11-30-2010, 01:10 AM

I’m assuming your reference to the “State Rate Tax Plan” is a references to our Constitution’s original tax plan, part of which allows for taxing consumption which includes taxing consumption at our water‘s edge and also allows for internal taxes levied upon consumption.

It was your link and I referenced it several times. I'm wondering why you are being so stubborn regarding the Fair Tax when the similarities to your tax plan are obvious even with 21st century reality thrown in.

With regard to taxing “consumption” internally, unlike the alleged fair tax which seeks to impose a general tax among the states which violates the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted, and under which all new manufacture goods and services provided in each of the States are to have a 23 percent tax levied upon such goods and services, our founder’s method for internal taxing of consumption begins with a “judiciously selected” list of articles to be taxed, and/or the use of specific articles, and requires a specific amount of tax to be placed on each article or on the use of specific articles selected for taxation.

Certain amounts of revenue need to be raised to fund government, pay off debt, etc. and a "judicious" list is not going to cut it. Even with that list the items would need a ridiculously high rate of taxation. Further, the selection of the items on the list would lead to the cronyism and lobbying that infests DC today. The beauty of the FT is that their is one rate for everything, no option of fine tuning what's on the list every year so that this years constituency can be pleased and lobbyists paid off. Isn't that more true of the founding fathers than a slavish insistence on a 300 year old plan?

I also think that the founders were not aware of the benefits of free trade. Another thread likely but I'm not a fan of the protectionism of duties, etc.

As such, our founding fathers method for taxing consumption does not need a family consumption entitlement to be created as the necessities of life and supplies necessary to conduct business are easily excluded from taxation. Taxing consumption in this manner also allows the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected.

Again, revenues need to be raised and to avoid higher rates on non-essential items all items are taxed at the same rate. Even with that, the embedded taxation argument states that with the removal of all other taxation types, prices will go down. You're already paying taxes on the necessities of life, so there is no fundamental change there.

Federalist No 21 explains taxing consumption as follows:

“... The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

Forgive me Founding Fathers for I blaspheme thee today; I think they a bit naive given 300 years of loose constructionism and the lack of an "established equilibrium." But that first part sounds like the FT doesn't it?

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

I'm stunned that a realization of the Laffer curve and dynamic scoring made it into the Federalist Papers. They would have LOVED the Flat Tax and it appears they also LOVE the Fair Tax.

This was born out when an outrageous 10 % luxury tax was imposed upon a number of selected articles under the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

...

I'm well aware of the Luxury Tax and how when you give elected officials control of what goes on the "judicious list" you give them power to make disastrous decisions. Why should we keep extending that power to them when we have the option to remove it all at once?

Had the tax only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance or outcry. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded. People refused to purchases articles selected; the affected industries began to feel the consequences and the market place rejection of the tax led to its immediate repeal! see: 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263).

Maybe so.

Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic climate of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our free market system.

When was the last time that Congress adopted policies favorable to the economy without screwing something else up? They've been impeding and burdening our free-market system for quite some time and there is little let up to that reality.

And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected.

You's a bit naive methinks.

Finally, some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation, and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse its powers. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.

Congress as an institution is not that smart. Take away their favor granting abilities and you take away their power; that's the real problem.

Finally, keep in mind that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more that is brought in which creates a deficit, then the dreaded apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for their Governor and State Legislature to deal with.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Bottom line, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2010 federal deficit? I kinda think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties all over the country and big spenders in Congress would REAP THE JUST REWARDS (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) of their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

JWK

One can dream.

johnwk

11-30-2010, 08:21 AM

One can dream.

Translation, you disagree with our founding fathers, in addition to ignoring that the alleged fair tax would violate the rule of apportionment if enacted and deny to the people of those states who contribute the largest share under the tax their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution.

Socialists, “progressives”, 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 general tax among the states 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.

Keep in mind our progressive gang gave us the 16th Amendment regarding apportionment and taxes on "incomes". Are you so foolish to not realize they are now back to circumvent apportionment with regard to taxes which reach real and personal property, and is so doing they would have completed their mission?

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has earned.

fj1200

11-30-2010, 08:35 AM

Translation, you disagree with our founding fathers, in addition to ignoring that the alleged fair tax would violate the rule of apportionment if enacted and deny to the people of those states who contribute the largest share under the tax their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution.

What's to translate Captain Obvious, I said as much. So it's your position that the FFs were correct about EVERYTHING? Even though they admitted to required changes via the amendment process?

But if you need another translation: I'm not to concerned about the rule of apportionment.

Socialists, “progressives”, 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 general tax among the states 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.

Keep in mind our progressive gang gave us the 16th Amendment regarding apportionment and taxes on "incomes". Are you so foolish to not realize they are now back to circumvent apportionment with regard to taxes which reach real and personal property, and is so doing they would have completed their mission?

So through all that you fall back on your list of talking points. Unless you can take another shot at my previous post and can have a discussion about the issue, answer questions, engage in dialogue... I guess I'm done. Because based on the information that YOU PROVIDED, it seems the Fair Tax would have been acceptable to the FFs. Your solution gives much discretion to Congress and it's clear that Congressional discretion leads to inefficient outcomes.

johnwk

11-30-2010, 09:07 AM

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

I'm stunned that a realization of the Laffer curve and dynamic scoring made it into the Federalist Papers. They would have LOVED the Flat Tax and it appears they also LOVE the Fair Tax.

You may be stunned, but it’s only because your beliefs are not based upon historical facts. Had you read the debates of the federal convention, you would certainly know the very reason for adopting the rule of apportionment regarding any general tax was to prohibit a general tax being laid among the States based upon a percentage which includes a flat tax on income or your beloved 23 percent tax upon the people's property.

NOTE:Under the Articles of Confederation a general across-the- board tax to fill the national treasury was agreed upon. The amount to be contributed by each state was to be calculated from each state’s assessed land value.

Article VIII. of the Articles of Confederation states:

“All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.”

NOTE: each state was to make its contribution into the common treasury based upon the value of land within the state, and the value of land included an estimate of the “buildings and improvements thereon”. Hence ___ real and personal property is taken into account in the assessment when taxed.

The various reasons for which a Constitutional Convention was called are well known. One of the reasons being, the existing Congress under the Articles of Confederation had no authority to enforce the collection of and payment of taxes from the states, nor had power to tax the people and their property directly.

On July 2nd of the Convention there was an impasse concerning how the states would be represented in Congress. The Convention adjourned till July 5th. .

The following quotes from Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp) tells us how and why the rule by which the states agreed to contribute into the common treasury in a general tax was changed.

On July 5th, a proposition for fixing the representatives in the 1st branch , one member for every 40,000 inhabitants, was taken up.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS … thought property ought to be taken into the estimate as well as the number of inhabitants. Life & liberty were generally said to be of more value, than property. An accurate view of the matter would nevertheless prove that property was the main object of Society. . . . These ideas might appear to some new, but they were nevertheless just. If property then was the main object of Govt. certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due to those who were to be affected by the Governmt. … He thought the rule of representation ought to be so fixed as to secure to the Atlantic States a prevalence in the National Councils….”

Mr. RUTLIDGE. The gentleman last up had spoken some of his sentiments precisely. Property was certainly the principal object of Society. If numbers should be made the rule of representation, the Atlantic States will be subjected to the Western. He moved . . . "that the suffrages of the several States be regulated and proportioned according to the sums to be paid towards the general revenue by the inhabitants of each State respectively.”

July 6

Mr. DAVY, was for committing the clause in order to get at the merits of the question arising on the Report. He seemed to think that wealth or property ought to be represented in the 2d. branch; and numbers in the 1st. branch.

July 9

Mr. Govr. MORRIS “…the Legislature shall possess authority to regulate the number of Representatives in any of the foregoing cases, upon the principles of their wealth and number of inhabitants."

Mr. BUTLER urged warmly the justice & necessity of regarding wealth in the apportionment of Representation.

Mr. KING had always expected that as the Southern States are the richest, they would not league themselves with the Northn. unless some respect were paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect those preferential distinctions in Commerce & other advantages which they will derive from the connection they must not expect to receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of 13 of the States had agreed to consider Slaves in the apportionment of taxation; and taxation and Representation ought to go together.

July 10

Genl. PINKNEY dwelt on the superior wealth of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the Government.

July 11

Mr. WILLIAMSON was for making it the duty of the Legislature to do what was right & not leaving it at liberty to do or not do it. He moved that Mr. Randolph's proposition be postpond. in order to consider the following "that in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population & wealth of the several States, a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants and 3/5 ths. of those of other descriptions on the 1st. year after this Government shall have been adopted and every year thereafter; and that the Representation be regulated accordingly."

Mr. RUTLIDGE contended for the admission of wealth in the estimate by which Representation should be regulated. …. He moved that "at the end of years after the 1st. meeting of the Legislature, and of every years thereafter, the Legislature shall proportion the Representation according to the principles of wealth & population"

Mr. SHERMAN thought the number of people alone the best rule for measuring wealth as well as representation; and that if the Legislature were to be governed by wealth, they would be obliged to estimate it by numbers. He was at first for leaving the matter wholly to the discretion of the Legislature; but he had been convinced by the observations of [Mr. Randolph & Mr. Mason,] that the periods & the rule, of revising the Representation ought to be fixt by the Constitution

Mr. MADISON, Future contributions it seemed to be understood on all hands would be principally levied on imports & exports. …He could not agree that any substantial objection lay agst. fixig numbers for the perpetual standard of Representation…It was said that Representation & taxation were to go together; that taxation and wealth ought to go together, that population & wealth were not measures of each other.

July 12

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to add to the clause empowering the Legislature to vary the Representation according to the principles of wealth & number of inhabts. A "proviso that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."

Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

From the above documentation and the ratification of the Constitution, the Convention intentionally made an attempt to agree, and did in fact agree upon a new rule by which the people of the various states could be called upon to contribute into the federal treasury.

In agreeing upon the new rule, the subject of the varying and superior wealth between the states including land value and property, was a bone of contention and carefully considered in establishing the new rule by which the states agreed to contribute in a general tax among the states.

The new rule by which the people of the various states agreed to contribute into the federal treasury is stated in our Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, part of which states:

“Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…”

In view of our Constitution having been amended, the formula by which to determine each state’s contribution may be expressed as follows:

[b]
States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population

The language contained in H.R. 25 seeks to allow Congress to enter the states to impose a tax which reaches the people’s property, real and personal, in such a manner as would defeat the intentions and beliefs under which the states agreed to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury.

Bottom line is, our founding fathers specifically rejected the kind of tax a Flat Tax or the alleged Fair Tax would bring!

JWK