Say Anything Blog

[...] The FairTax Book A reader’s review. [...]

My thoughts about the prebate exactly.

I worry that if we get everyone used to the idea of getting a monthly stipend for the bare essentials of living, they’ll get used to the idea as an entitlement, not simply receiving back what they’ve already paid.

So what if the poor pay income taxes? If Boortz and Linder’s logic holds true, they already do, every time they buy something. So the cost of goods drops by 22% while the sales tax goes up by 23%? They’re still not out much of anything!

Why not either make non-luxury food items exempt from the tax, or figure the prebate into the rate thereby lowering it?

The “Fair Tax” is one of those issues (along with securing the border, reforming {or eliminating} the electoral college, and passing meaningful campaign finance reform) that will never, ever, ever go into law, despite widespread public support.

Wealthy corporations (i.e., politicians’ chief donors) like our current tax system and they like cheap labor in the form of illegal immigrants. They, and the politicians in their pockets, will never allow this to happen.

It’s an intriguing idea, but to me, it’s on the same level as “What happens when we die?” or “Is there life on other planets?”: it’s a purely hypothetical exercise.

Glad to see another blogger promoting this important issue.  I think the FairTax has the potential to help our country enormously.

If you’re interested, you can find news and discussion of the FairTax at the Fair Tax Blog.

Joshua

You say you want a revolution?
Tax beer, that’ll be the day.

Why not either make non-luxury food items exempt from the tax, or figure the prebate into the rate thereby lowering it?

These were my thoughts exactly, Charles.

What are your thoughts on the plan otherwise?

So the cost of goods drops by 22% while the sales tax goes up by 23%? They’re still not out much of anything!

And you’re forgetting about the larger paycheck thanks to no payroll taxes.

It’s an intriguing idea, but to me, it’s on the same level as “What happens when we die?” or “Is there life on other planets?”: it’s a purely hypothetical exercise.

With an attitude like that, David, its a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Were you born stupid, or did your mommy throw you on your head?

Your Mommie gave me head.
I’ve got her teeth in a jar.

The federal excise tax on beer amounts to about a nickel per drink—less than seven percent of the average price of a six-pack.  In fact, the relative cost of beer has declined dramatically in the past 50 years.  Even with a Federal tax increase in 1991, the average price of beer has fallen by more than 25 percent relative to the Consumer Price Index.  Had the tax kept up with inflation over the past 50 years, today’s $18 per-barrel tax would total approximately $63.69, or $1.15 per six-pack, more than three-and-one-half times the current rate.

http://www.cspinet.org/booze/FedBeerTaxMF.htm

woofie, there is a major portion of the cost of beer that is tax. Were you born stupid, or did your mommy throw you on your head?

Funny. Out here in the real world the price of alchol continues to rise, a major portion of that being taxes. What fantastical fantasy world do you live in?

WOOF wrote:

Your Mommie gave me head.
I’ve got her teeth in a jar.

It’s like reading Lewis Carroll…

Ha!

Thanks for that, Dave.  I think the soda I just shot out of my nose may well have ruined my keyboard.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

All:

Cliff Cofer, AFFT Volunteer State Director for Iowa

In my opinion, there’s no real “need” for the prebate.  If people would consider it objectively, they would observe that under the FairTax, they would be better off than they are under the current tax system.  Unfortunately, we live in a society that doesn’t consider an improvement in one’s lifestyle to be an actual improvement unless you’ve improved with respect to someone else.  We say things like this: “Sure, I might be making $40,000 per year more than I was two years ago, but Mark is making $75,000 more per year than he was, and my grades were better than his in college.  It’s just not fair!”

The reason for the “prebate” is purely political.  Despite the fact that “the poor” would be better off under the FairTax than they are now (since prices should stay about the same and their paychecks would go up), that’s not good enough, because rich people (who already pay more than their fair share of taxes) would be helped more. 

Since we can never, ever, ever treat rich people the same as we do poor people, we have to punish the rich, and the “prebate” serves as a way to make the tax progressive, and thus, more politically palatable.

As for simply eliminating the tax on certain things (food and clothing), you’re unfairly helping the rich there, too, as the rich spend a lot more on both (since gourmet food and nice suits cost more than bread, milk, t-shirts and jeans).  Also, exempting some items and not others will invariably allow for the same kind of “vote buying” that goes on now.  Democrats want to win/keep women voters?  They simply come out and say that tampons are necessities and should, therefore, be tax-exempt.

NAH,

There is not even a small portion of what you wrote that is accurate. 

So, under this plan, corporations will pay even less in taxes than they do now.

The taxes that corporations pay are passed on to you, the consumer anyway.  By removing the embedded tax on product the price of everything comes down.  Meanwhile you get 100% of your paycheck. 

As for the prebate.  I understand the logic.  A family of 4 needs to buy a certain amount of products to sustain itself.  The prebate allows for the return of the taxes that will be spend on the purchase of these items.  If we lower the tax rate to accommodate these necessities, then the poor would have a harder time affording these necessities.  The tax rate would only drop by a VERY small percentage and you would lose all of the revenue generated over the amount needed to sustain oneself.  I debate with myself over the pro’s and con’s of just dropping the tax on food items… I can see reasons for keeping it… Why not tax the 30th lobster, or the 70th box of cereal?  A person needs a certain amount of food and stuff to live, after that it’s gluttony and… why not tax it.  The only easy way to determine when that level is reached is to give a prebate.  Otherwise we would still need the IRS.

If the IRS goes away under this plan, it will just be replaced by 50 state-based IRS’s.

Every state is already set up to handle sales taxes (with 4 exceptions).  There wouldn’t need to be 50 IRS’s.  We would use the existing sales tax model.

This is a good plan folks.  Businesses would FLOCK to the US. 

This plan will tank the economy, currently only shored up by the real estate boom.  Add 23% more to the cost of already inflated homes.  Ugh.

Only on new homes and the price of the goods and labor used to make the home will drop with a net result of the same price for the home.  Use your head! 

By the way, the real estate boon was only made possible by the “Bush” tax cuts.

So, under this plan, corporations will pay even less in taxes than they do now.  The burden will be entirely on the people.  It IS regressive to have those who can afford it least to bear the larger burden.  It is nice that our politicians have afforded corporations the rights of individuals, while slowly chipping away at individual rights.  Anyone here ever smoke pot?  The underground economy would explode under this plan.  According to the group’s figures, at 1995 levels a new sales tax would have to raise $1.36 trillion to replace all Federal income taxes, payroll taxes and estate and gift taxes. Under its plan, the group says, taxable spending would be $4.6 trillion (after accounting for rebates to partly protect lower-income families).So, $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion would be the required sales tax rate. Fine, except that $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion is not 23 percent. It’s about 30 percent.

It turns out that the group’s purported 23 percent tax rate is misleading and hypothetical. It came up with that number by dividing the sales tax by the cost of a purchase plus the tax. So if the tax on a $100 purchase is $30, the group prefers to call it a 23 percent “tax inclusive rate” ($30 divided by $130). Ever hear of computing a sales tax like that?

The fact that the group’s sales tax, even by its own figures, entails a 30 percent tax rate is only the beginning of the math problems. The group’s backup materials also assert that almost a third of its projected sales-tax revenue is supposed to come from taxes the Government will pay to itself. Build a road, pay yourself a tax. Buy some planes for the Air Force, pay yourself some more. And so on.

Unfortunately, that shell game won’t work. Without these phantom governmental tax payments, the sales tax rate would have to jump to 42 percent to break even.

A bit more digging reveals that a quarter of the remaining sales taxes are supposed to be paid on things like church services, free care at veterans hospitals and a variety of hard-to-tax financial services like free checking accounts. If we discount the taxes on these items, the sales tax rate would have to climb to an astronomical 56 percent to break even.

Apparently, the millions of dollars that Americans for Fair Taxation says it has spent on focus groups and polling have taught it an important lesson: giving people the real facts about a national sales tax is politically disastrous for its proponents. So the group is trying the only other available route: cooking the numbers.

If the IRS goes away under this plan, it will just be replaced by 50 state-based IRS’s.  This plan will tank the economy, currently only shored up by the real estste boom.  Add 23% more to the cost of already inflated homes.  Ugh.

So, under this plan, corporations will pay even less in taxes than they do now.

Since corporations don’t pay taxes now (they just increase prices, passing the tax burden onto the consumers anyway), this would only be true if corporations get the prebate.  (They won’t, BTW, despite your assertion that corporations are treated like individuals.)

It IS regressive to have those who can afford it least to bear the larger burden.

Um… yes, that’s the definition of regressive (at least with regards to taxes).  What’s the point?

Ever hear of computing a sales tax like that?

No, so why would they do that?  Because it’s being compared to the current income tax system, not another sales tax.

Say that right now, I’m making $100 an hour (I wish).  I pay 23% in income taxes (which isn’t quite true, but it’s pretty close), so I can only purchase $77 worth of stuff.

Now, let’s move to the FairTax plan.  I earn $100 an hour, and I keep $100 per hour.  I buy $77 worth of stuff and pay (as you point out) an exclusive 30% tax.  30% of $77 is about $23 ($23.10, to be exact), and so my single hour of work buys the same amount of stuff (even if prices don’t drop with the removal of the embedded tax).

The 30% sales tax is the same as a 23% income tax, and as far as I know, the FairTax people have been scrupulously honest about this.  I know I’ve heard Neal Boortz explain the math on-air time after time, at any rate.

Improving your position in society by lowering those around you.

people don’t intentionally think like this. Do you? have you ever? studies of “society” are more about physical control and distribution of resources than the collective thoughts of individuals, which as demonstrated by comments like above shape around the distribution of the resources rather than vice versa. People want to have a good time, and wish good things for others. Raising one’s own standards based on another’s has historically always been recognized as a diseased way of thinking no matter what society the individual is thinking within. I bet that russian analogy dates back. These rich fucks today that feel they need five homes, eight cars and plasma tv’s in every room of the house don’t think they’re lowering the standards of those around them, they’re just having their fun...but when you look at it as distribution of resources (money, labor, etc.) the person is consuming far more than he needs, and collectively that drain of resources lowers the actual quality of life of those who have less money...the standard of living for the poor remains the same, but their life changes when they gradually have to work more for the same amount of resources they started with.

Unfortunately, we live in a society that doesn’t consider an improvement in one’s lifestyle to be an actual improvement unless you’ve improved with respect to someone else.

Very true. I once heard a story along the same line. A Russian peasant was offered anything he wanted, but his neighbor would receive twice as much. The peasant replied “Take out one of my eyes”. Improving your position in society by lowering those around you.

people don’t intentionally think like this. Do you? have you ever?

No to all the above… This story was used to explain why Russia/Russian people would NOT do well in a business environment like we have here. Remember, they had gone from a Czar and serfdom prior to 1917 and directly into a communist dictatorship so they had no experience with capitalism. They had never even had land ownership. When the product of your work is not yours, but belongs to the Czar or the collective there is no way to raise yourself other than lowering those around you.

The story is very old as I said. I believe I first heard it in the late 50’s or early 60’s.

The FairTax (HR 25/S 25) is a far better way to fund the U.S. Government than the messed-up Income Tax System (and IRS). Please view....

Thanks, Cliff Cofer

[...] I’ve already been on record opposing the prebate. Once you get the government involved in sending out checks each month to every single taxpayer, regardless of income, you’re only asking for trouble. [...]

Another observation concerning H.R. 25, the alleged Fair Tax.

Another objection to H.R. 25, the alleged FairTax, is its attempt to resurrect a socialist type of tax allowable under the Articles of Confederation___ a general across the board tax based upon wealth in which each member state agreed to contribute into the common treasury in proportion to its assessed wealth.

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.”

But this kind of tax, a general tax based upon wealth by which the various member states agreed to contribute into the common treasury under the Articles of Confederation, was rejected during the Convention of 1787 and protection was afforded against it by a new rule requiring the general tax to be apportioned among the states and basing each state’s share, not upon wealth, not upon “income”, but upon each state’s number of representatives in Congress---in other words representation with proportional obligation___ the new rule for a general tax which socialists and the friends a profligate big government hate with a passion because it is an antidote to a spendthrift big government and takes the socialist sting out of a general across the board tax upon wealth in which member states are to contribute into the common treasury.

Although H.R. 25 does not calculate each state’s share of the tax upon its assessed land value as done under the Articles of Confederation, it attempts to accomplish the same socialist objective by calculating the contributions of each member state by the value of property sold and its economic enterprises as reflected in business transactions within each particular state, and is, without question, a general wealth based tax which the wise Framers agreed, and those ratifying our Constitution agreed, may be laid among the states, but requires an apportionment based upon each state’s number of representatives in Congress Assembled, which was an important compromise during the Convention of 1787!

H.R. 25 is another attack upon federalism, attempts to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution was intended to forbid directly, and seeks to establish a socialist friendly type of wealth based tax in which the most productive member states in the Union would be compelled to carry the burden of taxation while the least productive states may feed from the public trough using their vote without contributing in proportion to their voting strength.

In harmony with the new rule of apportionment agreed to by the ratification of our Constitution, and when the various states are required to contribute into the common treasury in a general tax such as H.R. 25 is, Congress is required to determine a total sum needed to be collected under the general tax and then notify each member state of its share of the total amount to being collected, basing each state’s apportioned share on its allotted number of representatives, and, when each state`s share of the total being collected is raised and deposited with the Treasury of the United States, the tax is to be suspended in those states having paid their apportioned share of the general tax being collected.

Now, how does one confirm the historical truth of this matter, and, was this the intention of the framers and ratifiers of our Constitution? Well, we can do this by reading from the state ratification documents as to what the founders intended with regard to the various member states contributing into the common treasury in a general direct tax.

EXAMPLE:

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire

“Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition- ”

But were the above stated intentions generally understood and agreed to by the founders and then practiced by actual legislation for a general tax which would confirm such intentions? Well, let us read from the legislative Acts in which the general tax is involved:

APPORTIONMENT OF A DIRECT TAX TO RAISE A TOTAL OF $ 2 MILLION TREASURY DEPARTMENT MAY 25TH 1798

An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the united states [1st direct tax July 14, 1789 for $2 million and each state’s share of the $2million being raised.]

An Act to repeal the internal taxes April 3rd, 1802

An Act for the assessment and collection of direct taxes, July 22, 1813

Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax.

Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.

And, for a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states,
CLICK HERE
Bottom line: the only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation’s original tax plan:

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

Regards,
JWK
ACRS

To study the founder’s plan CLICK HERE and scroll down to

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

To see what freedom loving people and real Americans are supporting CLICK HERE

The strength of our constitutional system is found in the people’s will to rise up and defend their constitution--- it is not found in a piece of paper which merely guarantees the right to rise up.

More on The FairTax Con Artists!

To understand the FairTax fraud being perpetrated by Neal Boortz, one must first understand the 16th Amendment did not create any new tax.  The Amendment merely clarified a question about a constitutional provision requiring “apportionment” of a tax calculated from income!

This happens to be an extremely important point and exposes why the sales pitch given by the FAIR TAX CON ARTISTS, especially Neal Boortz, their ring leader, is just that----a con job plain and simple!

We are told by Boortz his plan will eliminate “income taxes” [taxes calculated from income] and relieve us of the massive paper work and man hours wasted with such a tax.  But this is a bold face lie made by Boortz for two reasons:

1.

The tax Boortz mentions can only be “eliminated” by a constitutional amendment forbidding Congress to calculate a tax from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

To this day, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no pending legislation on Capitol Hill promoted by the Fair Tax Con Artists which proposes: 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.

Without such an amendment to our Constitution, the tax mentioned by Boortz in his book and its collection agency is not eliminated as his book fraudulently portrays on its cover!

2.

But let’s give Mr. Boortz the benefit of doubt and that it is his intention, by the language of H.R. 25, to “eliminate taxes calculated from income“.

Sad to say even this turns out to be wishful thinking. If H.R. 25 was enacted into law tomorrow, and Congress followed its language to the letter, H.R. 25 makes no attempt by its language to prohibit Congress from laying an “excise tax” as mentioned in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), a case decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment upholding an excise tax calculated from corporate profits, gains, and income.

The Fair Tax Con Artists having left this loophole, invites a future Congress, in order to be in compliance with H.R. 25, to simply erase the word “Revenue” from “Internal Revenue Code” and replace that word with “Excise“, as in “Internal Excise Code,” and likewise erase the word “Revenue” from “Internal Revenue Service” and replace it with “Excise“, as in “Internal Excise Service“, and then go about its business inflicting the same time consuming and costly misery upon Corporations as now done under “income taxation“, but in addition, these corporations will also have to abide by and follow a second rule book promoted by Boortz under H.R. 25, with all its new regulations for record keeping and the payment of taxes as stipulated in its language!

And if you think this would not quickly happen with Congress’ never ending appetite to increase its piece of the pie created by America‘s businesses and labor, you would also have to believe there would be an earth shattering outcry from the people of America if H. R. 25 was adopted and after its adoption Congress decided to enact a small “pay their fair share” additional excise tax upon corporations and other wealthy scoundrels who make millions of dollars a year in “profits” and bleed the poor working people, as was alleged about Leona Helmsley, who just happened to pay more in taxes than the combined taxes paid by any 20 average working people in New York, but was then sent to jail because of Congresses predatory appetite.

But wait!  I though Boortz was a defender of people being free to earn a profit.  So why, tell me why on earth does he promote a plan which provides the tools to Ted Socialist Kennedy, and his disciples in Congress, to continue to bleed the productive members of society, while giving a $ 400 per month bonus to un-wed moms to stay at home and make babies under his family consumption allowance?

Why does Boortz promote a plan which paves the way to create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year___ the cost of which would make the projected price tag of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed?

Why on earth would Boortz, the self anointed enemy of socialism and defender of free enterprise, promote a plan which offers a windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and would give Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples on Capitol Hill a very valuable tool, the family consumption allowance, which they will be more than happy to promise to increase during election time to buy millions of votes to remain in power?  Do these socialists not do this now with the minimum wage, social security payments, aid to families with dependant children, Pell Grants, and you name it from the shopping list of socialist give-away- programs created by Congress___ the only difference with H.R. 25 is, its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check!

Were we not warned by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers that control over a man subsistence is a control over their will?

Come on all you Boortz fan Fair Tax stooges, answer the questions!

Regards,
JWK
ACRS

The only stinking tax reform we need is to demand our employees add the following words to our Constitution:

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

It does not take 135 pages of bull [H.R. 25] to accomplish real tax reform, it only takes the will of the people to rise up and demand their employees, their public servants, add the above words to their Constitution, bringing us back to our Founder’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN

Regards,
JWK
ACRS

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

While I agree that the present tax system is rife with problems, the real problem with taxes in this country is not with the method, but IMO the amount of taxes.  Our real tax rate, with all the imbedded taxes, is about 50%, and this is just too much.  Govt has too much scope and power, and is therefore very expensive.  The only solution is cutting govt expense by cutting out the gravy train for the political class.  IMO, we are in the stage of figuring out how to deal with political freedom, with the attendant cost and confusion.  We give too much power to politics right now and are paying for it.  It might be useful to think of the federal govt as a management company for all of us.  The usual compensation for that is around 15% of the gross, so you can see that we are being overcharged. We should demand accounting, which would reveal a scandal of many Enrons in scope.

john w k - nowhere in your comments did I see anything that explained how a sales tax is in any way “socialist”.

likwidshoe:

We were talking about H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax which contains a “family consumption allowance“.  Taxing articles of consumption in the manner our founding fathers intended is far different that the tax described in H.R. 25, and far different than a national sales tax, both of which I disagree with based upon the wisdom of our founding fathers.

In any event, did you miss the following in regard to the Boortz Plan and why it is socialists friendly?

But wait!  I though Boortz was a defender of people being free to earn a profit.  So why, tell me why on earth does he promote a plan which provides the tools to Ted Socialist Kennedy, and his disciples in Congress, to continue to bleed the productive members of society, while giving a $ 400 per month bonus to un-wed moms to stay at home and make babies under his family consumption allowance?

Why does Boortz promote a plan which paves the way to create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year___ the cost of which would make the projected price tag of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed?

Why on earth would Boortz, the self anointed enemy of socialism and defender of free enterprise, promote a plan which offers a windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and would give Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples on Capitol Hill a very valuable tool, the family consumption allowance, which they will be more than happy to promise to increase during election time to buy millions of votes to remain in power?  Do these socialists not do this now with the minimum wage, social security payments, aid to families with dependant children, Pell Grants, and you name it from the shopping list of socialist give-away- programs created by Congress___ the only difference with H.R. 25 is, its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check!

Were we not warned by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers that control over a man subsistence is a control over their will?

Regards,

JWK

john w k - nowhere in your comments did I see anything that explained how a sales tax is in any way “socialist”.

H.R. 25 is another attack upon federalism, attempts to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution was intended to forbid directly, and seeks to establish a socialist friendly type of wealth based tax in which the most productive member states in the Union would be compelled to carry the burden of taxation while the least productive states may feed from the public trough using their vote without contributing in proportion to their voting strength.

It is like this regardless of what type of tax you impose. None of the states are equal in terms of wealth and possible wealth generation. The bigger states have more land resources and the more populous states have more of a brain resource. So tell me how “the most productive member states in the Union” wouldn’t be carrying the bigger load in regards to federal taxation? There’s no way around it.

Note that the above wouldn’t even be an issue if the federal government didn’t dole out nurmerous Marxist program benefits. If they stuck to the three recognized branches of government instead of the four we have (executive, legislative, judicial, + the unrecognized but very existent welfare), we probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

To understand the FairTax fraud being perpetrated by Neal Boortz, one must first understand the 16th Amendment did not create any new tax. The Amendment merely clarified a question about a constitutional provision requiring “apportionment” of a tax calculated from income!

From whence we got the federal income tax. A new tax. No fraud. No shit.

...its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check!

I’m not convinced that it would make the majority of American households dependent, but it sure would increase the dependence upon the government. That much I’m in agreement with you on.

The only stinking tax reform we need is to demand our employees add the following words to our Constitution:

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

That and a national sales tax so that everybody can see just how big the behemeth of our federal government is. One page is all you’d need to appeal the 16th Amendment and lay out the terms of the sales tax.

By the way - I was sort of on the fence about this bill. You are tipping me towards opposing it for some of the same reasons you outlined above.

robert108 said, While I agree that the present tax system is rife with problems, the real problem with taxes in this country is not with the method...

Sorry robert, I can’t agree. The government has no freaking business in knowing how much I make. Not only that, but we shouldn’t have to worry about dotting all of the i’s and crossing all of the t’s. The tax code is far from easy to understand and no one person could possibly know all of the often contradicting rules. That we live in fear every April 15th is a big problem with me. A “free nation” shouldn’t go through this.

likwid: You truncated what I wrote, as well as misinterpreting me.  I still maintain the real “tax problem” is the amount the govt demands.  In economic history, it has been shown that when real tax rates go over 20%, people respond by trying to avoid taxes.  You may think that any sort of taxation is onerous, but I guarantee that if real tax rates were at 20% or below, you would recognize the value of what the govt provides and pay it without much concern.  I did say that the present system is “rife with problems”, but I still believe that the amount is what is onerous, no matter how it might get collected.  Any sort of consumption tax has its own problems, but once again, it’s the amount.  If the consumption tax was 5%, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.  Likewise the income tax.

robert108 said, likwid: You truncated what I wrote, as well as misinterpreting me. I still maintain the real “tax problem” is the amount the govt demands.

I believe that the size collected is the bigger problem by fair, but far from being the “real tax problem”. I would say that the “real tax problem” is both the size that is collected and how it is collected. I don’t seperate them because they are so intertwined in my mind. Maybe I should. In any regard, we agree more than we disagree on this issue. We just see it slightly different.

In economic history, it has been shown that when real tax rates go over 20%, people respond by trying to avoid taxes.

Popularly known as the Laffer Curve. Dimishing tax returns once past the height of the curve. Could also be called the “sweet spot”.

If the consumption tax was 5%, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Likewise the income tax.

If we had a 5% income tax, my concern would primarily be with the way that it is collected.

john w k said, We were talking about H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax which contains a “family consumption allowance“. Taxing articles of consumption in the manner our founding fathers intended is far different that the tax described in H.R. 25, and far different than a national sales tax, both of which I disagree with based upon the wisdom of our founding fathers.

Alright. I can see my mistake.

In any event, did you miss the following in regard to the Boortz Plan and why it is socialists friendly?

No, I got you on those points. My biggest problem with the “Fair Tax” was with the so called “allowance”. An arbitrary amount of allowed non-taxable goods set by a government is a recipe for the same exact Marxist class-envy games we suffer from today. I have the same concerns you do.

...and would give Ted Socialist Kennedy...

I believe that his proper name is Chappaquiddick Fats.

Likwidshoe,

I thought we would agree on the socialist friendly nature of the Neal Boortz supported H.R. 25, and agree because of the family consumption allowance!

Now, should I explain why an across the board national sales tax, although not as socialistic as H.R. 25, is also socialist friendly___ mind you, it is not as socialistic as Neal’s plan, but it is socialist friendly, big government friendly, and, unlike our Founder’s original tax plan, an across the board federal tax on the purchases of all articles of consumption needlessly burdens America’s businesses industries and laboring class people without any checks and balances to encourage Congress to adopt sound fiscal policies beneficial to America’s businesses, industries and working class people.

I believe that in addition to searching for a fair system to fill the national treasury, we ought to also insure the method provides self regulating checks and balances to discourage Congress from engaging in reckless spending and borrowing practices.

Shall I continue?

Regards,

JWK

john w k: Since I regard all government as essentially socialistic(due to it’s collective nature), I don’t think any particular method of collecting taxes as being “fair”. I also think fairness itself is in the eye of the beholder.  For instance, collectivists think so-called progressive taxation is fair.  I think equal tax rates would be more in line with the definition of “fair”.  I don’t necessarily support the FairTax, and not only because of the govt handouts contained in it.  Economically speaking, taxes suppress the economic activity in the area taxed.  I would support taxation that damaged incentive as little as possible, and the “FairTax” suppresses consumption.  Not only that, it penalizes upgrading, which is the real ingredient in the prosperity generated by the free enterprise system.  Better stuff is subjected to more tax, because it costs more.  Taxing income, as onerous as it may be, is less of an incentive-killer because we all want and need income, so we will work for it anyway.  In addition, we will still have incentive to increase our income, because we will end up with more money in the end, despite even “progressive” taxation.  I see a low uniform tax rate as being more economically desirable.  I also like plenty of “loopholes” for investment, as well as abolishing the double taxation of capital gains taxation, since those activities are the seeds of the next cycle of economic activity.

It’s also a shot at the family structure.  All money to the state is unearned, by the way.

I also like plenty of “loopholes” for investment, as well as abolishing the double taxation of capital gains taxation, since those activities are the seeds of the next cycle of economic activity.

Bingo!

Another double taxation issue is the “estate tax”. We have the class envy spewing Democrats/liberals/Marxists who hypocritically like to claim that all inheritence is “unearned” and consequently believe that they are justified in collecting a heavy tax. The class envy groups ignore the fact that they are the ones collecting unearned money (by the threat of gun no less). Remember that the next time you see a Democrat/liberal/Marxist say that the “estate tax” is justified because it is a tax on “unearned money”. Just don’t tell them that someone had to earn it and it was bequeathed by that someone to people who aren’t them,..the logic might make their heads explode.

Robert,

I believe you would have fit right in with our founding fathers during the Convention of 1787,and I mean that as a genuine compliment.  The sad thing I see is that few people, especially those who believe in the protection of individual liberty and unalienable rights, fully understand the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to.
In a previous post I gave the documented background concerning the rule of apportionment as applied to our founding father’s plan.  Now, I will try to put that plan into a concept which you may be able to relate to.
Picture ten or twenty businesses in a section of town where armed robberies and burglaries begin to cause serious problems for the business owners.  The business owners get together to see how they can solve this problem on their own.  They decide that hiring an armed guard to patrol the area 24 hours a day would probably solve their problem.  Of course, in addition to hiring three guards to serve on different shifts, there would be the additional cost of purchasing a patrol car, upkeep, communications equipment, uniforms, etc.  And so, they try to work out an acceptable plan by which they all are to contribute to finance the security operation.
In addition to financing the operation, decisions will also have to be made from time to time as to who to hire, how much to spend, and establishing the actual rules which shall be followed for the security operation.
One suggestion is made that each business owner contributes 2 percent of the total sales of their business and each business owner gets to cast one vote when policy maters are to be determined___ a majority vote shall carry.
This is immediately objected to by several business owners.  In a number of instances there are two or three businesses housed in a large building, each of which wants a vote.  Others object and claim if there is only one building to be protected, only one vote should be allowed regardless of how many businesses are in the building. Why give each business owner a vote?  The rule is also objected to by some of these same business owners [those housed in one building] because their combined sales are at least four or five times higher than some other businesses housed in their own building, and they would be contributing a much larger amount into the general fund to protect their building, but when it came time to making policy decisions, the remaining single business owners housed in their own building would control policy by their combined larger voting strength.
A suggestion is then made that each building to be protected shall be considered as a party to the security plan and each party shall be allotted one vote for each business owner contained in that building.  In addition, when contributions are required to be made into the common treasury, a total sum needed shall be determined and that sum shall then be apportioned among the parties based upon their number of votes [businesses in that building].  In other words, each protected building contributes in proportion to its allotted number of votes___ representation with proportional obligation___ a rule establishing an equal contribution from each business owner and likewise giving an equal vote in policy making.
This is, in general, what our founding fathers agreed to when agreeing to apportioning among the states as I have documented in a previous post!
A national retail sales tax undermines the rule by which each state is to contribute into the common treasury and allows a state with a large voting strength in Congress to dominate in the setting of policy, but without having to contribute a proportional amount in financing that policy.
A national retail sales tax, income tax, flat income tax, value added tax, etc., used to finance the functions of our federal government removes one of the most important checks and balances our founding fathers agreed upon to help insure sound fiscal and economic policies___ policy making with proportional obligation!
Does this make sense to you? 
Regards,
JWK

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation’s original tax plan:
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:  We’re pretty much on the same page.  The problem with political representation, as opposed to your example, is that there is a separate political class, with a different agenda, in charge of the apportionment.  The business owners might have slightly different agendas, but they are all pro-business.  Not so for elected representatives.  Their agenda is to have ever larger and more powerful govt, whereas business has an agenda of ever increasing profits, made possible by minimal expenses.  The incentive for the political class is to continually increase the expense of govt.  Therefore, I would propose a Constitutional amendment mandating a maximum tax rate, say, 20% and a balance budget within 2%, thus making it necessary for the political class to support economic growth for them to increse their spending.  Although it would be for different reasons, we would then all be on the same page, economically.

Robert,

I’m not sure I understand what you mean regarding different agendas within the context of political vs. business, and within my example.  Remember, my example is within the intentions under which our federal Constitution was adopted as a commercial agreement between the states, and part of those intentions limit the authorized functions of elected representatives by a written constitution.  The limitations of those functions were best stated by Hamilton:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

So, although I agree that businesses have a specific objective while politicians have an objective as you correctly describe, the written federal constitution was designed to limit the authorized functions of the federal government.  As Jefferson correctly stated:

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

And so, your concern was aptly addressed by the framers of the constitution when limiting the authorized functions of the federal government they created.

But your concern does have real merit when applied to the particular state constitutions and the specific conflicting interests of businesses and state politicians.  But this is not what we are addressing now, which is our federal government and a method by which to finance its authorized functions.

Your proposal of a constitutional amendment mandating a maximum tax rate, say, 20% [on what?] and a balance budget within 2%, does not take into account for unforeseen emergencies such as a war.  Our founders addressed that problem by intending to have Congress raise its ordinarily needed revenue from indirect taxation: imposts, duties and excise taxes [which have their own self regulating features], but if an emergency should arise and Congress had to borrow to meet its expenditures, then a general tax among the states was to be laid to extinguish the deficit, apportioning each state’s share on its voting strength in Congress assembled.

This general tax establishes a moment of actability for each state’s congressional delegation who would have to return to their state with a bill for its apportioned obligation in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress and the various state Legislatures and Governors having the burden to raise this revenue and then send it off to Washington without getting the chance to spend this money themselves!

This creates a situation in which the Governors of each state and their various state Legislatures have a very real interest in keeping a jealous eye on the spending habits of their delegations sent to Washington.  To remove this conflict of interests, Congress no longer abides by the intended apportioned tax, has placed an un-apportioned tax directly upon the people themselves, and has set itself free from the scrutiny and reprisals of their state elected officials.  It is called breaking the chains of the constitution!

For the documentation of this general tax as it was used when our Constitution was being observed by our folks in Washington, see my post above, December 25, 2005 at 11:49 am

In any event, and with regard to your description of folks in government “Their agenda is to have ever larger and more powerful govt,”. , I would say:

Fact is, our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population with a national debt which exceeds $50 Trillion. Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant, and the new servant pays tribute, through taxation, to a gangster government which ignores our most basic law…our constitutions, state and federal.

“He has erected a multitude of new officesand sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees, their public servants add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation’s original tax plan:

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

Regards,

JWK

P.S. There is much talk these days about the national debt. So, just what is the size of the national debt? For a real answer see: Measuring the Federal Government’s Unfunded Liability

JWK: I was replying to your example of a group of businessmen banding together to obtain security for their businesses.  They have a common purpose, and an incentive to keep expenses down.  Apportioning the expense, then, is a top priority.  None of those apply to the federal govt.  That was my point.  Your example was not applicable to our situation vis a vis taxation and the federal govt, for the reasons I enumerated.
The problem with your solution is that it relies on govt to limit its expenses to those necessary, and they have no incentive to do that.  In fact, it’s just the opposite. 
Even my plan to do it by consititutional amendment relies on some method of enforcing it, as it would contain a provision for expense in time of war.  The problem with both my plan and yours is that the federal govt is the one that determines what “special circumstances” are.  Look at the results of the Interstate Commerce Act.  I think we know that the federal govt will never restrain its own spending.  We have to cut off their money by other means.  The National Debt, IMO, is the amount the govt owes the taxpayers. It is essentially an accounting trick.  A businessman needs to go into debt to increase his business, but the govt doesn’t produce anything except debt.  I think govt programs should be under constant scrutiny for results, and their budgets should be adjusted according to what they actually produce.

JWK: I repeat, how is this to be enforced?  You are right in regard to our founding principles, but there seems to be no way to enforce any of it in the modern world.  If the federal govt was limited by its ability to generate itss own revenue, without taxing the citizens, there would be no problems.  However, the political incentive is to promise, for the purpose of getting votes, to take care of the population.  Therefore, those elected are the ones who have promised the most.  They then justify confiscating income to fund their promises, which the electorate voted for by electing them.  We have to demand less from the govt, so the supply of govt will be reduced.  I see all this as having to originate with the American people.  It is certainly not about the method of collecting taxes.  Under the present system, a govt surplus really represents excessive taxation, and ought not to be applauded.  Draining the private sector to benefit the public sector is bad for everyone but the political class.

JWK: The problem with your solution is that it relies on govt to limit its expenses to those necessary, and they have no incentive to do that. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Robert,

What I promote is a return to our founding father’s “solution”.  I would like to take credit for their plan, but I can‘t .  Unfortunately, not one in ten thousand Americans understand the intentions and beliefs [the legislative intent] under which our Constitution was agreed upon.  And so, Congress is not only free to, but does in fact ignore some of its most important built-in rules, one of which was intended to provide the incentive you refer to . . . the intended requirement to impose the apportioned tax among the states when insufficient revenue is raised from impost, duties and excise taxes, and each congressional delegation having to return to their own state with a bill for its apportioned obligation in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress.  Thus leaving the various state Legislatures and Governors with the burden to raise this revenue and then send it off to Washington without getting the chance to spend the money they have raised:

“Picture, for a moment, the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [31/435] of the 1995 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Dele-gation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Mem-bers!” See: Kurowski on Tax and scroll down to:
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Truth is, Robert, our founding father’s plan worked so well in controlling the actions of Congress that by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

Regards,
JWK

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees, their public servants, add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation’s original tax plan:

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.

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship...it only taxes 32 words for the people of America to gain control of a runaway Congress!

To those among you who believe that corporations (businesses) pay taxes I can only ask what you’ve been smoking?

Corporations include not only their tax obligation but also the compliance costs in the price of the merchandise or service they sell. The true payer of ALL taxes are the individual either directly or embedded in the price of merchandise or services purchased.

Thank you, Dewey! I have made this point in other comment threads and at other blogs. It is usually met with stupified silence or tax&spend supporter’s derision. In the end, all taxes are paid by the individual.

The Fair Tax is proposed as a Fair, Simple, and Transparent tax system.

You bet H.R. 25 is Transparent___ but it sure is not Fair as is suggested! 

For example, the monthly family consumption allowance checks which would be sent out by government under H.R. 25 would come from taxes paid by people who work for a living, pay the H.R. 25 tax, and thereby contribute into the common treasury. 

The family consumption allowance entitles those who do not work for a living nor contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance!  Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but makes babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance.  Even criminals who are locked up in prison and jail are entitled to the allowance. In fact, each of the above are entitled to get a $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25, for not contributing into the common treasury, which turns out to be another socialist transfer of wealth entitlement program. 

H.R. 25, the alleged FairTax, would create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year! The cost of this entitlement to the American Taxpayers would make the projected cost of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed.

Hey Boortz, and all you Fair Tax Neal Boortz Stooges, where are you? Come out and defend your socialist transfer-of-wealth tax plan.

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees, their public servants, add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation`s original tax plan: 

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.

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn`t take 135 pages of bullstuff, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship, it only taxes 32 words for the people of America to gain control of a runaway Congress! 


To study Founder`s original tax plan CLICK HERE and scroll down to: 

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Regards,
JWK,
ACRS

In response to JWK:

For example, the monthly family consumption allowance checks which would be sent out by government under H.R. 25 would come from taxes paid by people who work for a living, pay the H.R. 25 tax, and thereby contribute into the common treasury.

Ignorance is bliss. It allows anyone to spew rhetoric even if they have no understanding of what they speak.

Your premise that only people who work pay the FairTax shows your basic misunderstanding. The Fair Tax is a consumption tax. It does not require the taxpayer to work, only to spend. All who spend pay the tax except the poorest among us. Spending is the source for contribution to the common treasury.

I do agree with:

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.

however, if you only repeal the 16th amendment you leave it to congress and the K Street lobbyists to come up with a replacement income source. Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather have a system which the citizenry agrees is the best choice. I believe the FairTax to be that system.

Discussion and debate on a topic as important as this is needed to insure we have the best system available. Criticizing a system is needed but doing so without providing an alternative is meaningless verbage.

DRN

Dewey wrote:

Your premise that only people who work pay the FairTax shows your basic misunderstanding. The Fair Tax is a consumption tax. It does not require the taxpayer to work, only to spend. All who spend pay the tax except the poorest among us. Spending is the source for contribution to the common treasury.

ANSWER

My “premise is “contribute into the common treasury”.  Un-wed moms who do not work for a living and receive a monthly government welfare check who would purchase articles under the H.R. 25 consumption tax would not be contributing into the common treasury because the money they spend comes from the common treasury.  The same applies to the thugs I mentioned as the money they spend is really other people’s money which they stole. But under H.R. 25, they would receive a $400 a month bonus taken from the common treasury..

Dewey wrote:

however, if you only repeal the 16th amendment you leave it to congress and the K Street lobbyists to come up with a replacement income source. Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather have a system which the citizenry agrees is the best choice. I believe the FairTax to be that system.

Discussion and debate on a topic as important as this is needed to insure we have the best system available. Criticizing a system is needed but doing so without providing an alternative is meaningless verbage.

ANSWER

I guess you didn’t know that our Constitution, not the folks over at K street, determines how Congress shall raise its revenue.  And, that Constitution without the 16th Amendment provides a specific plan to raise a federal revenue, our founding father’s original tax plan which is the “alternative” you must be seeking.

To study the Founder’s plan CLICK HERE and scroll down to:

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Regards,
JWK

To JWK:

We have heard your opinion of the unwed mothers and the thugs, how do you feel about the multi-millionaire who inherited their money? They don’t work and very well may not “contribute to the common treasury” yet they would receive the rebate as well. How about the drug dealers? They don’t pay any taxes today but they do spend that ill-gotten money and would be taxed under the FairTax. Or how about the illegal aliens and those Americans who work “off the books” and again pay no taxes today? Under FairTax not only would all those pay taxes but so would the 50 million tourists who come here and spend their money every year.

Also, you keep quoting a $400 amount… WRONG… the rebate is equal to 23% of the federally established poverty level for a particular household size. Once again you are making statements which are not true. Please try to be honest.

I’ve studied the fallacy you call the “Founders Plan” and I would like you to defend how it would work in today’s environment. And be realistic. Do you understand that the FairTax IS constitutional without the 16th amendment?

Before we continue, have you considered what would happen in your own life should the FairTax become the law? Look at your income, taxes, expenses, investments and savings. It may help if you would go to

http://www.fairtax.org/tax_returns.html

and see a comparison with your real numbers.

Regards from the real world

DRN

Hey Dewey,

When a person disagrees with something which is stated, rather than make unsubstantiated counter claims, reasonable people quote that which they disagree with and then present their objections along with supportive documentation and a well reasoned argument.  You have offered nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion and misdirected the subject matter avoiding the particular issues being raised.

Tell me Dewy, under H.R. 25, are criminals who are locked up in jail entitled to the family consumption allowance?  Are un-wed moms, who stay at home are not gainfully employed and make multiple babies to increase their monthly welfare check, entitled to the family consumption allowance and would, under H.R. 25, be given a $400 per month bonus, just for staying home?  [NOTE: The $400 figure given is the estimated average size of check which would be sent out monthly to each household by government.  You, Dewey, are the only one here being disingenuous and obfuscating].

How about drug dealers and drug addicts, burglars, armed robbers and car thieves, Dewey, are they too entitled to the allowance, or did I make something up? 

Tell me Dewey, is it not true that the family consumption allowance would create the largest entitlement in the history of America, an entitlement which would make Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed?

And tell me Dewey, is it not true that the family consumption allowance would give Ted Socialist Kennedy a very valuable tool which he and his socialist pals on Capitol Hill would promise to increase to remain in power just as they now do with the minimum wage, social security payments, aid to families with dependant children, Pell Grants, and you name it from the shopping list of socialist give-away- programs created by Congress?  The only difference with H.R. 25 is, its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check!  Isn’t this true Dewey?

Now tell me Dewey, is this “family consumption allowance” feature of H.R. 25 really necessary?  Can it be cleaned up to remove its undesirable effects and attributes? And how do we prevent the family consumption allowance from being used by dishonorable politicians to buy the votes of “the poor and under privileged”?  Is it not true that the only way to prevent the family consumption allowance from being manipulated by Congress would be by the adoption of specific limitations being added to our Constitution? Does H.R. 25 make such a proposal? 

You also assert the tax which would be imposed under H.R. 25 is constitutional.  Tell me Dewey, are you familiar with the most fundamental rule of constitutional law?  That rule requires the intent of the Constitution to be carried out as it was contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it. 

In my post of December 25, 2005 at 11:49 am I provided ample documentation regarding a new rule by which the various states agreed to allow Congress to lay and collect a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury.  That rule requires an apportionment of the tax among the states based upon each states allotted number of representatives as permitted under Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution.  H.R. 25, by its own language, imposes a tax upon the value of property as was allowed under the Articles of Confederation.  But that type of tax was specifically rejected by the ratification of our existing Constitution and a new rule was adopted as expressed in Article 1, Section 2 and Article 1, Section 9 In addition, the tax imposed under H.R. 25 cannot be classified as an impost, duty or excise tax as these taxes were understood and practiced by our founding fathers.  The tax does however fit within the meaning of a general type of tax among the states, and so, such a tax requires its apportionment based upon representation…a very important compromise agreed upon during the framing and ratification of our Constitution!  I know socialists and the friends of big government hate the rule of apportionment, but there it is, in our Constitution!

Oh, and BTW, Dewey, you wrote: “We have heard your opinion of the unwed mothers and the thugs, how do you feel about the multi-millionaire who inherited their money?”

To answer your question Dewey, the money they spend when purchasing under H.R. 25 would not be money stolen from another, nor handed to them from the common treasury, and so, there is a very real contribution by them into the common treasury.  What’s the matter pal, do you have something against people inheriting money?  I know socialist do.

Finally, you ask if I have considered what would happen in my own life should the H.R. 25 become the law?  I have, Dewey, and that is the very reason why I reject the idea…it keeps the status quo in tact and merely rearranges the chairs on a sinking ship.  It does nothing to control the wasteful spending and borrowing of Congress, and it is intentionally designed to fund existing big government and its countless political plum jobs which redistribute money taxed away from hard working Americans, and, the plan you support contains no checks and balances to make member of Congress immediately accountable when engaging in deficits spending___ all of which would immediately change if our Founding Fathers plan were put back into practice by adding the following words to our Constitution:

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

See how easy real tax reform is Dewey? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to establish a fair system of taxation and gain control of a runaway Congress!

CLICK HERE for the Founder’s Plan and scroll down to:

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Regards,

“He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

To JWK:

It is apparent that you only care to espouse the Libertarian philosophy and have a real obsession about unwed mothers.

You continue to promote a philosophy that can never become law. In fact, it has so few supporters that there has never been a candidate for federal office elected under that banner. But that’s OK. Please continue to beat your head against the wall and speak out.

The FairTax is designed to replace the current system with one which is fairer to all Americans, does not require a $13 Billion federal agency to administer, and is not intrusive into your personal life. The FairTax has one other great advantage, it can become law. What you espouse can’t even get a congressman elected and it has no chance of ever being implemented. That makes it just another pipe dream. Instead of continuing to tilt at windmills, why not work for something which is both better for Americans and can change the horrendous system we have today.

Only by working within the system, making the small changes which can be passed into law do we, the American people, stand a chance of gaining some control of the Congress.

As for documentation of what I’ve posted here, please go to http://www.fairtax.org. All the documentation is there.

Dewey

ps. I believe you should have referred to Article I Section 7 instead of Section 2. Section 2 is concerned with the makeup of the House of Representatives.

Well, Dewey, I see you continue to post unsubstantiated claims rather than present your objections to what I have posted along with a well reasoned counter argument. Why do you continue to offered nothing but your unsubstantiated opinions and misdirected the subject matter and avoid the particular issues being raised?

I noticed you stated that I continue to promote a philosophy that can never become law. Seems to me the last time I checked, my philosophy is promoting what is in harmony with that of our Constitution, the supreme law of our Land:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” See Federalist No. 21.

Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from the federal treasury and hand it out to people within the various states as described in H.R. 25.

Nor does Congress have a constitutional delegation of power to lay the kind of tax mentioned in H.R. 25 which is calculated from the value of property unless the tax is apportioned among the states, basing each state’s share upon its number of allotted representatives as described in Article 1, Section 2, and further restricted by Article 1, Section 9.[no, I made no mistake in my citing. Both provisions establish a rule for taxation.]

Apparently you support a subjugation of our constitutional system and prefer to expand the powers of Congress without the necessary constitutional amendments being adopted by the people.

I also noticed you suggest H.R. 25 “is fairer to all Americans, does not require a $13 Billion federal agency to administer, and is not intrusive into your personal life.”

Sorry pal, but you are very, very much misinformed about the consequences of H.R. 25.  I believe every freedom loving person, including those who are business owners, have a very real reason to object to H.R. 25!

Neal Boortz has suggested a featured attraction of H.R.25 to business owners is that H.R. 25 will close down the IRS, end a tax calculated from corporate profits and stop the wasteful time consuming and costly record keeping Corporations are now required to maintain to track money flow such as , business expenses, wages and salaries paid, and other outlays and earnings, in order to calculate a tax from income which they then send off to government. 

Tell me Dewey, and you may first want to check in with your handlers at the propaganda site you recommend, is it not true that by the very language of H.R. 25, no attempt was made to repeal or stop Congress from laying and collecting an excise tax as upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)___ a case upheld prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and a case which upheld a tax calculated from corporate “income“ ?  Does H.R. 25 address this kind of tax Dewey?  The answer to this question Dewey is very important.  And, the truth is, this kind of tax remains untouched as a loophole under H.R. 25 and Congress’ power to impose an excise tax upon corporations and calculate the amount of tax to be paid from corporate income remains fully in tact!

So, in spite of all the Fair Tax Con Artist talk about repealing various sections of the IRS Code and closing it down as portrayed on the cover of the Fair Tax Con Artist’s Book, the misery now suffered under income taxation, the Internal Revenue Service and the IRS Code, remains alive by a very real loophole left by the architects of H.R. 25!

If H.R.25 is adopted and Congress followed its language to the letter as it is intended by the Fair Tax Con Artists with the loophole they have left, Congress is invited to simply erase the word “Internal” from “Internal Revenue Code” and replace that word with “Corporate“, as in “Corporate Revenue Code,” and, likewise erase the word “Internal” from “Internal Revenue Service” and replace it with “Excise“, as in “Excise Revenue Service“, and, go about its business inflicting the same time consuming and costly misery upon Corporations as now done, but in addition, these corporations will also have to abide by and follow an additional rule book with all its new regulations for record keeping as stipulated under H.R. 25!

Come now Dewey, is this not a reasonable objection to your touted Fair Tax?  Corporations and those Congress decides to lay an excise tax upon, will wind up having twice the amount of record keeping and be left with two different kinds of taxes to be paid!

Truth is, Dewey, H.R. 25 doesn’t ”eliminate” squat as Con Artist Boortz portrays on the cover of his book, and it especially does not even attempt to stop Congress from calculating a tax from corporate income.  H.R. 25 has carefully left a loophole so Congress may decide at its pleasure, especially a socialist dominated Congress, to enact, say a small tax upon those wealthy evil corporations and scoundrels who make millions of dollars a year and bleed the poor working people, such as was alleged about Leona Helmsley who they sent to jail for an alleged tax fraud, but actually contributed more in taxes than any twenty average working people in New York. Give me a freaken break Dewey.

Face it Dewey, you have been conned and punked by Neal Boortz the wannabe fountain of all knowledge.  Admit your mistake, move on, and stop being a Fair Tax Stooge and puppet of the establishment. Join real tax reform and support the demand to have the following words added to our Constitution:

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

See how easy real tax reform is Dewey? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff, loopholes and gobblygoo [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to establish a fair system of taxation and gain control of a runaway Congress!

CLICK HERE for the Founder’s Plan ___ start reading at:
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Regards,
JWK

JWK

Frankly, you are such a PUTZ that you are no longer worth the effort.

The future will determine which of us is right. I believe the FairTax will happen LONG before your Libertarian hogwash.

By the way, please let us “liberal” Republicans know when you’ve managed to get representation in Congress.

Dewey

What a long discussion. Not always intelligent and lately hardly polite discourse but it is important. Our tax code is a mess and keeping it is costing each of us time, money and stress == and $2,000 annually to make up for tax evaders.

I see no one suggesting a better alternative than the FairTax, either in this discussion or in the national debate. Being able to keep all one’s paycheck or pension, having a prebate to exempt us from taxation on food and medicine, and being free to determine how much tax we pay by how much money we spend on NEW items only is a totally fair and economically sound way to go.

This tax program was developed by much better economic minds than any demonstrated here. Experts from major institutions like Harvard, Stanford, Rice, MIT and more spent a decade developing it with input from taxpayers. Every objection raised here was studied from every angle and the best solution put into the FairTax.

You naysayers are obviously speaking “off the top of your heads” without doing any research on the matter. Bringing in arguments like claiming that we gauge success only by comparing with others is a silly and childish (and spurious) argument that is not only untrue but not on the subject. “Keeping up with the Joneses” is a Madison Avenue concept designed to encourage the uninformed to buy more—it has nothing to do with the way real people spend their money. Only Hollywood promotes that idea.

Just a few comments on a few points:
The reason the FairTax has no exemptions is that once you exempt something, those who do not qualify for the exemption are punished. That’s not fair and it’s what we have now—in spades.

When we have