PDA

View Full Version : Mike Huckabee and Ken Hoagland mislead audience about H.R.25, an alleged fairtax!




johnwk
04-04-2010, 04:28 PM
.

The following is in response to Ken Hoagland’s appearance on Mike Huckabee’s Saturday (4-3-10) evening show during which time Ken was promoting the alleged fairtax.

With a tax reform proposal named the “fairtax“, how can anybody be against such a proposal? And how can anybody be against the “fairtax” when its advocates, such as Ken Hoagland, sell it using the same deceptive but clever techniques used to sell health care reform? As I recall, health care reform also had a very tempting name, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”, but it took patriotic Americans to avoid the sales pitch and actually read the bill after which many devils were unearthed and exposed, many of which are still being exposed.

I strongly suggest those who are interested in studying Hoagland’s alleged fairtax, instead of reading his fairy tail version put into book form, they should take the time to read the TEXT OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, H.R.25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.25:..)

Like America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, Ken Hoagland’s alleged fair tax is designed to expand and tighten the federal government’s iron fist, and specifically tightening it to control America’s productive base.

Ken Hoagland’s first deceptive statement was the fairtax is a national consumption tax. But the truth is, it is a tax calculated from the value of people’s property, both real and personal property, such as the property which laboring class people have in their labor!

Here are some specific provisions from the text of H.R.25

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, what does the above mean for Mary and Joe Sixpack, ordinary working class 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.

Under Hoagland’s fairtax, the inalienable right to sell the property Mary and Joe have in their labor becomes a taxable event, and, they must 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 keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will continue for tax compliance purposes.

Now, let us examine Ken Hoagland’s statement that under the alleged fairtax “the IRS goes away”.

The fact is, the IRS may go away, but in its place two new federal tax collecting agencies are created, an “Excise Tax Bureau”, and a “Sales Tax Bureau”, not to mention the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” remains in tact, and so, we will have three tax collecting agencies to harass the people in the collection of Ken’s tax plan.

In addition, keep in mind that excise taxes which may be calculated from profits and gains, such as the corporate Excise Tax of 1909, or a “windfall profits tax” to punish greedy domestic corporations, do not go away under the alleged fair tax, and, the newly created Excise Tax Bureau will be there to collect such taxes in addition to the alleged 23 percent tax which Ken is so fond of adopting.

Now, let us examine Ken’s statement that the fair tax is “far more progressive than the income tax“. You bet it’s a “progressive” tax. The fair tax would create a “family consumption allowance” which is a monthly check sent out to every qualified family to eliminate the 23 percent tax imposed on a rationed amount of necessities of life. Those who are eligible for the monthly entitlement check do not have to be productive citizens with a job and paying taxes to receive the monthly check, and as a result, the alleged fair tax would create America’s largest entitlement and a massive redistribution of wealth.

But don’t take my word for it, see what the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/final-report/TaxPanel_8-9.pdf) wrote in crystal clear language:


Conclusion

“Like other consumption taxes, the full replacement retail sales tax has pro-retail growth features. Nevertheless, the Panel does not recommend a full replacement retail sales tax. Without a large cash grant program to ease the burden of the tax, a retail sales tax would not be appropriately progressive. A cash grant program to make the tax appropriately progressive would cost at least $600 billion per year – which would make it America’s largest entitlement program. The Panel concluded that it was inappropriate to recommend a tax reform proposal that required the federal government to collect and redistribute this amount in additional revenue from taxpayers. The Panel also was concerned with administrative and compliance issues associated with a retail sales tax, as well as difficulties involving coordination with existing state sales taxes.”

I think most freedom loving people would agree that our progressives in government always look for ways to make their constituencies dependant upon government for their subsistence, and that is exactly what the fair tax does with its family consumption entitlement! It promises to send every household in America a monthly government check, probably about $400-450 a month to a family of four with a total annual income of $50-65,000. Of course, this monthly check would more than likely make that family ready to vote for a progressive candidate who promises to increase that monthly government check during election time to get re-elected! This in itself is very scary___ putting the majority of American voters on the public dole and making them dependent upon government for their subsistence!

Can you picture one our beloved progressives on the Senate Floor giving a campaign speech to increase the family consumption allowance to offset the 23% tax on the necessities of life?


“How dare those who have imposed the alleged 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 other necessities of life under H.R. 25!

How dare those who have imposed the alleged fair tax on our nation‘s elderly who are both sickly and on fixed incomes, now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the very medical needs which keeps these people alive . . . Bla, bla, bla.?

Were we not warned in the Federalist Papers that control over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will?

My personal view for tax reform is to go back to our constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate, which not only paved the way for America to become the most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet, it was intentionally designed with various checks and balances to encourage Congress to act in America’s best interests! Unfortunately, not many people fully understand how our Constitution’s original tax plan worked.

I might add that it would only take 32 words to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers 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

These words, if added to our Constitution, would force Congress to raise its primary revenue from taxes on articles of consumption and would end the miseries we now experience under taxes calculated from “incomes”, which is what I thought the ringleaders of the alleged fair tax wanted!

Click on the following for a summary of our fouder‘s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)


Regards,
JWK