Kane Slams The Fair Tax:

[Matt Collins]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/18/a-fairtax-is-no-substitute-for-actually-cutting-taxes/

[anaconda]

The thing I like about a fair tax is that, as long as there is only ONE tax rate, voters will be incredibly sensitive to any upward adjustment in that rate. They'll scream bloody murder if the rate gets moved up a half a percent.

[TaftFan]

Like most opponents of the Fair Tax, he misunderstands why people support it. Nobody is claiming it lowers taxes. The reason it is revenue neutral is so that the debate can be focused on how taxes are collected. After it is passed, I am sure most supporters of it would be all for lowering the rate.

Then he equates the prebate with the social security check and all the fraud that occurs. But nobody can get the prebate who isn't supposed to, because everybody is supposed to. The prebate is the populist cookie to allow it to actually get passed. What it does is make sure you are basically not being taxed on essential goods, instead of opening up the exemption game.

I laughed out loud when I read compliance costs for businesses would be crushing. Everything is computerized these days, and most businesses already have to collect sales tax.

While audits would still occur, they would be much less frequent. There is no solution to get rid of audits completely.

I imagine if Kane had titled the article "Abolish the Income Tax and replace it with nothing" it might not have been published.

[Keith and stuff]

The thing I like about a fair tax is that, as long as there is only ONE tax rate, voters will be incredibly sensitive to any upward adjustment in that rate. They'll scream bloody murder if the rate gets moved up a half a percent.

There is only 1 tax rate. And it is zero! At least where I live. That's what it should stay at. Income tax, sales tax, cigar tax, liquor tax, internet tax, gambling tax, estate tax, personal property tax, inventory tax, death tax, luxury tax... it is all zero! Live Free or Die!

[Matt Collins]

Then he equates the prebate with the social security check and all the fraud that occurs. But nobody can get the prebate who isn't supposed to, because everybody is supposed to. The prebate is the populist cookie to allow it to actually get passed. What it does is make sure you are basically not being taxed on essential goods, instead of opening up the exemption game.If you think the government will allow the prebate to exist without using it as a social control mechanism, then Hillary has some land to sell you in Arkansas. :rolleyes:



I laughed out loud when I read compliance costs for businesses would be crushing. Everything is computerized these days, and most businesses already have to collect sales tax. You have obviously never run a small business or dealt with taxation compliance.





All of this is really moot because the FT doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing anyway

[Keith and stuff]

If you think the government will allow the prebate to exist without using it as a social control mechanism, then Hillary has some land to sell you in Arkansas. :rolleyes:
Speaking of Arkansas. The Republicans there just increased the already very high sales tax...
So much for your fair tax. So much for falling rates. The GOP finally gets in charge in AR and they increase the sales tax...

[TaftFan]

If you think the government will allow the prebate to exist without using it as a social control mechanism, then Hillary has some land to sell you in Arkansas. :rolleyes:

Really, how?


You have obviously never run a small business or dealt with taxation compliance.
No, but the infrastructure is already in place and is online.

[Matt Collins]

Speaking of Arkansas. The Republicans there just increased the already very high sales tax...
So much for your fair tax. So much for falling rates. The GOP finally gets in charge in AR and they increase the sales tax...
Huckabee, a Republican, begged the Arkansas legislature to raise taxes. There is a YouTube on this, just look for it.

[Matt Collins]

Really, how?They will say "if you are doing this or that you will get your prebate, however if you aren't doing this or that, you won't get your prebate, or it'll be diminished". It'll be the same thing as the tax code now.



No, but the infrastructure is already in place and is online.Go sell something commercially for 5 years and then get back to me on how easy the taxes are to deal with.

[Red Green]

The one good thing that could be said about the fair tax is it's not an income tax, which is hands down the worst type of tax you can have. In reality what needs to happen is the Feds need to be stripped of direct taxing authority all together, with the exception of duties. Forget the flat tax, the fair tax, the whatever tax what we need is to go back to apportionment amongst the states. This was done in the beginning of the republic for a reason; that is to try and keep the Feds in check.

[Matt Collins]

I do agree that the FT would be better than the income tax, no doubt. But it's still a bad tax. Not to mention that ALL taxation is theft.

[Danke]

The one good thing that could be said about the fair tax is it's not an income tax, which is hands down the worst type of tax you can have. In reality what needs to happen is the Feds need to be stripped of direct taxing authority all together, with the exception of duties. Forget the flat tax, the fair tax, the whatever tax what we need is to go back to apportionment amongst the states. This was done in the beginning of the republic for a reason; that is to try and keep the Feds in check. You are confusing direct taxes with indirect taxes. The income tax is an indirect tax; an excise tax on certain activities and privileges.

[Red Green]

You are confusing direct taxes with indirect taxes. The income tax is an indirect tax; an excise tax on certain activities and privileges.

We might be speaking of different definitions: by 'direct' I mean the US Federal govt having a direct taxing authority over the population. When I speak of removing that authority, I mean that the Feds could levy no tax directly on the population at all. Not on corporations resident in the US, not on individuals, not on organizations. The feds would still collect duties on imports, but that would be the limit of direct taxation. All other funds would be derived from apportionment among the states.

[Danke]

We might be speaking of different definitions: by 'direct' I mean the US Federal govt having a direct taxing authority over the population. When I speak of removing that authority, I mean that the Feds could levy no tax directly on the population at all. Not on corporations resident in the US, not on individuals, not on organizations. The feds would still collect duties on imports, but that would be the limit of direct taxation. All other funds would be derived from apportionment among the states.

Feds can't tax the individual directly in the several states. Only by apportionment. It is up to the states how they will raise the revenue to pay that tax. Duties are not direct taxes.

[Red Green]

Feds can't tax the individual directly in the several states. Only by apportionment. It is up to the states how they will raise the revenue to pay that tax. Duties are not direct taxes.


Huh? I think one of us woke up with a bong hit. I'm hoping it isn't me cuz I'm at work.

[Keith and stuff]

Huckabee, a Republican, begged the Arkansas legislature to raise taxes. There is a YouTube on this, just look for it.

Sounds like a typical southern Republican. The most popular man in TN, Sen. Alexander, pushed for an income tax. Of course, he failed, but the current governor of VA was able to get Republicans to agree to sales tax increases.

[Danke]

Huh? I think one of us woke up with a bong hit. I'm hoping it isn't me cuz I'm at work.
Oh boy. So you don't understand the tax laws. Got it.

[Red Green]

Oh boy. So you don't understand the tax laws. Got it.

Guess being an accountant isn't all it's cracked up to be, eh? It might be that you're not communicating in a fashion I'm used to. Perhaps if you form complete sentences and maybe a whole paragraph and follow through with thoughts, complete with explanations that would help.

[Sonny Tufts]

The one good thing that could be said about the fair tax is it's not an income tax, which is hands down the worst type of tax you can have. In reality what needs to happen is the Feds need to be stripped of direct taxing authority all together, with the exception of duties. Forget the flat tax, the fair tax, the whatever tax what we need is to go back to apportionment amongst the states. This was done in the beginning of the republic for a reason; that is to try and keep the Feds in check.

It was indeed done at the beginning of the republic, and it was a colossal failure because a lot of the States didn't pay their requisitions.

[Sonny Tufts]

Feds can't tax the individual directly in the several states. Only by apportionment. It is up to the states how they will raise the revenue to pay that tax. Duties are not direct taxes.

Of course Congress can tax within the States without apportionment. The only taxes that need to be apportioned are capitations and property taxes.

The income tax is a type of excise, imposed upon the receipt of income. It needn't involve any so-called "privileges".

[Red Green]

It was indeed done at the beginning of the republic, and it was a colossal failure because a lot of the States didn't pay their requisitions.

That would be so epic! Let's do it AGAIN!

[Red Green]

Of course Congress can tax within the States without apportionment. The only taxes that need to be apportioned are capitations and property taxes.

The income tax is a type of excise, imposed upon the receipt of income. It needn't involve any so-called "privileges".

This guy is off in the weeds. As stated earlier, when I refer to "direct", I refer to the relationship between the individual paying the tax and the taxing authority. For instance, it could be argued that a sales tax is not a direct tax on the consumer since the seller is responsible for paying the tax and that the relationship of that tax is between the seller and the taxing authority. Now, it reality the tax is paid for by the consumer from an economic perspective. My point was that the Feds should lose any direct taxing authority and rather relegate that to the states. This guy is trying to be cutesie with definitions and is doing a really poor job of it.

[Keith and stuff]

I do agree that the FT would be better than the income tax, no doubt. But it's still a bad tax. Not to mention that ALL taxation is theft.
Income tax? Sale tax? Both are evil and I say neither. And people where I live pay neither. If you want high sales taxes, move to the South or CA. If you want high income taxes, move to CA, OR or NY. If you want neither, Live Free or Die baby. It's up to you. But saying 1 type of evil tax scheme is better than another type of evil tax scheme avoids the issue. Keep taxes low. Cut taxes. Eliminate taxes. That's the only solution.

[TaftFan]

Income tax? Sale tax? Both are evil and I say neither. And people where I live pay neither. If you want high sales taxes, move to the South or CA. If you want high income taxes, move to CA, OR or NY. If you want neither, Live Free or Die baby. It's up to you. But saying 1 type of evil tax scheme is better than another type of evil tax scheme avoids the issue. Keep taxes low. Cut taxes. Eliminate taxes. That's the only solution.
They don't have federal taxes in your state?

I feel like you are being dishonest to promote your state...but why? Surely you aren't being paid by the tourism department.

[Sonny Tufts]

This guy is trying to be cutesie with definitions and is doing a really poor job of it.

You might think that way because the post of mine you quoted wasn't responding to you.

[Red Green]

You might think that way because the post of mine you quoted wasn't responding to you.

I was speaking to you of the Danke. I was not trying to imply that you were playing cutesie with definitions.

[Keith and stuff]

They don't have federal taxes in your state?

I feel like you are being dishonest to promote your state...but why? Surely you aren't being paid by the tourism department.
Supporting liberty is dishonest? People can waste all of their time promoting a revenue neutral tax change if they want. I promote a massive tax cut. No income tax, no sales tax. There is no need to pay either. Just Live Free or Die ;) That's the current law where I live. You also don't have to have health or auto insurance. Just Live Free or Die! Too easy :toady:

[TaftFan]

Supporting liberty is dishonest? People can waste all of their time promoting a revenue neutral tax change if they want. I promote a massive tax cut. No income tax, no sales tax. There is no need to pay either. Just Live Free or Die ;) That's the current law where I live. You also don't have to have health or auto insurance. Just Live Free or Die! Too easy :toady:

Stop lying. Federal taxes DO apply in NH. Gosh you can be so annoying some times.

[Sonny Tufts]

I was speaking to you of the Danke. I was not trying to imply that you were playing cutesie with definitions.

OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Keith and stuff]

Stop lying. Federal taxes DO apply in NH. Gosh you can be so annoying some times.

Do whatever you want. You can donate as much as you want to the federal government. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3113

I am sorry if freedom is annoying. Freedom is also loud, ugly and smells bad.

[TaftFan]

Do whatever you want. You can donate as much as you want to the federal government. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3113

I am sorry if freedom is annoying. Freedom is also loud, ugly and smells bad.

When all else fails, say freedom.

[Keith and stuff]

When all else fails, say freedom.
I didn't bring up federal income taxes. I not so intelligently skirted around the issue. Ian Freeman (not Ian Freedom :) ) doesn't pay federal income taxes or social security taxes. The IRS is well aware of this.

He also doesn't pay state, county or city income or sales tax. But he doesn't have a choice in that matter, all of those taxes are banned. :toady:

[YANKEE]

The thing I like about a fair tax is that, as long as there is only ONE tax rate, voters will be incredibly sensitive to any upward adjustment in that rate. They'll scream bloody murder if the rate gets moved up a half a percent.

Then prepare to be incredibly upset when the FT's starting rate of 30% (not 23%) is raised to say 60% (if evasion reaches 30%).

I guess you also don't mind another 12+=% HIDDEN in that it's paid by S/L & fed govts which must pass it on to you.

I guess you also don't mind more HIDDEN taxes arising from the fact that the fed gov will have to pay for an annual SS COLA of nearly 30% caused by th FT AND higher fraudulent SS benefits generated because the FT removes the tax "penalty' from over-reporting SS Wages.

[YANKEE]

Like most opponents of the Fair Tax, he misunderstands why people support it. Nobody is claiming it lowers taxes. The reason it is revenue neutral is so that the debate can be focused on how taxes are collected. After it is passed, I am sure most supporters of it would be all for lowering the rate.

Then he equates the prebate with the social security check and all the fraud that occurs. But nobody can get the prebate who isn't supposed to, because everybody is supposed to. The prebate is the populist cookie to allow it to actually get passed. What it does is make sure you are basically not being taxed on essential goods, instead of opening up the exemption game.

I laughed out loud when I read compliance costs for businesses would be crushing. Everything is computerized these days, and most businesses already have to collect sales tax.

While audits would still occur, they would be much less frequent. There is no solution to get rid of audits completely.

I imagine if Kane had titled the article "Abolish the Income Tax and replace it with nothing" it might not have been published.

Taftfan:

The Prebate contains its own fraud. The FT marketers claim the Prebate merely insures that the poor pay no FT (heaven forbid they should contribute to the cost of govt, or even to their own SS/Medi). The FT fraud is that the Prebate is guaranteed in several ways to pay the poor MORE $ than any FT they might pay AND relieve them of any obligation to pay for their own SS/MEDI.

If I were the new Tax Commissioner, AUDITS would be more frequent than today, and FAR MORE INVASIVE than today's audits. Read Sec 101(d) to learn that YOU, the buyer is liable for FT unless you received a receipt (which you will surely be asked to produce).

[YANKEE]

I do agree that the FT would be better than the income tax, no doubt. But it's still a bad tax. Not to mention that ALL taxation is theft.

Matt, You should re-consider that comment. After studying the FT EXTENSIVELY, I conclude that it is a disaster and is NOT an improvement over the current system.

[YANKEE]

The “Fair Tax” is a Fraud – we need a 10% Tithe!

This is from a retired CPA, with no financial interest in ANY tax system.

The so-called “Fair Tax” (“FT”) is a fraud – it is Karl Marx on steroids AND a Bernie Madoff financial scam.

In their own words, FT proudly advertises that it INCREASES WELFARE via its Prebate.

The FT hits us with a 40-70% in-your-face retail sales tax that would spark a taxpayer rebellion that would destroy our 70% retail-sales-sensitive economy. 40% = 30% FT + e.g., 10% State sale sales tax and 70% is the rate needed at a sample 30% FT evasion rate (the FT incredibly assumes ZERO evasion and ZERO intentional reduction in spending).

IN ADDITION to that 40-70% tax, the FT contains several HIDDEN TAXES.

The NEW IRS will be far worse, far more invasive than today’s IRS – we may well have to file an “Annual FT Summary”.

We may well wind up with BOTH a NEW Income Tax AND the FT.

What we need is a Flat Income Tax with No Deductions, No Exemptions, No Credits and a 10% rate n- business income taxed to owners (i.e., no corporate tax) on a very simplified basis.

[Sonny Tufts]

What we need is a Flat Income Tax with No Deductions, No Exemptions, No Credits and a 10% rate n- business income taxed to owners (i.e., no corporate tax) on a very simplified basis.

There would still have to be deductions in connection with business income. If I employ ten people it would be ridiculous to not allow me to deduct what I pay them; otherwise, what you'd have is a gross receipts tax, not an income tax.

[Red Green]

The “Fair Tax” is a Fraud – we need a 10% Tithe!

This is from a retired CPA, with no financial interest in ANY tax system.

The so-called “Fair Tax” (“FT”) is a fraud – it is Karl Marx on steroids AND a Bernie Madoff financial scam.

In their own words, FT proudly advertises that it INCREASES WELFARE via its Prebate.

The FT hits us with a 40-70% in-your-face retail sales tax that would spark a taxpayer rebellion that would destroy our 70% retail-sales-sensitive economy. 40% = 30% FT + e.g., 10% State sale sales tax and 70% is the rate needed at a sample 30% FT evasion rate (the FT incredibly assumes ZERO evasion and ZERO intentional reduction in spending).

IN ADDITION to that 40-70% tax, the FT contains several HIDDEN TAXES.

The NEW IRS will be far worse, far more invasive than today’s IRS – we may well have to file an “Annual FT Summary”.

We may well wind up with BOTH a NEW Income Tax AND the FT.

What we need is a Flat Income Tax with No Deductions, No Exemptions, No Credits and a 10% rate n- business income taxed to owners (i.e., no corporate tax) on a very simplified basis.

Most of the tax code has very little to do with the tax rate, as I am sure you are aware. The definition of "income" becomes a point of interest when you tax it and as a result, there is really no such thing as a simple income tax. You could start out with just what you said, but then after a few court cases, the bureaucrats will start asking for more 'clarity' in the tax code to make their jobs easier and that will start the long process towards the behemoth of a code we have now. Income taxes are the least efficient form of taxation and are only used to increase the take for the govt, which is something that everyone concerned with liberty should be opposed to.

[Danke]

Huh? I think one of us woke up with a bong hit. I'm hoping it isn't me cuz I'm at work.


This guy is off in the weeds.

Some people want an intellectual discussion about the income tax, others like this CPA don't. It is their business interest.

[Danke]

Of course Congress can tax within the States without apportionment. The only taxes that need to be apportioned are capitations and property taxes.

The income tax is a type of excise, imposed upon the receipt of income. It needn't involve any so-called "privileges".

oh really?

So they can tax a man in China too?

"The income tax... ...is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges
which is measured by reference to the income which they produce.”
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580

[Red Green]

Some people want an intellectual discussion about the income tax, others like this CPA don't. It is their business interest.

Some people should learn proper communications techniques and basic English before trying to engage in "intellectual" discussions.

[YANKEE]

There would still have to be deductions in connection with business income. If I employ ten people it would be ridiculous to not allow me to deduct what I pay them; otherwise, what you'd have is a gross receipts tax, not an income tax.


Correct! What I (and H.R. 1040) propose is a very simplified definition of business taxable income. All business income less all deductions that are primarily and predominantly incurred to produce income, without capita;ization required ((HR 1040 is a little different).The point is to mke it as simle as possible - a 1 page tax return.

[YANKEE]

Most of the tax code has very little to do with the tax rate, as I am sure you are aware. The definition of "income" becomes a point of interest when you tax it and as a result, there is really no such thing as a simple income tax. You could start out with just what you said, but then after a few court cases, the bureaucrats will start asking for more 'clarity' in the tax code to make their jobs easier and that will start the long process towards the behemoth of a code we have now. Income taxes are the least efficient form of taxation and are only used to increase the take for the govt, which is something that everyone concerned with liberty should be opposed to.

After a lifetime as a tax practitioner, I understand fully how the tax code can get complex. My goal would be to simplify, simply, simplify. You can do that if you really try hard enough. The so-called "Fair Tax" can be made just as complex AND we will almost certainly wind up with BOTH a sales tax AND a new Income Tax.

[YANKEE]

Some people want an intellectual discussion about the income tax, others like this CPA don't. It is their business interest.

What in the world are you saying? I am saying precisely that I want an intelligent discussion about a very Flat Income Tax. Not only do I have NO business interest (RETIRED) but my Flat income Tax puts CPA's out of business - everyone can file their own 1 page tax return.

[2young2vote]

If the price of my product magically goes up by 30% then people will be less likely to come and purchase my products, regardless of the price of everything else going up as well. People would be more inclined to save rather than spend which isn't necessarily a good thing because this saving habit will have been created by the government which means it will be artificial and not based in the free market.

[r123]

OPPOSITION to the
FAIRTAX, FLAT TAX
8% Percent Solution tax
and other
Tax Schemes: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/appoppositionissues/Fair_Tax_and_8_Percent_Tax/fair_tax_and_8_percent_tax.html

[r123]

The FairTax is to Constitutional Taxation as the Patriot Act is to the 2nd Amendment and being secure in your papers and effects.

They are Arbitrary Undelegated Unenumerated BUY, SELL AND TRADE TAXES meant to support the wasteful bureaucracies we now have; While it presents the removal of the IRS, it establishes a joint invasive federal over state tax bureaucracy.
When you dislike the devil, do you invite him to dinner?

Then give him TITLE to your home and state?!!!
This is what the FairTax, Flat Tax and 8% Tax propose!

Open your eyes before you get stuck with another catchy title! These "so called economists" that the Fair Tax group has stated have reviewed and support it, are exactly what got us the income tax to pay for more government; and you want to listen??? They have no more safeguards against political interpretation or manipulation than they have with the income tax now!

It invites the federal government to combine state and federal powers of taxation into ONE TAX.

The danger is under the surface in the guise of "simple" and "fairness", it is tax founded on Jealousy just as the income tax is now. And you can see how well the income tax has worked. Yes, the income tax needs to be removed as well as the IRS, But you do not need to replace it with a more invasive tax; And invasive it will be.

Instead of creating a constitutionally sound system separating the powers, or limit and control spending, it establishes yet another undelegated power and attempts to draw in even more money (and in fact states that it will) to pay for the existing bureaucracies... "Less the IRS and Compliance costs" is not an excuse for creating a federal oversight into state tax bureaucracy.

They say these tax systems save money, then both turn around and make the statement that they "will increase tax revenue"!!!


Hello?


This will give an unrestrained flow of arbitrary taxation percentages to government as the economy increases to decide what to do with the money "after" they have it in their hands.

Ever see any real return of your money after they have it in their hands?!!!

The Constitution calls for DIRECT import taxes, or Tarriffs, yet these FOOL "economists" continue to find ways to expand the federal powers and bureaucracies within our states.

"Departments" are supposed to be limited to the 10 miles square of Washington DC (http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter), Yet they invade every state of the union today. Nothing in the Fair Tax or 8% Tax proposes any limits on the size of government.

Allowing the wasteful bureaucracies to remain and continuing to finance them, "then" attempt to reduce them is the same as entering the mouth of a lion and then asking if he is hungry.

Maybe we should limit the federal government to the very limited delegated powers; This is the ONLY way to reduce federal taxes and limit federal invasive powers.

Why not put all your efforts into that. Then the Income Tax and IRS "Would" be gone and their would be no reason to replace it.


Below is a review we sent to a person who wrote a book called "The 8% Solution, please read;

The Founder's quotes were presented in our reply..

This reply recently sent to the author of "The 8% Solution" bares many issues that are in relation to the Fair Tax; With the very same dangers. The difference is the attempt to exchange the words "sales tax" with the "purchase tax. So do not be fooled.

Though some may not be identical in "name", the dangers of arbitrary set percentage taxation, sales taxes that will invade every house hold business, every computer business, any home or private sales;

Anyone selling anything being considered a business and subject to FEDERAL SCRUTINY.

Federal oversight in both systems bare the full resemblance and dangers.

i.e. Buy, Sell or Trade tax under the "guise" and title of "Fair"


It is very important to read and understand these dangers.



---------------------------------

In this letter to Dwayne Moody, Author of the 8% Solution which has many features promoted by the Fair Tax, such as Rebates, combining of federal and state taxes etc. All creating more invasive federal power within the states to tie the federal government with the state as well as open the door to invade the homes of everyone to "make sure they are not "cheating"."

If the federal government stayed within their delegated powers the would be no reason to worry about "cheating" by Americans on federal taxation, as it wouldn't be an issue when the federal government would be limited to imports to tax, as well as being far smaller in size would cost far less. As we present in our Anonymity Tax site, Who presently pays taxes in the way of the income tax form, does not necessarily pay the tax burden; The Tax burden is paid in the greatest percentage now, by those that cannot "right off" taxes attached to the products; this is why the income tax does not work and why taxing the wealthy harder only increases the tax burden upon the poor. Jealousy taxes always fall hardest on the poor who have been sold on those taxes using their emotions to find favor in them. Our freedoms falling prey to them as well.

We have only quoted small bits of the book for our review, "The 8% Solution"; You will have to purchase the book to review it in it's entirety.



Start of APP Review:

Dear Dwayne:

Thank you for sending your book, which I have read; Below I am presenting my views while also relating to some founders and historical comparisons (some I have linked), regarding your book entitled "The Eight Percent Solution";

To be quite frank, I believe that the concepts of the 8% Tax differ quite greatly in our views with regard to standpoint, solutions; and in many places are opposing in their purpose and result. Though I see that you have attempted to find the similar end.

I believe that it may come from possibly your not having considered the limitations of civil government under a limited original compact or other concepts set forth in common law, constitution, definitions of that constitution in the ratifying conventions that define it, or purpose of free government.

Overview:

The first obvious difference was that your idea was to combine the federal, state and local taxes and simplify; It is not clear in your plan who would ultimately control where or how the money is spent, how they would be limited, nor what will happen with the excess collected from the arbitrary percentage rate, nor how you might limit the government from raising the percentage or increasing the bureaucracy and dependency in government as it does now; Governments tendency is to present that it needs more to support such greater bureaucracies, which then become increasingly dependent and then more invasive to feed that dependency; With more money in their hands become increasingly more prone to further that bureaucratic growth.

A great DANGER is combining Federal and State taxes; This is a SHOEHORN to involve the federal government with local taxation. Regardless of your intent of states rights, the powers moving the federal government will turn it back upon you. It will turn in the opposite direction; It will switch in the same way you have explained page 73 Par 2 with regard to combining all the taxes, You stated that: "it will be "EASIER" for the federal government to "tap" the bond market."; "EASIER" is what is going to be the way they will sell the switch to the public. And THAT is the greatest danger allowing an avenue for total federal control.

The eight percent solution you propose, still allows for bureaucracies to determine where money is spent after it is collected; And since it is a flat percentage, it would allow what is occurring now to continue, that is, no control over how much is collected under that percentage, nor what it is to be spent for.

Your Statement: "There are no limits on the amount of tax or minimums either (page 41 Par. 3") Illustrates the largest to smallest article purchased will be under scrutiny by government.

Taxing "all" spending creates a avalanche of avenues for harsh and expensive regulation and controls; The fact that you wish to tax only businesses, does nothing to hold back this inevitability;

The first problem will occur when defining what or who will be considered a "business";

If a man sells used watches on a street corner, or a farmer sells a chicken to his neighbor, if he wasn't licensed by the state as a business, he could be fined or arrested for operating without a business license; or prosecuted for black market practice and imprisoned for tax evasion. The invasiveness and punishments will be as great, if not greater, than they are now; This is as "all" spending will be taxed; or worse yet, all spending will be "attempted" to be taxed; This would require monitoring all who will be considered a ""business"; which could be anybody or everybody the government will choose. (not just at a place of business, but at their home, and in your plan, even their computer from Internet sales)

The invasiveness of your statements: making sure "no one is cheating the system (P15 Par 1)", and "The success of this system really lies in there being no wiggle room for cheats (page 71 Par. 3) "; aside from being impossible, would require even more invasive regulation;

The 8% Tax is further ultimately a arbitrary unenumerated tax, a undelegated federal power, and thereby unconstitutional.

A 8% business tax is also a ""indirect" tax;

The 8% tax is to be Collected by individuals or from their establishment, from other individuals for the government (even if automated to the government from their business or property); (This places all individuals in businesses in the position as tax collectors and abridge as tax informants to the government, just as the income tax collected by businesses today.)

Your purpose is to provide for the maximum amount of tax that can be derived at a set percentage to maintain present government, programs and handouts; You state: "but to know that you would not loose any government handouts you now enjoy (page 13 Par 1)" ; Then wish to "Fix" the tax system first by allowing the government no limits to how much is collected under the percentage under the proposed system (Page 41- Par 2 & Par 3); Before reducing the size of government.

(also same in Fair Tax ): http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/appoppositionissues/Fair_Tax_and_8_Percent_Tax/fair_tax_and_8_percent_tax.html

[r123]

“I lean toward a flat tax. But I want to make it real flat, like zero.”
–Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com), Jay Leno show, Oct. 31, 2007. Paul told Leno that the abolition of the income tax would leave the federal government with roughly the revenues it was able to gather in 2000, before the overseas adventures of the Bush years.
This seemed too good to be true, and it was. Without the revenues from individual income tax, the federal budget would shrink to the size it was in the early 1990s, not the year 2000. The discretionary share of the federal budget would dwindle to zero. All remaining federal revenues would be earmarked for mandatory entitlement spending such as social security–which Paul has said he would not touch–and interest on debt. The Paul campaign responds, “Policy wonks can go back and forth arguing over budget specifics. Dr. Paul’s point is that we can eliminate the income tax & fund a level of government from the recent past. Whether that year is 1995, 1997 or 2000 is irrelevant.” A: Well, a government program is too vague. What kind of a government program? If it’s appropriating money and trying to stimulate that way and spend more money, no, that would be the wrong thing to do. But a government program of a reduced tax burden, yes, that would be. I believe we’re in a recession. Over-stimulation in an economy by artificially low interest rates by the Federal Reserve (http://www.ronpaul.com/legislation/audit-the-federal-reserve-fed-hr-459-s202/) is the source of the recession. It shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out what we should be doing, because we have a lot of problems: we have fiscal and monetary policy problems, foreign policy problems, and deficit problems. Where do they come from? It’s because we don’t follow the rule of law; we don’t follow the Constitution. If we knew and understood and read Article 1, Section 8, believe me this government would be much smaller, we would have a lot less taxes, and we could repeal the 16th amendment and get rid of the income tax. A: We have to cut spending. You can’t get rid of the income tax if you don’t get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you’d have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn’t all that bad 10 years ago. There’re sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there’s still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn’t have it. Q: But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be? A: A lot. Q: Over a trillion dollars. A: That’s good. If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, & if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage, you can’t get rid of the IRS. But if you want to lower taxes and stop causing all the inflation (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve/), you have to change policy. I would get rid of the inflation tax. It’s a tax that nobody talks about. We live way beyond our means. We print money for it. The value of the money goes down, and poor people pay higher prices. That is a tax. That’s a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall Street. Wall Street’s doing quite well, but the inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of this country. We need to get rid of the inflation tax with sound money. Not only is inflation the result of the political demands of special interest groups, the career desires of politicians, and the ill-conceived motives of economists, it was also clearly unconstitutional. Money of real value, gold (http://www.ronpaul.com/misc/gold-price-chart/) or silver, was clearly intended by the Founding Fathers. If for no other reason, inflation should be rejected on the basis of morality. Inflation is taxation by deceit. Government deceives the people as to the tax burden, and who is bearing it. The working and middle classes are gradually impoverished, while the poor are ground further down. Wealth is transferred to the rich, from the hardworking and thrifty to the conniving & foxy. Monetary and economic decisions are increasingly taken from individuals and transferred to politicians, bureaucrats, and central bankers. To enforce the transfer, government officials accumulate power through legislation and regulation. A: Eventually they go into the private sector. Then don’t all leave immediately when the plan goes into effect. But what my plan does is it addresses taxes in a little different way. We are talking about the tax code. But that’s the consequence, that’s the symptom. The disease is spending. Every time you spend, spending is a tax. We tax the people, we borrow, and then we print the money and the prices go up, and that is a tax. So you have to address the subject of spending. That is the tax. That is the reason I go after the spending. I propose in the first year cut $1 trillion out of the budget in 5 departments. Now the other thing is that you must do if you want to get the economy going and going again is you have to get rid of price-fixing. And the most significant price-fixing that goes on, that gave us the bubble and destroyed the economy, is the price-fixing of the Federal Reserve. The most sinister of all taxes is the inflation tax and it is the most regressive. It hits the poor and the middle class. When you destroy a currency by creating money out of thin air to pay the bills, the value of the dollar goes down, and people get hit with a higher cost of living. It’s the middle class that’s being wiped out. It is most evil of all taxes.

[r123]

Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com) supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913. An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto (http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html), which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.
Ron Paul discusses the income tax and the “FAIR Tax” in May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80&feature=player_embedded

[Ender]

Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com) supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913. An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto (http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html), which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.
Ron Paul discusses the income tax and the “FAIR Tax” in May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80&feature=player_embedded

AMEN.

Income tax and property taxes are unconstitutional.

[TaftFan]

AMEN.

Income tax and property taxes are unconstitutional.
So the 16th amendment is invalid?

[Ender]

So the 16th amendment is invalid?

Absolutely.

[Danke]

Absolutely.

The income tax has its roots from legislation in 1862. We could still have an income tax without the 16A.

[Sonny Tufts]

Income tax and property taxes are unconstitutional.

Hardly. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which was the authority for the Civil War income tax.

[Ender]

Hardly. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which was the authority for the Civil War income tax.

Uh.....no.


On May 7, 2001, Ron Paul wrote the following column:

The Case Against the Income Tax

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.

America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.

[Ender]

And watch this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqf96GqMiI&list=FLEqojGQW5gbqX4AuAFrerPg&index=12&feature=plpp_video

[Danke]

Uh.....no.

Ron Paul doesn't fully understand the nature of the income tax, sadly.

Question for you, what type of tax is the income tax?

[r123]

from 1840 to 1912 we had free markets, sound money, no income tax and the dollar grew 8 percent a year from 1840 to 1912. Dollar has been losing value and 8 percent decline of it evrey year since 1912. The boom and busts of the 1920s and 30s were not as bad because we had a gold standard. The american revolution was fought because the colonists thought that a 1 percent tax by the birtish was slavery. the tax should be zero percent and replaced with nothing. it can be done. central bank, progressive graduated income tax, elimination or private property, and elimination of rights of inheratince aka property tax are 4 of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto and have creeping progressively at the state and city level. All this information is according to Dr Greg Brannon a opponent of common core, drones, and agenda 21 who is running for senate in North Carolina. Dr Greg Brannon wants to eliminate the central bank, have free markets, have a floating gold standard , get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing. he also sais that local goverment is supposed to be minimal and goverment very minimal. The goverment can only do the three things it sais it can in the consitution protect life liberty, and property. He talks about all this and drones, agenda 21 and common core in this 27 minute speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImwjSqIulBA

[Danke]

from 1840 to 1912 we had free markets, sound money, no income tax

This is not true. We still have the income tax from 1862. It has not been repealed.

[r123]

fat Danke you do not know what you are talking about. the income tax was created in 1913 with the 16th amendment to the constitution.
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”

taxes are systematic of the spending and how much the role of government ought to be. So we have to deal with do you want a welfare state do you want to police the world, do you want to place us as individuals then you need a lot of money so thats the problem. But if you get rid of all those conditions no matter which way you collect the taxes it would be so minimal. You could do it probably with a import tax or a minor sales tax but if you put a sales tax on and dont replace the income tax they would give us both. Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com) opposes the fair tax and a national sales tax. The big thing is that you got to cut spending. That is the issue. Spending by itself is a tax. First you tax you do not collect enough income on the income tax to pay the bills. Then we borrow a lot, and we are dependent on china. Isint it amazing that we depend on china to fight our wars. We couldnt even fight them without approval from China. But then we still dont have enough and then we print the money. And that is a tax becuase falls back down on the inflation (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve/) factor. The higher prices affect the average people a lot more than it affects the wall streeters. A matter of fact where the money goes first into wall street or the goverment there only the money has more value when it goes down it has less value. So wall street does quite well and they have so much cash out there on wall street it is going crazy of course there well be a correction on that but goldman sacks paid out 16 billion dollars last year in bonuses and that is why that is a tax it is a transfer of wealth from the poor. We lived a great many years without an income tax: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/

Q: [to Paul]: you’re from Texas. Does Gov. Perry deserve credit for Texas’ job creation?
PAUL: Not quite. I’m a taxpayer there. My taxes have gone up. Our taxes have doubled since he’s been in office. Our spending has gone up double. Our debt has gone up nearly triple. So, no. And 170,000 of the jobs were government jobs. [Perry claimed job growth due to tax cuts] but how do you pay for a tax cut? I think that’s the wrong principle, because when you give people their money back, it’s their money. You don’t have to pay for it. That means that the government owns all of our money if you look that way. So we have to cut the spending, and a good way to start, there’s a little embassy we built over in Baghdad that cost us a billion dollars. It’s bigger than the Vatican. That’s what’s bankrupting this country, and that’s the easy place to cut. That’s where we should be cutting. PAUL: Well, we should have the lowest tax that we’ve ever had, and up until 1913 it was 0%. What’s so bad about that? I think the question is generally misleading, because anytime you spend money, it’s a tax. You might tax, you might borrow, you might inflate. The vicious tax, that’s attacking the American people, the retired people today, is the inflation (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve/) tax, the devaluation of the currency, the standard of living is going down, and you need to address that. And that’s why I want to make the inflation tax zero, as well: http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm

[r123]

fat danke this is called the ron paul forums not the i support income tax statist fat average dumb american forums. The CAFR Swindle – The Biggest Game In Town. Taxes are no longer necessary. This video exposes a deliberate and massive swindle that is perpetrated by every government agency from your local school district all the way up to the Federal government.This is the second Version of this expose’ on public finance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pRPBKJQnyU
CAFR1.com - Government's true wealth exposed - Government owns it all by investment: http://www.cafr1.com/

[Danke]

fat danke this is called the ron paul forums not the i support income tax statist fat average dumb american forums.

"fat danke" ?

Are you talented at sucking cock?

[Danke]

fat Danke you do not know what you are talking about. the income tax was created in 1913 with the 16th amendment to the constitution.


This is not true, and it holds back the liberty movement by not understanding the nature of the income tax and which activities it applies.

[Ender]

This is not true, and it holds back the liberty movement by not understanding the nature of the income tax and which activities it applies.


Here is an excerpt from an outstanding article on the history of taxation in the US; this covers theCivil War through the 16th Amendment:


he Civil War brought forth the first incomes taxes as both the North and South introduced these forms of war taxation. The modern income tax was invented by the British and it has been quite properly called "The tax that beat Napoleon." But it was a war tax only and as soon as the war ended the British Parliament, against the wishes of the Crown, repealed the tax and ordered all the records to be destroyed. They hated it, but were willing to tolerate the tax as a war — time measure. So in keeping with the British view, these first American income taxes ended shortly after the war. Collections apparently weren't too successful, at least some writers report that anyone who paid the tax was the laughing stock of his neighbors.

A populist movement developed in the late 19th Century and one of its demands was a tax on the rich via income taxation. In 1894 they had sufficient votes in the Congress plus a Democratic president to put through a peacetime income tax to essentially have the rich pick up the whole tab of running the government. Some excises (like whiskey) remained along with import duties. This first income tax was a low 2%, but it exempted 98% of the nation, which immediately reminds me of President Clinton's increased income taxes which were also targetted for the rich, the top 2%.

My wife many years ago told me about a Russian proverb she had learned as a young girl which said: "If you dig a ditch for someone to fall into, you will probably fall in yourself." The first income taxes after the Civil War were undoubtedly class legislation against the rich — they were a ditch for the rich to fall into. The rich fought back immediately, challenging the tax on a number of constitutional grounds, two of which stuck. First, it was a direct tax and had to be apportioned among the states; second, it violated the command of uniformity by exempting 98% of the population. There was a dissenting view by Justice John Harlan who gave us the dissent in the segregation case of that era, "The Constitution is color-blind." He argued that the income tax was an excise on earnings, not a direct tax; it did exempt 98% of the people, but that was tolerable; however, if any tax became legislative plunder, under the guise of taxation, the Court would look into that. Exemptions, said Harlan, were most liable to objection.

In the next two decades the proponents for income taxes pushed the 16th Amendment through the state legislatures and by 1916 another income tax law was passed. It was also class legislation against the rich, with progressive rates from 1% to 7%. Most people were exempt and many paid the 1% rate even if not required to do so, believing all citizens have a duty to pay something toward the expenses of maintaining the government.

The problem with trying to soak the rich, from an historian's perspective, is, it doesn't work as planned. The rich, going all the way back to the Romans, have had the means to control and evade taxes that got out of line. Howard Hughes paid no income taxes, and his tax planning was quite legal. In the final analysis, the middle class is the only dependable source of tax revenue — and that is a truism tax makers should not forget when they seriously need more revenue. As any tax practitioner will tell you, the richer you are, the easier it is to control taxable income. Going back to Mr. Hughes, in his final years of madness, he neglected to plan for death taxes. He didn’t even have a will. So, the tax man had the last laugh as death taxes made up for the income taxes he avoided.

So, in 1916, off we go with the income tax. It's supposed to solve all our fiscal ills, and it's supposed to make the rich pick up most of the tab. Of course, as might be expected it didn't quite do that, and the more the rates were increased, collections didn't go up for the rich, although they did go up for everyone else. In 1916, with a top rate of 7% the treasury reported 206 people with incomes over one million dollars. Five years later, when the tax rate went up 1100 percent, from 7% to 77%, there were only 21 people with an income of a million dollars or more. What happened? Simple arithmetic shows that 9 out of 10 million-dollar earners had vanished, as if by magic. Well, maybe they moved to some low tax country. We don't know, but they obviously rearranged their lives or finances so they no longer had million dollar earnings that were taxable. As for a 77% tax rate, I think that's just plain plunder, or you can call it stealing. It is certainly not in keeping with the ideals of the Framers that taxes had to be "common to all."

You may wonder about progressive tax rates. How are such rates possible when the Constitution commands uniformity in taxation? That issue faced the Court at the turn of the century in an inheritance tax case to raise funds for the Spanish-American War. The Court felt that for inheritance purposes you could have graduated rates based on one's relationship, like children as opposed to strangers or cousins. But the Court also noted that in other areas, such discrimination could not stand. That was what lawyers call dicta — side comments that are not really part of the issues. But in that case, one Justice spoke out strongly against any tax that was deliberately and intentionally made unequal: Progressive rates violated the command of uniformity and equality in the Constitution. This Justice, David Brewer, is hardly known, even by scholars. In my book you will find his picture. The story behind that picture is interesting. When I called the Curator of the Supreme Court for his picture, they first said, no problem. But after checking their archives, they had never had a request for his picture and all they had was an extremely old negative that had never been developed. So I had them develop it, and there in my book is the only picture of this remarkable justice who stood up for uniformity and equality in taxation.

When the 1916 income tax came before the high Court with a challenge to its progressive rates, Justice Brewer had passed away and the Court dismissed the challenge with not much more than a one liner, even though the leading legal scholars and Law Reviews had zeroed in on this issue as the most important tax issue in the Constitutional history of the United States.

The tolerance for discrimination in taxation by the Courts, contrasts with Chief Justice Warren's lack of tolerance for discrimination in racial matters. He ruled in the famous Brown case that overruled all racial segregation, that such laws, though supposed to be "separate but equal," were inherently unequal despite all appearances. Yet, with discrimination in taxation, we have a much stronger case. The tax laws are not just "inherently" unequal, they are intentionally made that way, like a few centuries ago when Jews paid four times the tax rates as Christians, and in Protestant countries, Catholics paid twice the rate. The Supreme Court retreated immediately from its unconstitutional ruling in the 1894 income tax case, to the position today, that no challenge to a federal tax law will be taken seriously. Like Pontius Pilate, they have taken "water and washed their hands before the multitude."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/charles-adams/a-brief-tax-history-of-america/

[Danke]

Here is an excerpt from an outstanding article on the history of taxation in the US; this covers theCivil War through the 16th Amendment:



http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/charles-adams/a-brief-tax-history-of-america/

That is full of inaccuracies.

[Danke]

Uh.....no.


Ron Paul doesn't fully understand the nature of the income tax, sadly.

Question for you, what type of tax is the income tax?

Have an answer?

[Ender]

That is full of inaccuracies.

Really.

So, why don't you give your POV before saying RP doesn't know anything about the income tax?

And, did you read the whole article?

[Danke]

Really.

So, why don't you give your POV before saying RP doesn't know anything about the income tax?

And, did you read the whole article?

Yes yes and yes.

I have a posting history on this subject dating back to 2007.

[r123]

The true enemies of liberty and all modern societies and people are the central bank counterfeiters. The largest counterfeiter in the history of the world consists of the Federal Reserve banking scheme, which counterfeits American dollars through fiat currency and fractional reserve banking.

America Freedom to Fascism exposes the fraud and deceit of the Federal Reserve Banks (Fed), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the 16th Amendment, the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, national ID cards (REAL ID Act), human-implanted RFID tags (Spychips), Diebold electronic voting machines, New World Order (globalization), Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the use of terrorism by government as a means to diminish the citizens' rights.

The Federal Reserve System is a privately held, for profit corporation, and not a government agency. It was created by bankers for bankers as a lender of last resort, so that whenever a banker ran his businesses poorly he could be bailed out at the expense of the public. The Fed does not have any reserves, it simply creates fiat money out of nothing and lends it out at interest to businesses and the federal government. The American people are then forced to pay for the bailouts to government and businesses through inflation and personal income taxes on their labor. The currency the Fed creates out of thin air and loans out to the government at interest is called Federal Reserve Notes - look at the top of what you may think are your Dollars and you will see they are actually Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs). FRNs are backed by nothing. US Dollars are required by law to be backed by gold and silver, but US Dollars are no longer in circulation. The only real US Dollars still somewhat in circulation are US Silver Eagles and Gold Eagle coins, but they have become so valuable due to the Fed's inflation and destruction of the FRN currency, that it takes thousands of FRNs just to buy a single US $50 gold coin, and dozens of FRNs to buy a single US $1 Dollar silver coin.

The Federal Reserve System operates through manipulation of interest rates, which results in expanding and retracting bubbles of inflation, referred to as business cycles. When the Fed inflates the currency, it is effectively a hidden tax on existing currency, because the value of the newly created currency is stolen from the value of existing currency. This is reflected in continually rising prices, even though advances in technology and manufacturing processes should result in lower prices and a higher standard of living for everyone. Since the creation of the Fed in 1913, it has debased 99% of the value of the Dollar. In other words, it now takes $100 FRNs to buy what just $1 US Dollar would buy in 1913, as a result of inflation due to the Fed counterfeiting so much currency. If you had saved $100 in 1913, it would now only buy as much as a single 1913 Dollar would have bought at that time. The other $99 of value would have been stolen through counterfeiting (cheaply duplicating money out of nothing) over the years, resulting in the vale of the $100 being taxed through inflation, behind your back.

The film explains how monetary policy is the most powerful form of control over people that has ever existed, and is central to the unconstitutional, global New World Order ambitions of those that own and benefit from the Fed. The founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty, which became the most successful business family in history, Mayer Amschel Rothschild once declared, "Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes the laws."

Most Americans are kept ignorant of how the Federal Reserve operates through actions of corrupt politicians and an increasingly centralized media. Using terms like, 'quantitative easing,' 'monetizing the debt,' or 'adjusting monetary policy for increased fluidity of credit,' the Fed conceals it's true actions behind veils of legitimacy.

The U.S. Congress has the duty and responsibility of coining and maintaining the value of our dollar and money, yet Congress is being negligent in overseeing the Fed, as many politicians depend upon large campaign contributions from the Federal Reserve system bankers. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama's #1 campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs, among many other banks involved in the fraudulent Federal Reserve counterfeiting system. What is particularly important to note is that Republican John McCain's top contributors were the same as Barack Obama's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ayb02bwp0

[r123]

This 4 hour presentation is part 2 of the Corporation Nation series. While a shorter, condensed version will be released soon, The Great Pension Fund Hoax is presented as documentary evidence of corruption and greed within our government and as a reference work. Understanding this information about the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) system of accounting in government will answer the question that has eluded you for so long, just as it did me...Why? Why do corporations get away with murder? Why does government allow this to happen by passing laws and regulations, and deregulating the very framework that these corporations operate within, both nationally and internationally? Why are We, the People suffering at the hands of this oligarchical government, while our taxpayer dollars are being used against us? And why does there seem to be no difference between the private sector and the public one? Answer: Because government owns it all!!!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhkWueEjewM

[Danke]

Really.

So, why don't you give your POV before saying RP doesn't know anything about the income tax?



I did not say RP doesn't know anything about the income tax. He does seem to have common misconceptions about it though.

Why can the U.S. government tax the "income" of a man in China receiving FRNs for his work? If they can't, then there must be some kinda of limitation on their ability to tax, right?

Now if they can in certain cases, well we need to look into why.

What gives them this type of jurisdiction?


Hint: It has to do with federally connected activities one is engaged in. The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to activities under their domain.

.

[Sonny Tufts]

Hint: It has to do with federally connected activities one is engaged in. The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to activities under their domain.

This argument was rejected over 100 years ago when corporations that were chartered under state law claimed that the federal government couldn't tax their income because the privileges they enjoyed were created by the states. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the federal taxing power is not so limited.


We must therefore enter upon the inquiry as to implied limitations upon the exercise of the Federal authority to tax because of the sovereignty of the states over matters within their exclusive jurisdiction, having in view the nature and extent of the power specifically conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States. We must remember, too, that the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the states in order to support their local government. [220 U.S. 107, 155] While the tax in this case, as we have construed the statute, is imposed upon the exercise of the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, as such business is done under authority of state franchises, it becomes necessary to consider in this connection the right of the Federal government to tax the activities of private corporations which arise from the exercise of franchises granted by the state in creating and conferring powers upon such corporations. We think it is the result of the cases heretofore decided in this court, that such business activities, though exercised because of state-created franchises, are not beyond the taxing power of the United States. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 154 (1911)

The "federal connection" argument has consistently lost in court.

[Sonny Tufts]

Uh.....no.

Uh....yes. Dr. Paul was hopelessly wrong in claiming that there was no income tax before 1913, as pointed out in the article from the Lew Rockwell site that you posted. He was oblivious to the Civil War income tax that was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881.

For those who still think the income tax began in 1913, here's the critical section from the 1862 tax:


Section 90. And be it further enacted, That there shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, except as hereinafter mentioned, if such annual gains, profits, or income exceed the sum of six hundred dollars and do not exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars, a duty of three percentum…
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=504

Here's the Springer case that upheld the law's constitutionality some 32 years before the 16th Amendment:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=102&invol=586

And here's what the Supreme Court has said regarding Congress' power to tax income:


The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926) (emphasis added).

[Danke]

This argument was rejected over 100 years ago when corporations that were chartered under state law claimed that the federal government couldn't tax their income because the privileges they enjoyed were created by the states. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the federal taxing power is not so limited.



The "federal connection" argument has consistently lost in court.

That quote just proved my point.

[YANKEE]

If the price of my product magically goes up by 30% then people will be less likely to come and purchase my products, regardless of the price of everything else going up as well. People would be more inclined to save rather than spend which isn't necessarily a good thing because this saving habit will have been created by the government which means it will be artificial and not based in the free market.

AND, I point out that no matter what happens to the total price (which will rise by 25+%) people will see a 40% (30% FT + 10% S/L) which will set their hair on fire.