Fair Tax vs Founder's Plan [Archive]

john w k

12-26-2004, 08:28 AM

It is saddening to learn that radio talk show host Neal Boortz supports the so called “fair tax” proposal. Perhaps Neal has not had time to really study the proposal in depth and compare it to our founding father’s method of taxing consumption which is the subject of this post..

In an article titled ANSWERING A FAIR TAX QUESTION (http://boortz.com/nuze/200412/12102004.html) Neal Boortz wrote:

“It doesn't matter that paying taxes will be voluntary under the Fair Tax plan. It doesn't matter that nobody pays the retail sales tax on the basic necessities of life.”

But the truth is, all consumers pay the tax on the basic necessities of life under the so called fair tax, and, the authors of the tax plan concoct what they call a “family consumption allowance“, which is a monthly check given to each American, and intended to be earmarked by each consumer to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life.

In essence, the so called fair tax proposal rations tax-free basic necessities of life, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each family. In addition, the allowance puts every American family on the government dole by issuing them a monthly government check. How nice!

Instead of making every American family dependant on a monthly government welfare check and rationing tax-free basic necessities by an government set limited allowance, Boortz should be asking the architects of the so called fair tax why not simply prohibit taxing the necessities of life [food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses, etc]?

Perhaps Hamilton explains why in Federalist Paper 79 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed79.htm) : “A POWER OVER A MAN’s SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.

Why would anybody who believes in limited government intentionally want to make every American Family dependant upon government for part of its subsistence, similar to what has been done via social security which has created a captive and dependant voting block for our Congress critters in Washington, D.C. ?

In regard to Neal’s comment that ”It doesn't matter that paying taxes will be voluntary under the Fair Tax plan” , let us explore the validity of this statement.

As a basic rule, there are but two kinds of tax___ direct and indirect. The former can be described as an involuntary tax which is collected when folks in government go directly to the people to raise a revenue; while the latter, or indirect taxation, is a kind of tax which is paid in consequence of a person’s own voluntary actions and is, in general, avoidable, which is a distinguishing characteristic from that of direct taxation!

Impost, duties and excise taxes are of the latter kind and fall under the category of voluntarily paid taxes, such as an excise tax on a particular article of consumption, or an excise tax on a government created privilege, such as the granting of a corporate charter (see Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=220&invol=107)), in which a tax is calculated from the profits and gains derived from the privilege of a corporate charter granted under government authority.

So, with the above in mind, and in reference to Neal’s statement, if a revenue is raised by Congress taxing articles of consumption, it would appear at first glance to be a system which fills the treasury by voluntary contributions, just as Neal suggests. But in all fairness to the meaning of the word “voluntary“, a tax imposed on the essentials of life could not truthfully be said to be a voluntarily paid tax!

This brings us to what Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers with regard to taxes on articles of consumption, they:

[i]”__ may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions__ It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which can not be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue__” see:No. 21 of the Federalist (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/federalist/fed-21.htm)

So, it is possible to avoid the oppressive nature of taxes laid upon articles of consumption by a “judicious selection of articles proper for such impositions” and would make the tax a more voluntary type of contribution. Obviously, this would indicate certain articles of consumption ought to be excluded from the list of taxables ___ the necessities of life, tools of production and supplies necessary to conduct business, making the tax a more voluntary paid type of tax.

As our founding fathers practiced, a consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article ought to be individually selected by the reason and choice of Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in the first revenue Act of our country (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

In any event, limiting the tax to articles of luxury, and requiring each article to be individually selected and having Congress place a specific amount of tax upon each article chosen, creates a self regulating check and balance upon Congress!

If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation’s labor force impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury, just as Hamilton explains above!

This method of taxing consumption gives us a self regulating check and balance encouraging Congress to adopt sound economic policies favorable for business, industry and labor on American soil.

But, there is more to what our founding fathers intended with regard to raising a federal revenue and taxes on consumption. The founder’s original tax plan was intended to first rely upon external taxation___ duties and imposts on imported articles [have foreigners pay for the privilege of doing business on American soil], and then, if insufficient revenue was raised from external taxation, internal taxation was then to be resorted to by imposing an excise on articles of luxury as outlined above. And finally, if Congress spent more than what was brought in from the above sources during a fiscal year to meet its exigencies and Congress created a deficit, then a “direct tax” upon the states was thought to be a proper requirement to extinguish the said annual deficit in a timely manner. I call this direct tax the founding father’s fair share formula, the rule being: ___Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states___ as set forth in Article I, Section 2, clause 3, of the United Constitution.

Under the direct tax each state was intended to contribute a share of the total figure being raised by Congress, basing each state’s bill upon its number of votes in Congress,___ representation with proportional obligation! No loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, were to bring home to their state’s Governor a bill for the largest share of the direct tax ___ another check and balance of our founding fathers to encourage each state’s legislature and governor to keep a jealous eye on their congressional delegation’s spending habits while in Washington, which is no longer being practiced, but if practiced, would be an immediate cure for today’s left wing socialists in Congress who have enslaved our nation’s younger generation with a national debt which now exceeds $50 trillion! see:Measuring the Federal Government's Unfunded Liability (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2003/pd103003a.html)

But such is our founding fathers plan___ a plan to encourage sound fiscal policies which not one in a five thousand people, including Neal Boortz, is probably aware of, nor realize how it helped to control Congress’ actions by imposing fiscal discipline upon Congress and paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world.

In any event, the founder’s plan was based upon principle, with a number of important and self regulating checks and balances built into the system to control the actions of Congress. Neither the fair tax, national sales tax, flat tax, income tax, value added tax, nor any other proposal contains the checks and balances our founding father’s provided to encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible, and raise a federal revenue for those things constitutionally authorized.

For additional reading on this subject matter see:

EXPOSING THE FAIR TAX HOAX (http://www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2002/06/18.shtml) ___ scroll down and start reading at:

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

I also suggest those interested in the adverse effects of the fair tax proposal study:

The Fair Tax: A Trojan Horse For America (http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm)

JWK
ACRS

Lagkiller

12-26-2004, 10:11 AM

Utilities, clothing and food items are exempt from tax....That seems pretty simple to me. I dont know of anything for a government check, care to share your source with us on that?

I stopped reading after that as basic needs arent taxed. However if you care to believe that the current form of taxation is much better you need your head examined

Notquiteclapton

12-26-2004, 10:21 AM

A lot of good points, and a few which I dont know enough about to comment on. What do you think, however, of the "fair tax" vs our current system which includes a progressive tax and also a sales tax?

john w k

12-26-2004, 11:21 AM

Lagkiller wrote:

Utilities, clothing and food items are exempt from tax....That seems pretty simple to me.

ANSWER:

It may seem simple, but simple and truth are two entirely different matters. The truth is, the items you refer to are not exempt from the so call fair tax, as is explained at the top of this thread.

Lagkiller wrote:

I dont know of anything for a government check, care to share your source with us on that?

ANSWER:

See: HR 25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.r.25:)

SEC. 301. FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE.
`Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of--

Lagkiller wrote

I stopped reading after that as basic needs arent taxed. However if you care to believe that the current form of taxation is much better you need your head examined

ANSWER:

And who suggested so?

john w k

12-26-2004, 11:35 AM

Notquiteclapton wrote:

A lot of good points, and a few which I dont know enough about to comment on. What do you think, however, of the "fair tax" vs our current system which includes a progressive tax and also a sales tax?

ANSWER

Both are designed to benefit our Congress Critters and avoid any meaningful checks and balances being placed upon Congress to control its irresponsible spending and borrowing practices. Did you read EXPOSING THE FAIR TAX HOAX and, The Fair Tax: A Trojan Horse For America ?

Notquiteclapton

12-26-2004, 02:44 PM

cherries5150

12-26-2004, 03:04 PM

test1

Lagkiller

12-26-2004, 03:49 PM

john w k

12-26-2004, 05:05 PM

:sigh:

H.R.25
Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

You are quoting me dead bills that have not even been given vote as "The fair tax plan".......Stop being stupid and actually give me something to work with here

Apparently you do not understand the word proposal as in:

It is saddening to learn that radio talk show host Neal Boortz supports the so called “fair tax” proposal.

In any event, I can see your interest is not a productive one.

The Raddish

12-26-2004, 07:03 PM

john w k

12-26-2004, 07:12 PM

I'm for the fair tax---any sort of reform is a great idea. The current tax system is a cluster you know what.

I agree with you that the current manner in which Congress raises its revenue is quite objectionable. But I would not go as far as you and say, any sort of reform is a great idea.

One must consider the possibility that "reform" could very well usher in something worse than what we now have!

I guess, one must first have a clear understanding in their own mind as to what they would like to accomplish by "reform" before they can truthfully support a specific proposed tax reform.

The Fair Tax Proposal (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00025:|/bss/d108query.html) is one of several proposals being considered on Capitol Hill to appease the American People in their want for "tax reform", but when it is analyzed beyond its featured attraction to abolish federal taxes calculated from income___ a known vehicle used by our Congress Critters to practice part of their evil___, it is found to cleverly maintain a number of existing and objectionable features of taxation, and also allows a continued reign of a bloated, omnipotent, and inquisitorial federal government.

As a priority, tax reform should end the allowance of Congress to use the power of taxation to control and manage the private lives of the people. It should also end the ability of folks in government to use taxation to punish political enemies, and as a weapon to harass specific individuals and invade the privacy of their lives.

The raising of a federal revenue ought to also be guided by fundamental principles which disburse the burden of taxation across the nation in a just and equitable fashion, and not directly upon individuals unless in emergency, i.e., the primary source of revenue ought to be raised by indirect taxation…imposts, duties and excise taxes, and not direct taxation upon individuals from which there is no escape. But, if direct taxation is found necessary, it ought to be by a fixed rule such as apportionment among the various states, leaving the various states at liberty to raise their apportioned share of the total being collected in their own chosen manner, which prevents its manipulation and abuse by Congress!

In addition, any proposed tax reform ought not be “revenue neutral” in relation to the amount Congress now raises, but rather, the proposed reform must allow Congress to raise all necessary revenue to meet its exigencies, but, in granting such power, [the power to raise all necessary revenue] there must be sufficient checks and balances built into the system to discourage the abuse of such power.

Tax reform should also provide a prescribed manner to extinguish annual deficits e.g., a direct tax upon the states to extinguish the deficit thereby forcing fiscal responsibility upon Congress Assembled.

And finally, the raising of revenue should not be imposed in such a manner as to increase the costs of production or business on American soil, nor burden the necessities of life which are essential to labor.

The only plan I see accomplishing the above goals is the founding father’s original tax plan___ a plan which I would say is real reform, and one which freedom loving people ought to be promoting and comparing to the shell game proposals being offered by your folks in Washington who have created our existing tax oppression

Regards,
JWK

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvementand shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

john w k

12-26-2004, 07:45 PM

From what I understand of it john w k, the reason that the "basic necessities of life" are taxed and then rebated as opposed to not taxing food, clothing, etc at all is pretty simple. It comes down to appeasing the liberals. If you don't tax food, etc. at all, then that means the mean old ugly rich people can throw their huge expensive dinner parties tax free, and we all know, we can't have that. Then the plan would "favor the rich". If we don't tax clothing, then the mean old ugly rich people can buy a $1000 pair of jeans tax free, and lord knows, we can't have that, now can we?

Of all of the proposed tax solutions that I have studied and read, the FTP is by far the best of the lot. It is head and shoulders above our current tax structure, which is incredibly regressive. You seem to have a problem with the FTP, so what would be your solution? Tell us a better plan.

I’m not sure of we fully agree concerning “basic necessities of life”. Surely there is a clear enough distinction between such foods as caviar and chicken eggs, between vintage wine and milk, between silk and cotton underwear, to truthfully say one is used as a luxury and the other a necessity.

As Hamilton correctly points out with regard to taxes on articles of consumption:

“The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions_

It seems to be self evident that specific articles related to business and industry ought to be excluded from the list of taxables to encourage a healthy business environment on American soil in order for America to compete with foreign made goods, and to form a strong domestic manufacturing capability which is essential to the survival of our nation.

It also seems to be self evident that articles of necessity, such as basic foods, clothing, medical expenses, etc., ought not be taxed to avoid an oppressive burden upon the poor and working class, but all such articles excluded must be excluded upon a truthful assessment of what constitutes luxury as opposed to a necessity.

Tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct business, food, shelter, clothing, and even medical expenses can truthfully be claimed to be both a necessity and luxury in particular instances, and the very reason why a close examination by Congress of each particular article in question is necessary, which is far different from an across the board tax on all such articles as proposed under the so called fair tax.

But in the final analysis, it is far better to have Congress spend its time selecting specific articles of consumption for taxation than legislating our freedoms away and manipulating the definition of “taxable income” to mean whatever some want it to mean and then place the burden of taxation “directly” upon particular economic classes from which they have no escape. It should also be noted that it is far easier for the ordinary people, and those with less education, to keep track of and understand the validity of a tax placed on, or not placed upon, a specific article of consumption, than to understand the complicated and incompressible tax code created by Congress in which Congress manipulates taxation with its slid of hand to favor some while burdening others.

In any event, the founder’s original tax plan, which I happen to support, was based upon principle, with a number of important and self regulating checks and balances built into the system to control the actions of Congress. Neither the fair tax, national sales tax, flat tax, income tax, value added tax, nor any other proposal contains the checks and balances our founding father’s provided to encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible, and raise a federal revenue for those things constitutionally authorized.

Sincerely,
JWK

"In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

Lagkiller

12-26-2004, 08:33 PM

Striker

12-26-2004, 08:47 PM

Taxes are WAYYYYYYYYYY too high. The poor pay little to nothing and get back the "Earned Income Credit" often, which is really just welfare. My sister makes around $25K a year and she gets back a few hundred in tax refund money. Her coworker, a single mom with a few kids, gets back like $3-4K! That's insane.

To anyone with a decent paying job (especially singles that don't have dependents, a home mortgage, etc)---look at how much you are being screwed in taxes.

Yeah I'm in that situation. I am looking forward to getting a wife knocking her up and buying a house so I start getting tax money back. Making 25k+ and being single sucks. I have to claim 0 and barely get back anything a year. I don't want the system to change because I've paid my dues and will get my money in a few years.

john w k

12-26-2004, 09:08 PM

I was pointing out jwk that you simply take a bill, not introduced to the floor, not even agreed upon by the congress TWO YEARS AGO and make it sound like we are all in imminant danger by its passing. You are simply trying to invoke fear with a lack of sound judgement and facts.

Make it sound? Really! Seems to me your characterization of what I have posted in this thread exhibit’s a very, very active imagination.

Danman114

12-27-2004, 07:54 AM

So, if we only tax the sale of luxeries, what stops us from ordering from overseas, and having it imported (the internet is a wonderful thing)? Or ordering from Canada? We aren't taxing imports are we?

Who will judge the difference between silk and cotton underwear? What about really nice cotton underwear? What about ones with designs on them? Will they only be tax free if they are white?

(By the way, I am one of those horrible liberals Raddish mentioned who beleive that if someone will find a way to get something cheaper, they will; even if that means they screw the government out of revenues. Or maybe I am looking for a way to screw the government should this system go into effect.)

The Raddish, so if that tax refund given at the beginning of every month is a method to satisfy the liberals, what would your system include? Tax everyone the same, even on the essentials of living?

The Raddish

12-27-2004, 08:09 AM

Actually, Danman, I have been a proponent of the FTP ever since I first started studying it a number of years ago. I think it is great that Neal Boortz is championing this plan, and I hope that it grows legs. It would be great to see this go into effect sometime in the next four years.

john w k does make some valid points, and so do the articles he posted. In particular, the one that scares me the most is the opportunity to bring back the income tax in addition to the Fair Tax. I would like to see the law written as such that this would be impossible to implement.

To me, I would prefer that the Federal Government not be able to tax the citizens, much like the plan that john w k likes, but realistically, do you ever see this happening? Our government is too big. In order to go back to the Founding Fathers plan, we would essentially have to start our government over from scratch. That is just not feasible in today's day and age.

So, Danman, while I don't like every aspect of the FTP, I do think that it is by far the absolute best alternative to any other tax plan that I have ever seen or studied, and it is head and shoulders above our current plan. To address your comment about importing goods, the FTP will go a long way to bringing business into our country, instead of forcing our businesses to base themselves outside our company like our current system does. The FTP eliminates all taxes on business, and this alone will create a huge influx into the US. Also, there is no distinction between luxury goods and normal goods. Everything is taxed exactly the same. Also, keep in mind that your buying power has also just increased tremendously. You get every penny in your check. All of it. No FICA, no SSI, no State Tax, no Federal Tax, if you make $10 an hour and work a 40 hour week, then you take home $400 (not the $290 you currently take home).

So while in the short term prices may appear that prices rise after the tax is implemented, the truth is that you dollar has more purchasing power than it ever has before, and you are are actually spending less. Instead of working for 60% of your money or less (the rest goes to taxes), you work for 100% of your money, and only pay taxes on what you buy. And as has been mentioned, everyone gets a tax rebate every month for the taxes payed on the basic necessities of life. Everyone, including those mean old ugly rich people, and even those filthy dirty shiftless homeless people.

john w k

12-27-2004, 02:51 PM

Danman114 wrote:

So, if we only tax the sale of luxeries, what stops us from ordering from overseas, and having it imported (the internet is a wonderful thing)? Or ordering from Canada? We aren't taxing imports are we?

ANSWER

It is Congress’ assigned duty by the Constitution to adopt appropriate legislation concerning the taxing of articles of consumption entering our borders by any means. An example of an across the board tax Congress once imposed upon imports was a tonnage tax…a nominal tax laid upon the weight of a total shipment, which could be applied to imports arriving by air.

I’m sure with all the brilliance exhibited by Congress which has been used to fleece the American People for countless billions in pork barrel money laundering appropriations, and its creativity in bleeding the social security trust fund cigar box dry___ leaving it filled with United States Securities [promissory Notes, Bills and Bonds] which the people will be taxed [and taxed twice for the same pension benefits ] to raise sufficient funds to redeem their face value plus interest when they become mature so Congress can mail out social security money due, Congress has proved itself to be very clever and creative in accomplishing those things which it is determine to accomplish. Problem is, all the incentives our Founding Fathers wrote into our Constitution [especially its carefully considered tax plan] to require Congress to act fiscally responsible, are no longer observed, and, with the so called fair tax, they would in fact be repealed by a back door method.

Please, before snuggling up to the so called fair tax, keep in mind that it is being promoted as being “revenue neutral” which means it is intended to raise the existing amount of revenue currently raised without any checks and balances to insure such revenue exacted from the economy by Congress is justifiable and raised for constitutionally authorized objectives. Contrast this to our Founding Father’s plan which gives Congress power to raise almost unlimited funds, but with a small string attached___ it forces fiscal responsibility upon Congress and is designed to make each state’s congressional delegation immediately accountable to its state’s Legislature and Governor, should Congress spend more than is brought in from indirect taxation.

Danman114 wrote:

Who will judge the difference between silk and cotton underwear? What about really nice cotton underwear? What about ones with designs on them? Will they only be tax free if they are white?

ANSWER

I have already answered your question when writing to Radish, I wrote:

I’m not sure if we fully agree concerning “basic necessities of life”. Surely there is a clear enough distinction between such foods as caviar and chicken eggs, between vintage wine and milk, between silk and cotton underwear, to truthfully say one is used as a luxury and the other a necessity….Tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct business, food, shelter, clothing, and even medical expenses can truthfully be claimed to be both a necessity and luxury in particular instances, and the very reason why a close examination by Congress of each particular article in question is necessary, which is far different from an across the board tax on all such articles as proposed under the so called fair tax….But in the final analysis, it is far better to have Congress spend its time selecting specific articles of consumption for taxation than legislating our freedoms away and manipulating the definition of “taxable income” to mean whatever some want it to mean and then place the burden of taxation “directly” upon particular economic classes from which they have no escape.

Sincerely,

JWK

john w k

12-27-2004, 03:07 PM

The Raddish wrote:

To me, I would prefer that the Federal Government not be able to tax the citizens, much like the plan that john w k likes, but realistically, do you ever see this happening? Our government is too big. In order to go back to the Founding Fathers plan, we would essentially have to start our government over from scratch. That is just not feasible in today's day and age.

ANSWER

Not feasible? How so? The founder’s plan allows Congress to raise existing levels of revenue to fund existing big government, and, even bigger government. However, unlike the fair tax “revenue neutral” proposal, it also throws a small fly in the ointment…it introduces accountability and encourages fiscal responsibility….it would squeeze to death the ongoing money laundering operation on Capitol Hill by which billions and billions if not trillions of taxpayer dollars are funneled into the pockets of those blessed by Congress.

Witness the latest money laundering operation by which billions of dollars taxed away from hard working Americans, was first funneled from the U.S. Treasury into the hands of the United Nation and then into its food for oil program (http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm438.cfm) by which this money then found its way into the pockets of those who are very well connected to those in political power, especially to those in Washington, D.C.

And what about the billions taxed away from hard working Americans, that have been pilfered right under the working people’s noses, and on American soil, from the budget of the Department of Education (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20010531.shtml), which then found its way into the personal pockets of those appointed and hired to political plum jobs by the leaders of one or the other political parties in power?

And, how many political plum jobs with six figure salaries have been created domestically over the past 40-50 years to disburse money taxed away from hard working Americans, after those six figure salaries have been paid?

To get a perspective on the countless political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington, take a look at a 1956 telephone directory under federal government and you will find two pages of federal government offices. Look today and that two pages has exploded into a telephone directory that challenges the telephone directory size of many of America’s cities!

Here is a current A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml), click on any particular listing to find the countless plum jobs created in that department, many of which have six figure salaries!

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 including its younger generation with a national debt (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2003/pd103003a.html) which exceeds $50 Trillion.

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

And how has all this come about? By the people being asleep at the switch; by the people’s own dishonor and greed; by the people allowing folks in government to ignore the thoughtful and necessary checks and balances provided in our constitution intended by our founding fathers to control the actions of Congress and force fiscal accountably upon them; by the kind of people who now great with open arms a tax plan which they assume will relieve their immediate suffering, but is carefully designed to tighten the iron fist of government around the people’s productivity while making the people more dependant upon that same fist to feed them.

I hope you are wrong, Raddish, when you say it is not feasible to return fiscal responsibility and accountability to Congress, for if you are not wrong, I shudder to think of what the future has in wait for our nation’s younger generation which we have pledged, by our Constitution, to secure the blessings of liberty to.

JWK
ACRS

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml), and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

.

The Raddish

12-27-2004, 04:45 PM

I’m not sure if we fully agree concerning “basic necessities of life”. Surely there is a clear enough distinction between such foods as caviar and chicken eggs, between vintage wine and milk, between silk and cotton underwear, to truthfully say one is used as a luxury and the other a necessity….Tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct business, food, shelter, clothing, and even medical expenses can truthfully be claimed to be both a necessity and luxury in particular instances, and the very reason why a close examination by Congress of each particular article in question is necessary, which is far different from an across the board tax on all such articles as proposed under the so called fair tax….But in the final analysis, it is far better to have Congress spend its time selecting specific articles of consumption for taxation than legislating our freedoms away and manipulating the definition of “taxable income” to mean whatever some want it to mean and then place the burden of taxation “directly” upon particular economic classes from which they have no escape.
I absolutely could not disagree with you more on the bolded statement. Giving Congress the power to tax individual items based on what they feel is right...scratch that, encouraging them to partake of this practice, is a HUGE nightmarish step down the road to censorship and eventually social molding. If Congress levies a heavy tax on one item, but then a lighter tax on a similar item, this smacks of corruption beyond anything we have ever seen. You will see lobbyists from every company throwing billions of dollars to get their products on the "approved" list.

I for one do NOT want Congress deciding which brand of shoes I should buy, or what kinds of food I should eat, or which headache medicine I should take. I want to make those choices in a free market society, I do NOT want to be sublimated by my government based on which company lobbies the best, or which flavor of the month political party thinks they know best for me how I should live my life.

By charging Congress to select specific articles of consumption for taxation you are giving them the power to legislate our freedoms away.

I have no problem with enforcing accountability on our government. In fact, I openly encourage the idea. I have no problem with removing the pork from legislation. I have been advocating an "Anti-Pork" law for years. I think it should be illegal for Congress to pass a spending bill with "riders" attached giving money to this and that pet project.

In fact, if such a law was enacted that forced Congress to legislate one spending bill at a time and specifically made it illegal to "hide" riders in larger legislation packages, you would get the accountability you, and the rest of us, desire. If we the people could see where our tax dollars are being spent, then we could make much more informed decisions about who we send to Washington to represent us. I would like to see this happen at the state level as well.

Our current system is broken, no doubt. The plan you advocate could not be slid into effect with a minimum of economic disruption in this country. However, with the FTP, it could be enacted immediately with very little change in our current infrastructure. The ability to collect sales tax is in place, only the numbers need to change. Abolishing the IRS would force a small segment of the population to find a new line of work, but hey, I don't want to work to support the leeches of society anyway, so I am comfortable with them going through a little hardship to find new employment.

Imagine a presidential election a few terms from now where Candidate A says, "Elect me, and I will drop the FT by 1%, and force our government to be more economical than it is", and candidate B says, "Elect me, and I will drop the tax by 2%". There is a tremendous amount of power that we the people will wield over our government when the method of taxation is transparent to all, instead of hidden behind billions of words of tax code law.

john w k

12-27-2004, 10:24 PM

The Raddish wrote:

I absolutely could not disagree with you more on the bolded statement. Giving Congress the power to tax individual items based on what they feel is right...scratch that, encouraging them to partake of this practice, is a HUGE nightmarish step down the road to censorship and eventually social molding. If Congress levies a heavy tax on one item, but then a lighter tax on a similar item, this smacks of corruption beyond anything we have ever seen. You will see lobbyists from every company throwing billions of dollars to get their products on the "approved" list.

I for one do NOT want Congress deciding which brand of shoes I should buy, or what kinds of food I should eat, or which headache medicine I should take. I want to make those choices in a free market society, I do NOT want to be sublimated by my government based on which company lobbies the best, or which flavor of the month political party thinks they know best for me how I should live my life.

By charging Congress to select specific articles of consumption for taxation you are giving them the power to legislate our freedoms away.

ABSWER

I am somewhat saddened that you do not have faith in the founding father’s wisdom which has already been tested and proved to not be as objectionable as your nightmarish fear of gloom and doom. The truth of the matter is, there is more to consider than what you suggest concerning the taxing of specifically chosen articles of consumption, in fact, the market place, just as you apparently desire [as I do], will in a larger degree determine the amount of tax each article will bear, just as Hamilton explains in Federalist No.21

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

If Congress taxes any particular article of consumption excessively, it proportionately reduces the sale of the article and likewise diminishes revenue raised from that particular article of consumption. It is therefore in Congress’ revenue raising interests to use caution in the amount of tax imposed upon each specific article of consumption as the marketplace will determine its sales. In addition, there are other constitutional barriers protecting against what you suggest: the rule of uniformity requires all similar articles of consumption to be taxed uniformly wherever they are found; and, another provision in the constitution forbids any tax or duty to be laid on Articles exported from any state [exporting, as the founders used the term, not only applies to exporting to foreign nations, but from state to state as well]. And, as I have previously pointed out, It should also be noted that it is far easier for the ordinary people, and those with little education, to keep track of and understand the validity of a tax placed on, or not placed upon, a specific article of consumption, than to understand the complicated and incompressible tax code created by Congress in which Congress manipulates taxation with its slid of hand to favor some while burdening others.

I suggest that if what you fear was engaged in by Congress, the public outcry, the consumer outcry, would be so overwhelming and instantaneous that Congress would immediately reverse its action, just as was recently done [as I recall, the late 1980s when Congress imposed a 10 per cent luxury tax on the purchase of yachts, and withdrew or drastically lowered the tax (I think) before a year had passed because of public outcry!]

Yes, there is no question that allowing Congress to tax specific articles of consumption raises the fears which you have expressed, but as the history of this federal tax has proven in America, your fears have never materialized to the degree of your complaint. Having pointed the above out, let me also remind you that it is already within Congress’ powers, as I type this post, to tax specific articles of consumption and carry out some of the fears you have expressed with regard to taxing consumption, and so, your complaint is a moot concern.

Regards,

JWK

Lagkiller

12-27-2004, 10:32 PM

[exporting, as the founders used the term, not only applies to exporting to foreign nations, but from state to state as well]

Is that why they forbid regulation or interstate commerce.....and I thought I had that whole concept right :rolleyes:

john w k

12-28-2004, 12:38 AM

Is that why they forbid regulation or interstate commerce.....and I thought I had that whole concept right :rolleyes:

:confused:

Please quote the article, section and clause of the constitution you refer to and then explain your assumed "concept". Your above post makes little sense.

Lagkiller

12-28-2004, 09:04 AM

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution

The Raddish

12-28-2004, 10:12 AM

If Congress taxes any particular article of consumption excessively, it proportionately reduces the sale of the article and likewise diminishes revenue raised from that particular article of consumption. It is therefore in Congress’ revenue raising interests to use caution in the amount of tax imposed upon each specific article of consumption as the marketplace will determine its sales.
This argument holds, of course, if the goal of the tax is to raise money. However, if raising money is not the goal, and social molding becomes the goal, then taxing a product out of existence is an effective means of accomplishing this goal.

We have witnessed this process in action for many years. Examples are "Sin taxes", such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, firearms (in many localities, the taxes are more expensive than the guns), etc, etc, etc.

In addition, there are other constitutional barriers protecting against what you suggest: the rule of uniformity requires all similar articles of consumption to be taxed uniformly wherever they are found; and, another provision in the constitution forbids any tax or duty to be laid on Articles exported from any state
I am not concerned about taxes favoring one state over another, as this is strictly forbidden in our constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). However, we have seen examples of like products being taxed differently, most often in raw materials. This has been a constant problem with steel industry over the last two centuries, as an example. Living close to Birmingham (aka Steel City), I have heard a number of examples within the last decade where this has been an issue.

It should also be noted that it is far easier for the ordinary people, and those with little education, to keep track of and understand the validity of a tax placed on, or not placed upon, a specific article of consumption, than to understand the complicated and incompressible tax code created by Congress in which Congress manipulates taxation with its slid of hand to favor some while burdening others.
What could be more simple that a single tax on all goods? It is so simple, in fact, that the cost of the tax can be built in to the price of the goods. When you go to the store to make a purchase, and an item costs $100, you pay $100. The FT is already included in the price. This is the simplest form of taxation there could be, (aside from not taxing at all - my personal preference, although completely unrealistic).

I suggest that if what you fear was engaged in by Congress, the public outcry, the consumer outcry, would be so overwhelming and instantaneous that Congress would immediately reverse its action, just as was recently done [as I recall, the late 1980s when Congress imposed a 10 per cent luxury tax on the purchase of yachts, and withdrew or drastically lowered the tax (I think) before a year had passed because of public outcry!
Actually, the 10% yacht tax had long last effects that are still in place. The tax was implemented in Massachusetts, not by Congress, and far from increasing revenues for the coffers by "taxing the rich", the tax killed the booming yacht industry in Massachusetts. Dead. Gone. All those manufacturing jobs: gone. All the revenues from income taxes: gone. All the money from sales tax on those expensive yachts: gone. Did the yacht industry itself die? Nope. It moved to less predatory areas of the country, just as abolishing the IRS and implementing the FTP will bring industry into our country by eliminating any and all business taxes. In fact, the yacht tax is an excellent example of why the FTP is such a good plan for America, and our current system is such a regressive plan.

Yes, there is no question that allowing Congress to tax specific articles of consumption raises the fears which you have expressed, but as the history of this federal tax has proven in America, your fears have never materialized to the degree of your complaint. Having pointed the above out, let me also remind you that it is already within Congress’ powers, as I type this post, to tax specific articles of consumption and carry out some of the fears you have expressed with regard to taxing consumption, and so, your complaint is a moot concern.
Actually, as I have given you in the examples above, those fears have materialized with our current system. Implementation of the FTP will completely eliminate those fears as everything is taxed the same. Nothing will be selectively taxed to socially mold the population. Sure, some states may levy taxes on certain things, but market forces will drive them to lower those taxes or business will move elsewhere. This is the lesson that Massachusetts should have (but failed to) learn. And as I have pointed out, my concerns are anything but moot.

john w k

12-28-2004, 07:02 PM

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution

"...and then explain your assumed "concept". Your above post makes little sense."

As I said before, I see your interest is not something of a productive nature...I will no longer respond to your posts.

Lagkiller

12-28-2004, 07:10 PM

"...and then explain your assumed "concept". Your above post makes little sense."

As I said before, I see your interest is not something of a productive nature...I will no longer respond to your posts.

The constitution STRICTLY forbids states from setting tariffs or government favoring one state (in the form of taxes trade or otherwise). That is a concept I have always assume held true but you are telling me it isnt.

You arent going to respond to me? Kind of hard to fight facts with fiction is it?

john w k

12-28-2004, 09:58 PM

The constitution STRICTLY forbids states from setting tariffs or government favoring one state (in the form of taxes trade or otherwise). That is a concept I have always assume held true but you are telling me it isnt.

You arent going to respond to me? Kind of hard to fight facts with fiction is it?

Facts? How about providing my words supporting your above allegation ["...but you are telling me it isnt."]

john w k

12-28-2004, 10:29 PM

Actually, the 10% yacht tax had long last effects that are still in place. The tax was implemented in Massachusetts, not by Congress.

The 1990 Luxury Tax imposed the U.S. Congress (http://www.mnstate.edu/stutes/Dict/L/Luxurytax/Luxurytax.htm)

In 1990 Congress adopted a new tax on items that were basically of want and not of need. This tax was called a Luxury Tax. It taxed such items as yachts, private airlines, furs, jewelry and expensive cars. The thought was that the people purchasing these items could easily pay for the extra tax. Then what happened next, the Congress didn’t expect. The wealthy put their money into a bigger house or something else instead of an item that had a luxury tax on it. Then the demand for those items went down and Congress had some mad people to deal with....

also see:

In 1990, the democratic-controlled Congress of the US (http://www.commercialdiplomacy.org/manuals/manual_economic3.htm) passed a luxury tax on yachts, furs, jewelry, private jets, and luxury cars. Their logic was twofold: hit the rich with a greater share of the tax burden, and generate plenty of new revenue,

Lagkiller

12-28-2004, 10:37 PM

Facts? How about providing my words supporting your above allegation ["...but you are telling me it isnt."]
[exporting, as the founders used the term, not only applies to exporting to foreign nations, but from state to state as well]

The 1990 Luxury Tax imposed the U.S. Congress (http://www.mnstate.edu/stutes/Dict/L/Luxurytax/Luxurytax.htm)

You are using a students paper to give as proof? Try something a little more concrete. Such as house.gov or something similar.

john w k

12-29-2004, 06:35 AM

You are using a students paper to give as proof? Try something a little more concrete. Such as house.gov or something similar.

legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263)

And now, have your mindless conversations with someone else!

Danman114

12-29-2004, 06:51 AM

Actually, the 10% yacht tax had long last effects that are still in place. The tax was implemented in Massachusetts, not by Congress, and far from increasing revenues for the coffers by "taxing the rich", the tax killed the booming yacht industry in Massachusetts. Dead. Gone. All those manufacturing jobs: gone. All the revenues from income taxes: gone. All the money from sales tax on those expensive yachts: gone. Did the yacht industry itself die? Nope. It moved to less predatory areas of the country, just as abolishing the IRS and implementing the FTP will bring industry into our country by eliminating any and all business taxes. In fact, the yacht tax is an excellent example of why the FTP is such a good plan for America, and our current system is such a regressive plan.

I think it was congress who passed this law, perhaps after Massachusetts.
NY Soc. of CPA's (http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/old/11583345.htm)

I could be wrong though. I do remember, specifically Boston Whaler, moving our of Massachuesetts, and being boat owners, my parents were pretty sad about it.

I also remember my econonmics professor pointing out that this 10% tax actually hurt our goverment's revenue, becuase the loss of income from income tax + unemploymen expenditures was greater than revenue gained from the tax.

The Raddish

12-29-2004, 11:01 AM

Danman and john, you two are correct. I got the specifics of the implementation of the Luxury Tax a little mixed up. It happens.

However, regardless of the implementation, the cause/effect that I stated remains unchanged. john, you say that like items can't be taxed differently, and the Luxury Tax is a perfect example of how they were taxed differently. The only difference between a Boston Whaler and any other boat is the price. The Luxury Tax was specifically aimed at the automobile, boat, aircraft, jewelry, and fur industries. However, the tax was set up not to tax all of these industries an additional 10%, just the more expensive items.

It didn't work.

As I mentioned in my original post on this, and as Danman mentioned in his post above this one, the tax became a burden, because people refused to pay it. They stopped buying the items that were subjected to this tax. Unemployment in these industries went up, tax revenues actually fell, and the people who would have otherwise bought a $300,000 boat (and paid taxes on it) bought something else instead.

In this instance, the tax was indeed repealed, but not until after the damage had already been done. By repealing the tax, then the statement you made earlier,
If Congress taxes any particular article of consumption excessively, it proportionately reduces the sale of the article and likewise diminishes revenue raised from that particular article of consumption. It is therefore in Congress’ revenue raising interests to use caution in the amount of tax imposed upon each specific article of consumption as the marketplace will determine its sales.
does indeed hold, but at what expense? Congress did indeed repeal the tax, but not until after many people had already lost their jobs. This was a failed experiment.

Further, this experiment goes to prove just how effective using taxation can be to remove an article from our society. If the goal of this tax was not to raise money, but to discourage people from buying a Boston Whaler, it would be very effective.

By implementing the FTP, neither of these scenarios could take place. The tax could not have been implemented in the first place, which means all those people who lost their jobs would not have become unemployed. It also would prevent the use of taxation for social molding purposes, as I have already demonstrated is a common practice in today's society. That aspect of taxation is working, and I for one do not want to see its continued use.

Is the FTP perfect? Probably not. However, it is damn sure better than the system we have in place today. Is the Founding Father's plan perfect? Obviously not, or situations like the Luxury Tax we have been debating would have worked, and instead it was shown to be a catastrophic failure.

I do not want the government telling me what I should and should not buy based solely on the way each item is taxed. I do not want Congress determining whether I should or should not buy a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of whiskey, based on the amount of taxes levied on each of those items. I do not want Congress sitting idly by as hundreds or thousands of American workers lose their jobs because Congress decided a Boston Whaler is a luxury item and should be taxed more heavily.

The Fair Tax eliminates all of these restrictions on my, and everyone else's, freedoms.

john w k

12-29-2004, 05:47 PM

john, you say that like items can't be taxed differently, and the Luxury Tax is a perfect example of how they were taxed differently. The only difference between a Boston Whaler and any other boat is the price. The Luxury Tax was specifically aimed at the automobile, boat, aircraft, jewelry, and fur industries. However, the tax was set up not to tax all of these industries an additional 10%, just the more expensive items.

They were determined, whether rightly or wrongly, to be luxury…that was the basis of the tax, the tax was intended to hit the wealthy. As I recall, inexpensive cars were not burdened by the tax, which I believe was based upon the price of the car as you point out. But be real, there is a difference, and a big difference, as regard to luxury, between a BMW and a Chevy Nova.

In this instance, the tax was indeed repealed, but not until after the damage had already been done. By repealing the tax, then the statement you made earlier,

does indeed hold, but at what expense? Congress did indeed repeal the tax, but not until after many people had already lost their jobs. This was a failed experiment.

And it was a lesson learned by Congress, hopefully never to be repeated again. Had they imposes a one or two percent tax, as I believe was recommended, I believe the tax would have been successful in raising revenue without the undesirable consequences. But this is just speculation.

Further, this experiment goes to prove just how effective using taxation can be to remove an article from our society. If the goal of this tax was not to raise money, but to discourage people from buying a Boston Whaler, it would be very effective.

Raddish, Congress can now tax into extinction any product it wishes, so your bringing this up is pointless in a discussion concerning the so called fair tax vs. the founder’s intended method of taxing consumption.

By implementing the FTP, neither of these scenarios could take place. The tax could not have been implemented in the first place,

That is just not true! The so called fair tax does not prohibit Congress imposing additional excise taxes on specific articles of consumption. There would have to be a constitutional amendment repealing Congress power to lay and collect imposts, duties and excise taxes [the excise taxing power being used to impose a luxury tax on specific articles of consumption].

It also would prevent the use of taxation for social molding purposes, as I have already demonstrated is a common practice in today's society. That aspect of taxation is working, and I for one do not want to see its continued use….I do not want the government telling me what I should and should not buy based solely on the way each item is taxed. I do not want Congress determining whether I should or should not buy a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of whiskey…
The Fair Tax eliminates all of these restrictions on my, and everyone else's, freedoms.

Please don’t disappoint me, Raddish. Did it ever dawn on you that the carrot of abolishing the IRS may be intentionally designed by folks in government to lure the people into a new and perhaps even more oppressive system?

Do you really think folks in government would willingly relinquish a mighty power they now exercise over the People which makes the people their servant? The old saying goes: if it’s sounds too good to be true it probably is!

I have asked a rhetorical question in a number of forums repeatedly, and sincerely thought a thinking person would have answered it by now with some deep and penetrating insight. The question being: why not simply exempt the necessities of life from taxation, instead of creating a family consumption allowance which puts every American Family on the public dole?

You see, Raddish, my rhetorical question was meant to point out that whenever folks in government make people dependant upon a periodically issued government check, eventually the issuing of that money is used to control and regulate their activities.

So, if the family consumption allowance is intended to pay the tax on the basic necessities of life, is it not necessary and proper for Congress to require those who receive a family consumption allowance to prove that money was spent on basic necessities and nothing more?

And, who is to say what is considered a basic necessity and what isn’t? Surely, this is within Congress’ powers as Congress is providing the check. And how may Congress ensure that each family spends its family consumption allowance as Congress’ has legislated? We wouldn’t want, for example, pregnant mothers to use a government issued family consumption allowance to purchase wine, whiskey, tobacco, or foods which may be unhealthy to the unborn. And so, it is done by more regulations, just as the IRS now enforces and checks up on through mandatory record keeping, audits, and so forth.

Oh, but I thought the IRS was to be abolished!

That is true my child, and in its place we have established a kinder gentler service, but its rules must also be followed, just as those of the former IRS.
Sincerely,

JWK
ACRS

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

Marshall

12-29-2004, 11:00 PM

Lagkiller

12-29-2004, 11:37 PM

Marshall

12-30-2004, 05:15 AM

Moderate inflation is good for the economy, we dont have rampant out of control inflation so how are they losing all this money in inflation?First off, "conservatives" have lost all of their credibility when discussing hte ecnomy, because they spent 25 years saying the deficits are bad, "oh, don't elect a Democrat, they'll create deficits," when in fact, Republicans outspend liberals and rack up vastly higher deficits.

But it's easy to see how much money you're losing to inflation. For starters, the increased cost of gasoline *alone* costs the average American more than the Bush tax cuts. Just that one thing. But there's a lot more.

First off, a great many economists around the world have been warning that the Bush policies can indeed trigger massive inflation. And the problem with inflation is that it can rapidly spiral out of control. While it has not yet, all of the elements of this "perfect storm" are in place: Our massive debt, largely financed on short-term notes to overseas investors, and our massive trade deficit.

For example, did you know that the increased cost of gasoline over the past two years has affected Americans at least three times more than Europeans? It's because OPEC has tied the price of crude to the Euro, which has increased in value against the dollar. Our devaluating currency is responsible for a big part of the increase in oil prices.

'nuff rambling...

john w k

12-30-2004, 06:14 AM

You guys write a lot without saying very much.

This is what I think - It is totally irresponsible for the goverment to spend more money than it takes in. The deficit has gotten terribly out of hand. We shouldn't be cutting taxes, we should be raising them so that we pay for what we spend, or else Congress should cut spending.

I realize that we can't have a balanced budget next year, but we are going in the wrong direction, just to please a bunch of MORONS like I see here who would rather save $300 on their taxes (while rich guys save millions), and in return, see inflation cost them over $1,000 a year. MORONS are destroying this economy by not using the same common sense we use for our own finances.

Apparently you have a problem with selective reading__see the starting post at the top of this thread:

"But, there is more to what our founding fathers intended with regard to raising a federal revenue and taxes on consumption. The founder’s original tax plan was intended to first rely upon external taxation___ duties and imposts on imported articles [have foreigners pay for the privilege of doing business on American soil], and then, if insufficient revenue was raised from external taxation, internal taxation was then to be resorted to by imposing an excise on articles of luxury as outlined above. And finally, if Congress spent more than what was brought in from the above sources during a fiscal year to meet its exigencies and Congress created a deficit, then a “direct tax” upon the states was thought to be a proper requirement to extinguish the said annual deficit in a timely manner. I call this direct tax the founding father’s fair share formula, the rule being: ___Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states___ as set forth in Article I, Section 2, clause 3, of the United Constitution.

Under the direct tax each state was intended to contribute a share of the total figure being raised by Congress, basing each state’s bill upon its number of votes in Congress,___ representation with proportional obligation! No loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, were to bring home to their state’s Governor a bill for the largest share of the direct tax ___ another check and balance of our founding fathers to encourage each state’s legislature and governor to keep a jealous eye on their congressional delegation’s spending habits while in Washington, which is no longer being practiced, but if practiced, would be an immediate cure for today’s left wing socialists in Congress who have enslaved our nation’s younger generation with a national debt which now exceeds $50 trillion! see:Measuring the Federal Government's Unfunded Liability (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2003/pd103003a.html)

But such is our founding fathers plan___ a plan to encourage sound fiscal policies which not one in a five thousand people, including Neal Boortz, is probably aware of, nor realize how it helped to control Congress’ actions by imposing fiscal discipline upon Congress and paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world.

In any event, the founder’s plan was based upon principle, with a number of important and self regulating checks and balances built into the system to control the actions of Congress. Neither the fair tax, national sales tax, flat tax, income tax, value added tax, nor any other proposal contains the checks and balances our founding father’s provided to encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible, and raise a federal revenue for those things constitutionally authorized.

For additional reading on this subject matter see:

EXPOSING THE FAIR TAX HOAX (http://www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2002/06/18.shtml) ___ scroll down and start reading at:

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

I also suggest those interested in the adverse effects of the fair tax proposal study:

The Fair Tax: A Trojan Horse For America (http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm)

JWK
ACRS"

Marshall

12-30-2004, 12:55 PM

As a Californian, I'd love to see the 500,000 people in South Dakota try to come up with 1/15 as much revenue as the State of California's 30 million residents, but that isn't going to happen. Talk all you want... it ain't going to happen, and it can't happen... so it won't.

Bottom line is that our government's gotten so huge that we can't simply put the genie back into the bottle. And, that growth started as early as 1812, when we had to build the wooden ships used against the British.

The Federal budget is roughly 1/3 Defense, 1/3 Entitlements (pensions, Veterans benefits and Medicare), and 1/3 everything else. Conservatives who want to make cuts keep suggesting that we can cut down the 1/3 "everything else" enough to make a sizeable dent, but, of course, we can't, especially when they're the same people who want to vastly increase defense spending.

Personally, I think Clinton had the very best approach. He cut government across the board - he made cuts in defense and welfare alike, and he applied attrition throughout the system. That, in my opinion, is conservative. What Bush is doing is not conservative at all, and it is very irresposible.

Frankly, I'm scared out of my wits with the notion of George Bush deciding how to "reform" our tax code. It'll work something like this: VERY rich guys, especially those in the energy business, will pay zero tax after deductions. Middle class people will get a $1,500 tax cut that will bankrupt our treasury.

Then, by the way, if China really does want a war, we won't be able to finance it. Oh, well, I suppose that'll just be too bad.

Lagkiller

12-30-2004, 02:24 PM

Marshall

12-31-2004, 01:12 AM

I would like to see california spend the same amount per capita in tax dollars as south dakota, but that will never happenIf California spent that much, our nation would be broke.

The Federal governments pays out an average of $5,817 per person in Federal funds and grants to California.

BUT, the Feds pay out an average of $8,262 per person in Federal funds and grants to South Dakota.

And Californians earn a full $5,000/year per capita more than South Dakotans, so they obviously pay far more per capita tax than South Dakotans.

You can get those figures from the US Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html).

Lagkiller

12-31-2004, 01:41 AM

If California spent that much, our nation would be broke.

The Federal governments pays out an average of $5,817 per person in Federal funds and grants to California.

BUT, the Feds pay out an average of $8,262 per person in Federal funds and grants to South Dakota.

And Californians earn a full $5,000/year per capita more than South Dakotans, so they obviously pay far more per capita tax than South Dakotans.

You can get those figures from the US Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html).

As I look through the link you gave me I see nothing relating to amount of federal tax dollars spent in california or any other state. Although I wouldnt really expect the Census Bureau to record that information.

However I did find some facts for you:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/factsonCA.html

The Facts on California's Tax Climate

The California recall election has turned the eyes of the nation to the state’s economy and its tax system. As California candidates and citizens consider the best course for righting their fiscal ship, they should understand that, statistically speaking, every aspect of California’s tax system is antagonistic to business development and economic growth.

Here are some basic facts on California’s tax system and how it compares to other states:

California’s Business Tax Climate Ranks 49th:

California ranks 49th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index, which measures the impact on business of five major elements of the tax system: the percentage of income taken by all taxes, the individual income tax rates, the corporate income taxes, the sales tax rate, and the complexity of the tax system. Only Mississippi has a more unfriendly tax climate for business.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/pr-businesstaxclimate.html

California Has One of the Most Progressive Individual Income Tax Systems:

With six brackets and a top rate that kicks in at a relatively low $38,291 of income, California has one of the most highly progressive tax systems in the nation for individuals and small business owners. For the taxpayer with $40,000 of taxable income, California's 9.3% state income tax rate is the highest in the nation. For families earning between $43,500 and $307,050, only Montana (which has no sales tax) has a higher rate, and over $307,050 of income, only Montana’s and Vermont’s rates are higher.

Since most small businesses are either S Corporations or partnerships or sole proprietorships, they pay their business taxes at the rates for individuals. That makes California's taxes on small businesses higher than virtually every other state.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/individualincometaxrates.html

California’s Corporate Income Tax Rate is the Highest in the Nation:

Corporations looking to relocate, or even establish, a business in the West may shy away from California, as the state’s 8.84% flat rate is the highest corporate tax rate in the West. National, only 10 other states have a higher top corporate tax rate than California. In 2002, corporate tax collections in California totaled $152 per capita, the sixth highest per capita level in the nation.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/corporateincometaxrates.html

California’s Tax System is a Complexity Nightmare:

California’s tax system is also a complexity nightmare for taxpayers. Particularly damaging are the complete double taxation of income on taxes paid by corporations and the existence of both a corporate and individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). It is widely accepted that the AMT imposes a disproportionate level of tax complexity relative to amount of revenue raised. California is among only 5 states that have enacted both a corporate and individual AMT (14 states have at least one).

California’s Sales Tax Rate is Among the Highest in the Nation:

California's state and local sales tax rate ranges from 7.25% to 8.75%. Excluding local option sales taxes, California’s statutory rate of 7.25% is the highest in the country. The sales tax affects not only consumers, but businesses as well. The state fails to exempt many business items from the sales tax, including manufacturing machinery, office equipment, and farm machinery. For example, on a $100 million investment in a new plant and equipment, California’s sales tax on machinery could add as much as $9 million in additional costs, depending upon the type of machinery and the plant’s location.

High rates reduce revenue as consumers seek relief via cross-border shopping (neighboring states Nevada and Oregon do not have sales taxes) or making purchases with catalogs and/or the internet. This is another example of California being unfriendly tax-wise to businesses.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/variousrates.html

Property Tax Collections are Slightly Below Average:

Despite Proposition 13, property taxes in California are not as low as some may think. In combined state/local property tax collections, California ranks in the middle of the pack –31st per capita, and 37th per $1,000 of personal income, among the 50 states. Proposition 13 greatly favors longtime taxpayers by only permitting re-evaluations at resale, but the only alternative to this system in areas of skyrocketing property values is to force people who have lived in the same home for decades to sell their homes.

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: California is a Donor State:

California taxpayers benefit less than almost any other state from each tax dollar sent to the federal government. In 2002, only five states received less in federal funds than they paid in federal taxes, as California taxpayers received only 76 cents in federal expenditures for every dollar in federal taxes. In 1992, by contrast, California taxpayers were receiving 93 cents in federal expenditures on each taxable dollar: yet another example in the rise in taxes in the state of California. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

Marshall

12-31-2004, 01:52 AM

As I look through the link you gave me I see nothing relating to amount of federal tax dollars spent in california or any other state. Sorry, I forgot that I was speaking to a Conservative. Let me spell it out for you. Read the column "Federal Funds and Grants" and divide it by the state's population given in the same table. This gives you the per person amount of Federal Funds and Grants.

I forgot, long division is really, really, really hard. For some people.

Speaking of California's "difficult" business climate, all I can say is, HA HA HA. We invented the semiconductor. The Graphical User interface. Ethernet. TCP/IP. But what's more, all of those articles that talk about our higher income tax forget that our property taxes are probably the lowest in the nation. One of my homes just appraised at $1.4 million, yet the property tax is only $800 a year. Boo hoo.

Lagkiller

12-31-2004, 01:57 AM

That is not all the federal dollars spent though. The US goverment went well over 2 trillion last year and the Federal Funds column accounts for less than 2 trillion. Get some hard facts or stop wasting my time

john w k

12-31-2004, 05:57 AM

As I look through the link you gave me I see nothing relating to amount of federal tax dollars spent in california or any other state. Although I wouldnt really expect the Census Bureau to record that information.

However I did find some facts for you:California taxpayers benefit less than almost any other state from each tax dollar sent to the federal government. In 2002, only five states received less in federal funds than they paid in federal taxes, as California taxpayers received only 76 cents in federal expenditures for every dollar in federal taxes. In 1992, by contrast, California taxpayers were receiving 93 cents in federal expenditures on each taxable dollar: yet another example in the rise in taxes in the state of California. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

Excellent Post!

john w k

12-31-2004, 06:40 AM

Danman114

12-31-2004, 08:31 AM

Actually, the Founding Father’s Fair Share Formula is as follows:

States’ No. of Representatives in the House, divided by Total number of House members (435) multiplied by the total to be raised by Congress, equals a States’ FAIR SHARE of the total being raised.

Representation with proportional obligation!

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, see HERE (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=326) and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward.

jwk
Any you like that plan? How is Mississippi suppose to raise a proportionally equal tax revenue as Massachusetts, when they have like half the average earned income? (yes, that is a guess... but I am sure it is significantly less.)

john w k

12-31-2004, 02:28 PM

Any you like that plan? How is Mississippi suppose to raise a proportionally equal tax revenue as Massachusetts, when they have like half the average earned income? (yes, that is a guess... but I am sure it is significantly less.)

Well now, if they can’t come up with their share of a direct tax, the Governor had better forbid its members of Congress to squander tax revenue and create a deficit which would required the direct tax to be laid. But heck, that’s a bad idea…forcing members of Congress to practice sound fiscal policies…who ever heard of such an idea?

Yea! you bet I love the idea. I would love to see the left wing socialists in California's legislature being handed a bill for a direct tax for a $50 billion deficit created by their left wing socialists in Congress. Someone would get lynched or an immediate revolt would occur in California when the state legislature attempted to bleed the people’s money from them only to send it off to Washington.

Marshall

01-01-2005, 01:29 PM

Yea! you bet I love the idea. I would love to see the left wing socialists in California's legislature being handed a bill for a direct tax for a $50 billion deficit created by their left wing socialists in Congress. Someone would get lynched or an immediate revolt would occur in California when the state legislature attempted to bleed the people’s money from them only to send it off to Washington.You, sir, are flat-out, totally, absolutely DEAD WRONG.

CALIFORNIA PAYS MORE IN AND GETS LESS OUT. I'm sorry that you can't understand that. I showed the links to the Census Bureau that prove that. Agriculture subsidies, for example, are over $300 Billion in this country. They go mostly to Blue States, don't they?

What's more, DEMOCRATS SPEND LESS. That's right! It's REPUBLICANS WHO SPEND MORE. You just *THINK* you spend less. Stop reading figures from your stupid conservative foundations, and read government figures. Any government firgures, from Treasury, Census, or the CBO.

You can find a simple table at The White House. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/) (Is the Bush White House "Conservative" enough for you?) What is shows is very interesting. The fact is, overall government spending has increased every single year, year-by-year, since 1965. Democrat or Republican, our outlays increased. So to compare spending, you have to compare how much spending increased, and, less importantly, in what categories.

And the facts are clear: REAGAN and BUSH II were the biggest spenders we ever had. So STOP BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS. Under Clinton, our total Federal Spending increased by a modest, affordable $50 Billion per year. Under Bush, Federal Spending increased by twice as much, an average of $100 Billion per year. And Bush's dramatic spending increases were coupled with tax cuts that have made our deficit explode.

I don't know what state you live in, but I'd be HAPPY AS A CLAM if my state, California, left the Union, because we could EASILY reduce our taxes and INCREASE our spending at the same time! That's because currently, Californians pay in MORE than we get out, while residents of rural "blue states" TAKE more than they pay in. Again, these facts come from the government, not from a co-called "think tank."

Lagkiller

01-01-2005, 02:51 PM

john w k

01-01-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by john w k

Yea! you bet I love the idea. I would love to see the left wing socialists in California's legislature being handed a bill for a direct tax for a $50 billion deficit created by their left wing socialists in Congress. Someone would get lynched or an immediate revolt would occur in California when the state legislature attempted to bleed the people’s money from them only to send it off to Washington.

You, sir, are flat-out, totally, absolutely DEAD WRONG.

What's more, DEMOCRATS SPEND LESS. That's right! It's REPUBLICANS WHO SPEND MORE. You just *THINK* you spend less. Stop reading figures from your stupid conservative foundations, and read government figures. Any government firgures, from Treasury, Census, or the CBO….And the facts are clear: REAGAN and BUSH II were the biggest spenders we ever had. So STOP BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS.

No need to yell at me, I’ve just replaced the battery in my hearing aid.

In any event, your premise is based on a false notion…that I find a distinction between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The truth is, the entire Congress is infested with socialists, some favor corporate socialism, some favor socialism for the alleged “poor and needy”.

But this discussion is about the so called fair tax and Neal Boortz who supports the idea. Tell me, is Neal Boortz a closet socialists or just plain stupid in his support for the Fair Tax proposal?

Do you really think the so called Fair Tax idea, and its family consumption allowance, which is a proposed monthly check to be sent out by government to every American family to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life, is a good idea? Neal Boortz apparently does, see ANSWERING A FAIR TAX QUESTION (http://boortz.com/nuze/200412/12102004.html).

But think of the consequences of creating a system requiring a monthly government check to be paid to every American family. It creates a captive voting block among the working poor, and perhaps the lower middle class, with a vested interest to vote for members of Congress who promises to increase the family consumption allowance, which is exactly what every left wing socialists in Congress will do, and will help to keep them in Congress!

So, why does Boortz support something which will benefit socialists in Congress? Why is it that Boortz, in proposing an idea to abolish “income taxation”, will not promote our Founding Fathers original tax plan which already provides for an internal consumption tax and was intended to not tax basic necessities?

Why is it that Boortz, in advocating the abandonment of taxing income, which all thinking people must agree is a socialist and Marxists friendly tax, promotes an idea which will help keep socialists and Marxists in Congress?

Instead of promoting a socialists and Marxists friendly tax, why does Boortz not promote the abandonment of allowing Congress to tax income, the worm at the root of the tree, and simply advocate a return to our Founding Fathers original tax plan already contained in our Constitution___ a tax plan very different from the so called fair tax which, in addition to disbursing the costs of government in a fair and equitable manner, also contains various essential checks and balances to encourage Congress to follow sound fiscal policies?

The fair tax idea will only tighten the iron fist of government around the people’s productivity while making the people more dependant upon that same fist to feed them, and that is why freedom loving Americans, instead of promoting the Fair Tax, promote the Founding Father’s original tax plan which, by contrast, was designed to control the actions of Congress by the people's iron fist called a written constitution!

For related information and documentation concerning our founding fathers’ original tax plan see EXPOSING THE FAIR TAX HOAX (http://www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2002/06/18.shtml) ___ scroll down and start reading at:

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

I also suggest those interested in the adverse effects of the fair tax proposal study:
The Fair Tax: A Trojan Horse For America (http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm)

sincerely,
JWK

"The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it."
-- Thomas Edison

I have been told there is a problem in our nation…Johnny can’t read, but as I see the problem, it is that Johnny can read but won’t.---Edward A. Ellison Jr., J.D.

Lagkiller

01-01-2005, 03:23 PM

How does the rebate work? All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly rebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The rebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc.

Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple? Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after income tax and after payroll tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs.

Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send their lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped.

Marshall

01-01-2005, 04:12 PM

You still have yet to point us anywhere that shows that california gives more to the federal budget than South Dakota......You gave us the census which doesnt account for the total budget

Then you accuse clinton of not spending anything, and Bush of over spending....Look at who decreased the military and who increased it, there is your change in spending.Ok, let me point it out line-by-line. This should clear things up:

Here are Census Bureau figures for California (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html) And here are three figures from that table:

Population, 2003 estimate: 35,484,453
Per capita money income, 1999: $22,711
Federal funds and grants, 2002: $206,401,495,000

Here are Census Bureau figures for South Dakota (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46000.html) And here are the same three figures from THAT table:

Population, 2003 estimate: 764,309
Per capita money income, 1999: $17,562
Federal funds and grants, 2002: $6,314,756,000

GOT IT?
Ok, my first point: Californians earn, on average, OVER FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE than South Dakotans. And what happens when you earn more? On average you... pay more tax. True, millionaires get all kinds of deductions, but Californians, wiht their $22,000 average, are typically middle class wage earners just like South Dakotans. No disrespect to the people in South Dakota, but on a per capita basis, they pay less Federal tax.

My Second point: Do the long division. Take the "Federal Funds and Grants," and divide it by the Population. This gives you the Federal Fund and Grant spending on a per person basis. TRUE, this doesn't include all Federal spending, such as the military. But it does cover the all the big social outlays, such as roads, education, agriculture and welfare. And when you divide those two numbers, the results show that California gets $5,817 per person, and South Dakota gets $8,262 per person. Can you find ANY Federal figures that dispute this? I seriously doubt it.

Next, you're telling me how Bush has only increased Federal spending because he's supposedly rebuilding our supposedly decimated military. Well, you're saying that because YOU'RE MAKING IT UP, or because you believe somebody who told you that. It's not true. Go to Google and look up "Federal Budget."

For starters, Bush bought $17 Billion in votes from Florida this fall, in the form of the largest disaster relief package ever. Next, Bush's education budget is more than $10 Billion higher than Clinton's. And, Bush is spending tens of billions more on farm subsidies, and don't forget the Medicare Drug Plan, which ALSO costs $15 Billion or so a year.

Now, if you don't believe me OR your own government, how here's what the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1710.cfm) said about the 2003 Bush budget:
Government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II,
The federal budget expanded by $353 billion over its 1998 level,
Defense and the attacks on September 11, 2001, accounted for less than half of all new spending since 2001,
Spending increased despite net interest costs plummeting by $110 billion.

That Heritage Foundation link has a lot of info in it. I don't agree with them very often, but this report lists a lot of basic objective facts. You should check it out.

For the love of Pete, just eat a piece of humble pie and admit that you were wrong.

Lagkiller

01-01-2005, 05:34 PM

Marshall

01-01-2005, 06:29 PM

Marshall, you are quoting obviously wrong numbers, the total amount of federal dollars spent is 2.2 trillion, you are quoting at slightly above 2 trillion, you are leaving out a HUGE portion of spending. However mind you, you avoid the simple fact that california gets more ear-marked money than any other state, almost double in fact:

http://www.taxpayer.net/budget/fy04omnibus/states.htm

California
$965,451,333 509 Earmarks

South Dakota
$43,192,500 62 Earmarks

First off, thank you for taking a little time to do some research and get real facts.

But the facts you provided just prove that you're wrong. The figure you gave for California is 22 times LARGER than the figure for South Dakota. So yes, California gets more dollars. But the population of California is 46 times LARGER than South Dakota's.

So, by YOUR FIGURES, if California received TWICE as much money as it currently does, it would STILL BE LESS PER PERSON than South Dakota gets. And, even if California got the same per person as South Dakota, remember, South Dakotans pay less tax per person than Californians.

I'm not inventing anything. We could repeat this for any number of rural states. It's most likely true for California vs. Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Oaklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and many others.

Lagkiller

01-02-2005, 01:15 AM

First off, thank you for taking a little time to do some research and get real facts.

But the facts you provided just prove that you're wrong. The figure you gave for California is 22 times LARGER than the figure for South Dakota. So yes, California gets more dollars. But the population of California is 46 times LARGER than South Dakota's.

So, by YOUR FIGURES, if California received TWICE as much money as it currently does, it would STILL BE LESS PER PERSON than South Dakota gets. And, even if California got the same per person as South Dakota, remember, South Dakotans pay less tax per person than Californians.

I'm not inventing anything. We could repeat this for any number of rural states. It's most likely true for California vs. Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Oaklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and many others.

And how many NATIONAL land marks does california have? Using south dakota is a bad example as they have one of the most recognized national landmarks and of course the federal government will keep that kept up. But lets not keep splicing facts here.......

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/Excel/state_irs_2002.xls

California received $965,451,333 in federal funds.....but how much was collected from them? $231,301,672....That is a difference of $734,149,661 that california DID NOT PAY but got from the rest of the states.....

Marshall

01-02-2005, 03:05 AM

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/Excel/state_irs_2002.xls

California received $965,451,333 in federal funds.....but how much was collected from them? $231,301,672....That is a difference of $734,149,661 that california DID NOT PAY but got from the rest of the states.....Yes, you would be absolutely right, except the figure $231,301,672 you gave me is IN THOUSANDS.

California received $965 MILLION in Federal funds. (YOUR FIGURE)
Californians paid $231 BILLION in taxes. (YOUR FIGURE)

By the way, Californians paid more taxes than any other state in the nation.
California Population: 35,484,453
Taxes Paid: $231 Billion
Taxes Paid Per person: $6,518 (simple division)

South Dakota Population: 764,309
Taxes Paid: $3.5 Billion
Taxes Paid Per person: $4,675

Are you ready to give this up? I gave you the facts. You tried TWICE to throw numbers back at me, and now all three sets of numbers prove the same thing: Californians pay more tax per person and get back less tax per person than South Dakotans.

Now you and John are both wrong. Stop acting like children and admit it.

Lagkiller

01-02-2005, 03:44 AM

Californians pay more tax per person and get back less tax per person than South Dakotans.

And Californians earn a full $5,000/year per capita more than South Dakotans, so they obviously pay far more per capita tax than South Dakotans.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Thank you for proving my point

Marshall

01-02-2005, 04:23 AM

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Thank you for proving my pointpersonal attack removed. You throw around a bunch of lies, and then you try to claim victory when the facts prove that you're wrong. personal attack removed.

Lagkiller

01-02-2005, 04:35 AM

personal attack removed. You throw around a bunch of lies, and then you try to claim victory when the facts prove that you're wrong. personal attack removed.
Wait so the FACT is that Californian people make MORE money but should pay LESS in taxes?

john w k

01-02-2005, 06:43 AM

Now you and John are both wrong. Stop acting like children and admit it.

What am I wrong about? Quote my words which you are referring to.

What I wrote was:

Yea! you bet I love the idea. I would love to see the left wing socialists in California's legislature being handed a bill for a direct tax for a $50 billion deficit created by their left wing socialists in Congress. Someone would get lynched or an immediate revolt would occur in California when the state legislature attempted to bleed the people’s money from them only to send it off to Washington.

Well now, if they can’t come up with their share of a direct tax, the Governor had better forbid its members of Congress to squander tax revenue and create a deficit which would required the direct tax to be laid. But heck, that’s a bad idea…forcing members of Congress to practice sound fiscal policies…who ever heard of such an idea?

My statement concerns the principle of the direct tax in that it encourages every state Governor and its Legislature to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation, for if they don’t, they are left with the job of having to raise additional taxes in their state only to turn over that money to the folks in Washington. As things are, they [the governors and legislatures of each state] have no vested interest in objecting to Congress’ irresponsible spending and deficit creating, as they too eat from the federal public trough without having to fill it.

Incidentally, the direct tax, theoretically, would turn out to be almost an equal tax per capita…another principle, equality of law! But the apportionment is calculated by the number of votes each state has in the House, and state population sizes change almost every day. But it still is a good rule to follow.

JWK

JWK

Marshall

01-02-2005, 08:56 PM

What am I wrong about? Quote my words which you are referring to.

What I wrote was:

Yea! you bet I love the idea. I would love to see the left wing socialists in California's legislature being handed a bill for a direct tax for a $50 billion deficit created by their left wing socialists in Congress.Show me the $50 billion line item that my so-called "left wing socialists" put in this year's budget. Last time MY party was running things, we had no deficit at all!

Now, I explained this to you over and over, until you ducked for cover by whining that you're not a Republican OR a Democrat. Get this straight: Democrats aren't in the driver's seat. The Republicans are doing 100% of the spending, and if you don't like their deficits, blame THEM, not US.

Besides that, I think your plan is completely irrational, foolish and impractical. Using the numbers previously discussed, if we took the 2002 budget and divided it up into 435 pieces, South Dakota's tax bill would increase by 50%. Owing to their lower incomes, etc., they obviously can't afford to pay that.

Which brings up another flaw with your plan: When the Feds give Alabama a bill for, say, $12 billion, and Alabama pays only $4 billion, who goes to jail? Who pays?

Your suggestion that your plan would lead to each person paying the same tax is ludicrous. California has a population of 30 million. Surely some will pay more. I often pay more in tax than many people make in a whole year.

The next part of your plan that makes no sense is that it's backwards - you're putting the cart before the horse, just as Bush has, with disastrous results. I *think* your real complaint is that Federal spending is too high, BECAUSE it causes high taxation. Now, as George Bush as shown, cutting taxes doesn't necessarily decrease spending. If we want government to shrink, we need to vote for officials who will reduce the size of the government. Bush promised that and did exactly the opposite.

I'd enjoy that debate, but make sure you start by realizing this: the Federal Budget can be broken roughly into thirds: 1/3 entitlements (Veteran and Federal benefits, medicare), 1/3 defense, 1/3 Everything Else.

So the Reagan approach of cutting "Everything Else" doesn't work unless you also cut into the other 2/3... and you especially can't increase the other 2/3. Sort of like dieting by skipping breakfast and eating a bigger dinner. It doesn't work.

john w k

01-02-2005, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by john w k

What am I wrong about? Quote my words which you are referring to.

What I wrote was:

Yea! you bet I love the idea. I would love to see the left wing socialists in California's legislature being handed a bill for a direct tax for a $50 billion deficit created by their left wing socialists in Congress.

MARSHALL RESPONDS:

Show me the $50 billion line item that my so-called "left wing socialists" put in this year's budget. Last time MY party was running things, we had no deficit at all!

ANSWER:

You need to sit down, stop stomping your feet, drink some orange juice and relax. You have confused a hypothetical situation put into a context concerning a theoretical direct tax of $ 50 billion being apportioned among the states in which I would love to see California’s legislature being handed a bill for their state’s apportioned share of the direct tax of $ 50 billion. Your reference to the hypothetical situation has not established what you have asserted I was wrong about. Please quote my words you were referring to.

The rest of your foot stomping post is not worthy of an answer except for the following words you wrote: “Besides that, I think your plan is completely irrational, foolish and impractical.”

My plan? You really need to learn to read a thread in its entirety before making such statements. Had you read the thread you would have found:

“And finally, if Congress spent more than what was brought in from the above sources during a fiscal year to meet its exigencies and Congress created a deficit, then a “direct tax” upon the states was thought to be a proper requirement to extinguish the said annual deficit in a timely manner. I call this direct tax the founding father’s fair share formula, the rule being: ___Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states___ as set forth in Article I, Section 2, clause 3, of the United Constitution.

Under the direct tax each state was intended to contribute a share of the total figure being raised by Congress, basing each state’s bill upon its number of votes in Congress,___ representation with proportional obligation! No loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, were to bring home to their state’s Governor a bill for the largest share of the direct tax ___ another check and balance of our founding fathers….”

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, see HERE (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=326) and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward and learn!

So, as it turns out, the plan is not mine but that of the Founding Fathers which the People of America have approved via their ratification of the Constitution. Do you really dare assert the People of American were “completely irrational, foolish and impractical.” when they approved of the direct apportioned tax? I know socialists fear the idea of representation with proportional obligation, and prefer the Marxist idea “from each according to their ability to each according to their need”, but that just happens to be a defining difference between the lovers of liberty and socialists, some calling themselves Democrats and others Republicans as they both feed from the public trough.

Oh, BTW, your wrote: “Last time MY party was running things, we had no deficit at all!” Well good for you. But unfortunately, your party over the past 40-50 years has helped to create a national debt in excess of $50 Trillion, (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2003/pd103003a.html) Annual deficits are just the year to year accumulating factor.

JWK
ACRS