Re: OT Re: Invitiation to the end of the IRS

[John Gaquin]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message

> How is switching to a tax on consumption going to help? We already have
> sales taxes.

> The answer is the flat tax. Just like Soc Sec .. EVERYONE pays the same
> percent of their income. Period. No deductions. No sliding scale. No
> cutoff.

I disagree. A flat tax does not gather in criminal income. You still rely
on the taxpayer to report income. A fed consumption tax applies to all --
criminals and law-abiders alike. Drug dealers and wise-guys buy boats and
cars and clothes and stuff just like everyone else, and more so in many
cases. By including criminal income, you'd probably triple the available
taxable pool.

> The problem is that CPAs, tax attorneys and everyone else involved in
> handling the
> current nightmare tax system would never let it happen. Their PACs would
> be paying off
> every congress critter out there to prevent it.

The real issue is that Congress would fight it tooth and nail. Without the
IRS code, Congress loses their ability to try to force behavior from
certain
groups, and to dabble in social engineering. The IRS code is what gives
Congress the power to hurt their adversaries, and they won't give it up
without a fight.

[Wdtabor]

>
> The real issue is that Congress would fight it tooth and nail. Without the
> IRS code, Congress loses their ability to try to force behavior from
>certain
> groups, and to dabble in social engineering. The IRS code is what gives
> Congress the power to hurt their adversaries, and they won't give it up
> without a fight.
>

Yet we have 48 co-sponsors for HR 25 so far, and the number is snowballing. Tom
Delay is pushing it in the House and Saxby Chamblis in the Senate.

With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we face is
the attitutde that it can't be done.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Roger Halstead]

On 24 Apr 2004 23:21:16 GMT, (Wdtabor) wrote:

>>
>> The real issue is that Congress would fight it tooth and nail. Without the
>> IRS code, Congress loses their ability to try to force behavior from
>>certain
>> groups, and to dabble in social engineering. The IRS code is what gives
>> Congress the power to hurt their adversaries, and they won't give it up
>> without a fight.
>>
>
>Yet we have 48 co-sponsors for HR 25 so far, and the number is snowballing. Tom
>Delay is pushing it in the House and Saxby Chamblis in the Senate.
>
>With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we face is
>the attitutde that it can't be done.
>
You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can
not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income
bracket.

That and in the end only one group can pay taxes.
One way or another the corporations pass *ALL* tax on to the
consumers. You tax them and we pay it.

Any one in echonomics 101 should be able to show how this works in the
long run. Only in the short term can you actually tax the investors
and corporations as in the long run they either pass it in in charges,
or in lost expansion.

Those of us who work for a living, or are retired just end up having
to pay more for what sounds good until you dig into it.

I don't have the attitude it can't be done. I have the hope that it
won't.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Don

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...

> >With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we
face is
> >the attitutde that it can't be done.
> >
> You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can
> not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income
> bracket.

The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income
level.

[Wdtabor]

>You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can
>not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income
>bracket.
>

Are you confusing the flat tax and the FairTax?

The FairTax is actually a great deal LESS regressive than the current system
because it has a built in rebate of sales taxes paid on necessities. see
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html

>That and in the end only one group can pay taxes.
>One way or another the corporations pass *ALL* tax on to the
>consumers. You tax them and we pay it.
>

The whole point of the FairTax is to eliminate ALL invisible, imbedded taxes
and put them in a visible sales tax so everyone will know the true cost of
government. Check the FairTax.org website, there is a lot of research
available there, and I think you will see it addresses exactly those issues you
raise.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

>
>The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income
>level.
>

The problem is that the Flat Tax is still an income based tax, with all the
compliance costs inherent in that system. Sort of like rearranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic.

The FairTax eliminates all compliance costs for individuals and 90% of the
costs for business, as it is collected, for most states, through the existing
sales tax mechanism.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:22:28 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we
>face is
>> >the attitutde that it can't be done.
>> >
>> You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can
>> not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income
>> bracket.
>
>The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income
>level.
>
If it does it's not a flat tax.
Also at $25,000 you are still talking individuals who can not afford
to spare a dime.

Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals
that way, again it's not a flat tax.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:22:28 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> >With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we
> >face is
> >> >the attitutde that it can't be done.
> >> >
> >> You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can
> >> not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income
> >> bracket.
> >
> >The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income
> >level.
> >
> If it does it's not a flat tax.

It's flat once you reach the threshold.

> Also at $25,000 you are still talking individuals who can not afford
> to spare a dime.

Right now taxes kick in at $8000 for an unmarried person.

>
> Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals
> that way, again it's not a flat tax.

Not in the strictest sense -- it does remove much of the depraved idiocy of
out present system (when GE sent their taxes into the Feds, it took a semi
tractor trailer to deliver all the paperwork.).

I'm opposed to a flat tax in that is leaves the IRS pretty much intact. Such
an agency with such powers has no place in a country ostensibly dedicated to
liberty. And, yes, Congress gave them their power, but even they can't reign
them in anymore.

[Ash Wyllie]

Roger Halstead opined

>On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:22:28 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
>wrote:

>>
>>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> >With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we
>>face is
>>> >the attitutde that it can't be done.
>>> >
>>> You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can
>>> not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income
>>> bracket.
>>
>>The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income
>>level.
>>
>If it does it's not a flat tax.
>Also at $25,000 you are still talking individuals who can not afford
>to spare a dime.

The marginal rate is flat, and that is the important part. Also it gets rid of
the credit/deduction part of the tax code, which is the difficult part.

>Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals
>that way, again it's not a flat tax.

A tax system should include all income, including things like munis and
section 8 housing vouchers.

-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Wdtabor]

>
>>Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals
>>that way, again it's not a flat tax.
>
>A tax system should include all income, including things like munis and
>section 8 housing vouchers.
>
> -ash
> Cthulhu for President!
> Why vote for a lesser evil?
>
>

No, it should include all SPENDING, not income. Taxing income leads to imbedded
taxes in prices and makes taxcation invisible. A Sales tax is visible. A flat
tax is still hidden.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Ash Wyllie]

Wdtabor opined

>>
>>>Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals
>>>that way, again it's not a flat tax.
>>
>>A tax system should include all income, including things like munis and
>>section 8 housing vouchers.
>>
>> -ash
>> Cthulhu for President!
>> Why vote for a lesser evil?
>>
>>

>No, it should include all SPENDING, not income. Taxing income leads to
>imbedded taxes in prices and makes taxcation invisible. A Sales tax is
>visible. A flat tax is still hidden.

Taxation is not invisible to people who write the checks, and if with holding
is abolished, everyone will be writing checks.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Jay Honeck]

> Taxation is not invisible to people who write the checks, and if with
holding
> is abolished, everyone will be writing checks.

If our taxes had to be paid by check, there would be an immediate and
violent uprising in this country.

Which is why this doesn't stand a chance of becoming law.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...

>
> Taxation is not invisible to people who write the checks, and if with
holding
> is abolished, everyone will be writing checks.

Oh, I think they'd be doing more than writing checks. :~)