Is there anyone out there who supports the fair tax? Two things struck me yesterday after the reports of the various Tea Parties throughout this nation began to come in.1) There is no greater time than now when many Americans, disgusted with the fact that our elected officials no longer are willing to do the "people's" bidding and are getting involved, some for the first time in their lives. This is THE TIME to demand "change" that will restore this nation to one based upon strong values and strengthen our Republic.2) Those of us who support the Fair Tax may have been pursuing it's implimentation through the wrong path. We seem to have seen it as a plan which must be implimented by the Federal Government. Suppose we changed our focus and tried it's implimentation at the local and state levels instead and THEN turned to the Federal Government with a fait accompli and actual before and after statistics on it's efficacy at improving local and State economies, balancing State and local budgets, and improving the financial situations of the populations of those State and local areas?Any thoughts?
Views: 0
You need to be a member of The Patriots For America to add comments!
I very definitely agree with you USA1. When I heard Steve Forbes push the flat tax, I was somewhat enthusiastic until I found that he also proposed that it be at the 18% level. I'm very big on Needs VS wants. I think that many of us learned about the difference in true needs (those things without which you cannot survive) and nice to have wants ( which might make life a bit more pleasant but without which you can still survive) nad realized that our actual needs are VERY small in number in the military or in other professions or endeavors in which our environment was not our pristine cities and the absolute civilized society into which we were fortunate to be born.. Most of what we have or do is in support of our wants not our needs. Without postive changes in our lives TODAY, we can very easily find ourselves in a position where the differences between our needs and wants are thrown into our faces once more and I don't know how many people in this country could even begin to survive under those conditions.
There is loads of research on this topic at FairTax.org (the politicians didn't determine the revenue-neutral rate) - in fact, noted economist, Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff believes that the only thing that will ultimately reign in spending - and rescue our economy - will be enactment of the FairTax. FairTax.org has recently been publishing whole-page ads in large-city newspapers to inform the public about how the FairTax will bring dollars back to this country because it ENDS a tax on productivity (punishing it, and getting less of it - all because of politicians' appetites for POWER). View the videos on my homepage. We must "change the game" in Washington. Only then can Americans gain their focus as to the REAL problem . . . that is, of course, our reckless, self-seeking representatives in Congress who have abrogated their oaths.
The following comment was made by Dan Mastromarco as a rebuttal to an article demagoging the FairTax by Bruce Bartlett (a non-economist who served in the Reagan administration). -DF
(Paraphrased)Reply by Dan R Mastromarco (LL.M., Taxation, Georgetown, principal in the Argus Group, adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, International Management Program, and research consultant to Americans for Fair Taxation - FairTax.org) to:
"A National Sales Tax Doesn’t Add Up" by Bruce Bartlett, December 29, 1999
Many engaged in true tax reform find Bartlett-type attacks exasperating, if not embarrassing. I'd like to convey perspective of both flat taxers and sales taxers who believe that such attacks are counterproductive, but first provide some political history by which to frame said perspectives.
For years Conservatives have posited that a VAT is bad policy (when liberals were discussing it), fearing it would become additional to an income tax (it was called a "money machine"). Circa 1980, conservative intellectuals touted Hall-Rabushka "subtraction method"[ H-R ] VAT which taxed business value added at the business side and labor value added at the labor side. Unlike European VATs (identical in scope), H-R became favorite of Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. It eliminated steeply progressive tax rates and tax on savings. Because of the prior VAT criticisms, H-R was packaged as the "flat tax" and is sold as an income tax to this day, rather than the VAT that its DNA characterizes it as being.
Some conservative commentators have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and for the adoption of the flat tax, (despite the fact that it is styled as a direct tax and could not be adopted with such repeal). Mr. Bartlett has called the national sales tax [ie, the FairTax] a VAT (which it isn't), castigated VATs as evil, and has said that sales taxes have become VATs in Europe (which they didn't). In the next breath, he "throws his arms around" the flat tax (which is a VAT). He quotes Bill Gale that the [FairTax] would have to be imposed at 60 percent, but glaringly fails to recognize that if the two bases are the same, he would have to impose that rate for the flat tax to be revenue neutral. In truth, all economists know that the two plans differ NOT in economic effect or base, but in administration.
An income tax taxes savings and investment multiple times. Both flat tax and FairTax are neutral as to savings and investment, tax income only once, and are both consumption taxes. Both are single rate taxes, have nearly the same base, and would improve the U.S. standard of living. Neither redistributes wealth.
While some have even suggested that hey are the same plans under different names, the flat tax taxes value added at each stage in the production process, but the FairTax prefers to tax it when it is added up at the end and eliminate the need to make everyone a taxpayer and collector.
Substantive commonalities between the flat tax and FairTax doesn't mean that there are NO key political and policy distinctions that could be exploited in pitting one against the other. If FairTax supporters wanted to retaliate in response to the Bartlett-type critique, they would have much material with which to honestly do so:
• The flat tax will make small firms and farmers pay the tax even if they have no profit
• The flat tax is opposed by many small business groups
• The flat taxers implicitly support big government by disguising even more of the overall tax burden as the current law
• The flat tax has been kicking around for nearly 20 years
• The flat tax makes everyone a taxpayer and collector, while the FairTax exempts 115 million filers [2000 figure] from ever having to deal with the IRS
• The flat tax is regressive, but the FairTax would enable everyone to keep his full paycheck.
• The flat tax has not only stalled, it has lost public and Congressional support.
• The FairTax is instantly understood, while even some proponents of the flat tax don’t understand it
• There are no transition rules developed for the flat tax and they would be very difficult to craft
• The flat tax taxes exports and relieves imports from tax
• The flat tax confuses tax reform with temporary tax reduction and makes both twice as hard
• The flat tax retains the entire income tax apparatus which erodes as quickly as you can say, “tax bill”
FairTaxers could advance these truthful points without resorting to bigotry associated with a cultic religious organization. However, for the most part, FairTax supporters have chosen not to attack the flat tax, but rather accentuate the commonalities between the plans - despite the above-noted differences. The reason is that, in the battle for tax reform, the real enemy is our current system.
Income tax advocates look down upon the articles of Bruce Bartlett with smug chortling, as Bruce is doing their work for them. The IRS and the liberals who want an income tax to ensure (1) taxes can be raised without the American people knowing it, and (2) wealth can be redistributed from the middle class to the poor, do not even need to fight us - we're killing ourselves!
Perhaps Mr. Bartlett believes that the flat tax will help elect Republicans, effect tax reform, and provide tax cuts; however, the real effect of his criticism is to divide conservatives, to delay serious national consideration of tax reform, and to fertilize the roots of the income tax.
( Source - Addit'l at FairTax.org Whitepaper - May republish in whole or part. - Ian)
We don't need the "Fair Tax" - We need to follow the Constitution.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 was the first suit to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916, after the 16th Amendment was deemed to have been ratified (it wasn’t) in 1913.
Chief Justice White had also been a Justice in the 2 hearings of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
Justice White made it very clear that the reason the 16th Amendment was Constitutional was that the income tax was an excise tax. Writing for the majority, he said that if it were ever collected as a direct tax that it would be struck down because then one part of the Constitution would be in conflict with another.
Justice White said:
"...the proposition and the contentions under the [16th] Amendment...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned.”
As it was written, the income tax enacted by Congress on July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 432), is Constitutional because it is an excise tax or a privilege tax; however, it is being unconstitutionally misapplied in the Private Sector as a direct tax on labor receipts. Earning a living is a non-taxable, pre-constitutional fundamentalright.
The 16th Amendment merely stated that the source of those excise taxes from which the income was derived could no longer be considered to make sure it was a tax on profit or gain and not a tax on the source, which could then be a property tax, which would be a direct tax and would have to be apportioned. It was not a “new” tax or a “new” power granted to Congress. There was never an implementing regulation published in the Federal Register because nothing had changed.
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes
[profits], from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, so reads the
16th Amendment. [Exchange of pay for labor is not “profit”]
The 16th Amendment was a directive to the U.S. Supreme Court that the source of the income” could no longer be taken into consideration. We know this is true for in 1916, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, declared: “… that by the previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, …” therefore, “direct taxes” & “capitations” in Article I must still be “apportioned among the several States.”
Michael White, attorney for the National Archives, stated in 1994, that the IRS has never submitted any implementing regulations regarding Title 26 that would put Americans in the Private Sector on notice that they had a duty to act. He said that the only submissions have been regarding Title 27, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms manufacturing.
Some 37 other U.S. Supreme Court decisions echo the same thing: Americans have a right to the full amount of their earnings, which is their sacred property.
The repeal of Prohibition with the 21st Amendment declared that the 18th Amendment was repealed; however, the 16th made no mention of modifying any part of Article I, which remains undisturbed to this day.
Thomas Jefferson said in his 2nd Inaugural Address on March 4, 1805:
“…The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens. It may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the Untied States?”
In keeping the original intent of this basic principle of Americanism:
There is no law making average working Americans liable for the income tax.
There is no lawful basis for treating personal earnings as 100% profit.
Our right to earn a living is as exempt from taxation as is our freedom of speech.
The attorneys and former IRS/CID Special Agent at http://www.Truth-Attack.com offer a $100,000 cash reward for the first person who can produce the statute of liability, which has remained uncollected since 2007.
Don’t you agree that just because we’ve been led astray and have been doing it incorrectly since 1913, is no reason that we can’t start doing it correctly now?
All of the problems America faces could be solved if we would actually follow the Constitution, as public servants swear they will.
Duties, Imposts and Excises cover all Constitutional spending. The "Fair Tax" will still be paying the Federal Reserve System for interest on our own currency. We don't need this. We need to stop feeding the beast that can never be satiated
The movie "UnFair!" will have panel discussions after the film to play on the emotions of viewers to get them to support the Fair Tax - don't fall for it. Follow the Constitution instead.
Replies
The following comment was made by Dan Mastromarco as a rebuttal to an article demagoging the FairTax by Bruce Bartlett (a non-economist who served in the Reagan administration). -DF
(Paraphrased) Reply by Dan R Mastromarco (LL.M., Taxation, Georgetown, principal in the Argus Group, adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, International Management Program, and research consultant to Americans for Fair Taxation - FairTax.org) to:
"A National Sales Tax Doesn’t Add Up" by Bruce Bartlett, December 29, 1999
Many engaged in true tax reform find Bartlett-type attacks exasperating, if not embarrassing. I'd like to convey perspective of both flat taxers and sales taxers who believe that such attacks are counterproductive, but first provide some political history by which to frame said perspectives.
For years Conservatives have posited that a VAT is bad policy (when liberals were discussing it), fearing it would become additional to an income tax (it was called a "money machine"). Circa 1980, conservative intellectuals touted Hall-Rabushka "subtraction method"[ H-R ] VAT which taxed business value added at the business side and labor value added at the labor side. Unlike European VATs (identical in scope), H-R became favorite of Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. It eliminated steeply progressive tax rates and tax on savings. Because of the prior VAT criticisms, H-R was packaged as the "flat tax" and is sold as an income tax to this day, rather than the VAT that its DNA characterizes it as being.
Some conservative commentators have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and for the adoption of the flat tax, (despite the fact that it is styled as a direct tax and could not be adopted with such repeal). Mr. Bartlett has called the national sales tax [ie, the FairTax] a VAT (which it isn't), castigated VATs as evil, and has said that sales taxes have become VATs in Europe (which they didn't). In the next breath, he "throws his arms around" the flat tax (which is a VAT). He quotes Bill Gale that the [FairTax] would have to be imposed at 60 percent, but glaringly fails to recognize that if the two bases are the same, he would have to impose that rate for the flat tax to be revenue neutral. In truth, all economists know that the two plans differ NOT in economic effect or base, but in administration.
An income tax taxes savings and investment multiple times. Both flat tax and FairTax are neutral as to savings and investment, tax income only once, and are both consumption taxes. Both are single rate taxes, have nearly the same base, and would improve the U.S. standard of living. Neither redistributes wealth.
While some have even suggested that hey are the same plans under different names, the flat tax taxes value added at each stage in the production process, but the FairTax prefers to tax it when it is added up at the end and eliminate the need to make everyone a taxpayer and collector.
Substantive commonalities between the flat tax and FairTax doesn't mean that there are NO key political and policy distinctions that could be exploited in pitting one against the other. If FairTax supporters wanted to retaliate in response to the Bartlett-type critique, they would have much material with which to honestly do so:
• The flat tax will make small firms and farmers pay the tax even if they have no profit
• The flat tax is opposed by many small business groups
• The flat taxers implicitly support big government by disguising even more of the overall tax burden as the current law
• The flat tax has been kicking around for nearly 20 years
• The flat tax makes everyone a taxpayer and collector, while the FairTax exempts 115 million filers [2000 figure] from ever having to deal with the IRS
• The flat tax is regressive, but the FairTax would enable everyone to keep his full paycheck.
• The flat tax has not only stalled, it has lost public and Congressional support.
• The FairTax is instantly understood, while even some proponents of the flat tax don’t understand it
• There are no transition rules developed for the flat tax and they would be very difficult to craft
• The flat tax taxes exports and relieves imports from tax
• The flat tax confuses tax reform with temporary tax reduction and makes both twice as hard
• The flat tax retains the entire income tax apparatus which erodes as quickly as you can say, “tax bill”
FairTaxers could advance these truthful points without resorting to bigotry associated with a cultic religious organization. However, for the most part, FairTax supporters have chosen not to attack the flat tax, but rather accentuate the commonalities between the plans - despite the above-noted differences. The reason is that, in the battle for tax reform, the real enemy is our current system.
Income tax advocates look down upon the articles of Bruce Bartlett with smug chortling, as Bruce is doing their work for them. The IRS and the liberals who want an income tax to ensure (1) taxes can be raised without the American people knowing it, and (2) wealth can be redistributed from the middle class to the poor, do not even need to fight us - we're killing ourselves!
Perhaps Mr. Bartlett believes that the flat tax will help elect Republicans, effect tax reform, and provide tax cuts; however, the real effect of his criticism is to divide conservatives, to delay serious national consideration of tax reform, and to fertilize the roots of the income tax.
( Source - Addit'l at FairTax.org Whitepaper - May republish in whole or part. - Ian)
We don't need the "Fair Tax" - We need to follow the Constitution.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 was the first suit to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916, after the 16th Amendment was deemed to have been ratified (it wasn’t) in 1913.
Chief Justice White had also been a Justice in the 2 hearings of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
Justice White made it very clear that the reason the 16th Amendment was Constitutional was that the income tax was an excise tax. Writing for the majority, he said that if it were ever collected as a direct tax that it would be struck down because then one part of the Constitution would be in conflict with another.
Justice White said:
"...the proposition and the contentions under the [16th] Amendment...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned.”
As it was written, the income tax enacted by Congress on July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 432), is Constitutional because it is an excise tax or a privilege tax; however, it is being unconstitutionally misapplied in the Private Sector as a direct tax on labor receipts. Earning a living is a non-taxable, pre-constitutional fundamental right.
The 16th Amendment merely stated that the source of those excise taxes from which the income was derived could no longer be considered to make sure it was a tax on profit or gain and not a tax on the source, which could then be a property tax, which would be a direct tax and would have to be apportioned. It was not a “new” tax or a “new” power granted to Congress. There was never an implementing regulation published in the Federal Register because nothing had changed.
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes
[profits], from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, so reads the
16th Amendment. [Exchange of pay for labor is not “profit”]
The 16th Amendment was a directive to the U.S. Supreme Court that the source of the income” could no longer be taken into consideration. We know this is true for in 1916, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, declared: “… that by the previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, …” therefore, “direct taxes” & “capitations” in Article I must still be “apportioned among the several States.”
Michael White, attorney for the National Archives, stated in 1994, that the IRS has never submitted any implementing regulations regarding Title 26 that would put Americans in the Private Sector on notice that they had a duty to act. He said that the only submissions have been regarding Title 27, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms manufacturing.
Some 37 other U.S. Supreme Court decisions echo the same thing: Americans have a right to the full amount of their earnings, which is their sacred property.
The repeal of Prohibition with the 21st Amendment declared that the 18th Amendment was repealed; however, the 16th made no mention of modifying any part of Article I, which remains undisturbed to this day.
Thomas Jefferson said in his 2nd Inaugural Address on March 4, 1805:
“…The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens. It may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the Untied States?”
In keeping the original intent of this basic principle of Americanism:
There is no law making average working Americans liable for the income tax.
There is no lawful basis for treating personal earnings as 100% profit.
Our right to earn a living is as exempt from taxation as is our freedom of speech.
The attorneys and former IRS/CID Special Agent at http://www.Truth-Attack.com offer a $100,000 cash reward for the first person who can produce the statute of liability, which has remained uncollected since 2007.
Don’t you agree that just because we’ve been led astray and have been doing it incorrectly since 1913, is no reason that we can’t start doing it correctly now?
All of the problems America faces could be solved if we would actually follow the Constitution, as public servants swear they will.
Duties, Imposts and Excises cover all Constitutional spending. The "Fair Tax" will still be paying the Federal Reserve System for interest on our own currency. We don't need this. We need to stop feeding the beast that can never be satiated
The movie "UnFair!" will have panel discussions after the film to play on the emotions of viewers to get them to support the Fair Tax - don't fall for it. Follow the Constitution instead.