Thread: Chuck Norris bows to alleged fair tax (H.R.25)

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by johnwk

How many times will you avoid the question?

Are you suggesting that those states which carry the lions share of the federal tax burden under the alleged fair tax should not be compensated by a proportional vote in Congress equal to the share of the federal tax burden they carry?

It's a simple question. Yes or No.


JWK

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The FairTax has nothing whatsoever to do with state compensation by a proportional vote in Congress equal to the share of the federal tax burden they carry, because they carry no burden, there is no mandate, any tax paid that isn't rebated is paid voluntarily through voluntary spending choices.

Under the FairTax, everyone is free .

Wrong! People are not free under the alleged fair tax!

H.R. 25 proposes to make it an offense against the federal government for a person to exercise an inalienable right of mankind ___the right to sell the property one has in their labor ___ unless they register with government, collect a tax for the federal government, file sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, keep any records Congress may dream up, and also be subject to audits which will be necessary for compliance purposes of the alleged fair tax all of which is what the American people now complain of under existing taxation!

You are also wrong when asserting the alleged FairTax has nothing whatsoever to do with state compensation by a proportional vote in Congress equal to the share of the federal tax burden they carry

But don’t take my word for what the founder’s intended with regard to representation and proportional obligation if Congress should lay and collect a direct tax among the states, read what Chief Justice Fuller says in crystal clear language in:POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.

Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language.

The rule for the tax mentioned in H.R. 25, which reaches people’s property, real and personal, requires the following formula for laying such a tax:

FAIR SHARE FORMULA FOR A STATE’S SHARE OF A GENERAL TAX LAID AMONG THE STATES


State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX
Total U.S. Population

In any event, thank you for your personal and unsubstantiated opinions.


JWK

If we can make the majority of voters dependent upon a federal government check, [the fair tax family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills

Originally Posted by johnwk

Wrong! People are not free under the alleged fair tax!

H.R. 25 proposes to make it an offense against the federal government for a person to exercise an inalienable right of mankind ___the right to sell the property one has in their labor ___ unless they register with government, collect a tax for the federal government, file sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, keep any records Congress may dream up, and also be subject to audits which will be necessary for compliance purposes of the alleged fair tax all of which is what the American people now complain of under existing taxation!

You are also wrong when asserting the alleged FairTax has nothing whatsoever to do with state compensation by a proportional vote in Congress equal to the share of the federal tax burden they carry

But don’t take my word for what the founder’s intended with regard to representation and proportional obligation if Congress should lay and collect a direct tax among the states, read what Chief Justice Fuller says in crystal clear language in:POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.

Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language.

The rule for the tax mentioned in H.R. 25, which reaches people’s property, real and personal, requires the following formula for laying such a tax:

FAIR SHARE FORMULA FOR A STATE’S SHARE OF A GENERAL TAX LAID AMONG THE STATES


State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX
Total U.S. Population

In any event, thank you for your personal and unsubstantiated opinions.


JWK

If we can make the majority of voters dependent upon a federal government check, [the fair tax family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills

People are free under the FairTax. No one forces you to start a retail business, operate a retail business or sell a new good or service for final consumption. Those are the only people or entities who register as a retail seller and when they do they agree to collect the tax. They are also compensated for the service of collecting the tax by the FairTax itself. It's their choice, their option, their freedom to do or not to do and be well compensated for it.

Local governments require you to register for a business license. State governments require you to register your entity with the Secretary of State. Social Security Administration requires you to register yourself and your employees. There is no "inalienable right" to a business not to register, and no one forces you to do so under the FairTax. It's your choice to be a retail seller, and if you choose to be one, then you are required to register, collect the tax and be well compensated for it.

There is no difference between registering for a business license, registering your entity with the Secretary of State, registering your employees with the SSA, and registering to sell a new retail product or service and collect the FairTax. Truck drivers register and obtain a license to drive commercial vehicles. Lawyers register and obtain a license to practice law. Doctors register and obtain a license to treat patients. Hairdressers register and obtain a license to cut hair. Restaurants, food companies and drug stores register and obtain licenses to sell food and drugs. Real estate brokers register and obtain a license to sell homes and property and do appraisals and provide other services. Day care operators register to obtain a license to baby sit. Gun owners register and obtain a license to own a gun, a right protected by the 2nd Amendment that says clearly this right shall not be infringed. Consumers register to obtain a license to drive. Voters even register to obtain a license to vote!

Consequently, there is no "inalienable right" not to register to sell a new retail product or service and there certainly is no "inalienable right" not to collect a retail sales tax, which is equivalent to a custom or duty, on that transaction when you do. However, there is in my opinion, an inalienable right not to be asked to provide a tax collection service, or any service for that matter, to the government for free. That is why the FairTax compensates the FairTax collectors when they choose to register and engage in the retail activity of selling new products and services. When they choose to register they agree to collect the FairTax and are well compensated for the service they provide. In return, they like all others operate free of federal income-based taxes on their income, profits, earnings, payrolls, interest, dividends, gifts, gains and estates.

Finally, there is no tax on property or labor. The tax is on the transaction, the transfer of the property or service, the sale for money or other consideration of the property or service, not the property or service itself.

If you own a home, there is no FairTax on that property. If you own a car or a boat or tractor, there is no FairTax on that property. If you own inventory in a business, there is no FairTax on that property. If you're a Retail seller, there is no FairTax on any property you own or any labor you pay either. The tax is on the sale or transfer of that property, not the property itself. The tax is also on services you sell, not your labor. You are free to labor for your own accord, you are free to labor for your family, or friends, free of tax. You're free to hire labor free of the FairTax. It's only when you sell that service for money or consideration to a consumer, that the person to whom you sold it to owes the tax. You're only the Tax Collector. The FairTax is a tax on consumers, consumption, triggered by the sale and purchase event, not the "accumulated property", and not labor, and not states.

Consumers are also free of the FairTax up to the family consumption allowance. Their necessities of life as they determine them to be, are tax-free because the FairTax Rebate reimburses all consumers who are legal residents of our country, the amount of money they would pay in FairTaxes on essentials. Then, consumption of new products and services, above the necessities of life, are subject to FairTax. In exchange, all consumer's wages, salaries, income, earnings, gifts, interest, dividends, wealth, assets and estates are free from federal taxation.

Nothing could be more fair, more free, more reasonable or more right for our citizens, country and economy.

www.fairtax.org

In closing, there is no FairTax "among the states". There is no direct tax or general tax on the states under the FairTax. The states are merely hired collectors, by choice, their right to choose to do or not to do, a tax collection service for the US government. There is no obligation at all on their part, unless they contract by choice to be State FairTax Collectors for the federal government, a convenient and efficient mechanism, which they can either embrace and profit from, or reject on their own accord. If a state doesn't want to contract as tax collectors, no problem, the feds will collect the tax from the retailers and save the fee otherwise owed to the states for providing the service had they chosen to do so. Therefore, there is no "imposition" of tax on the states, there is no direct tax on property, there is no direct tax on labor. All your apportionment discussions are inapplicable to the FairTax. No state legislature has anything to do with it, they have no control over the amount of tax or to whom it applies. Thank God. All states do is decide whether or not they want to collect the tax and be paid 1/4 of 1% of their collections if they do. If they don't, no problem.

www.fairtax.org

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by johnwk

Wrong! People are not free under the alleged fair tax!

H.R. 25 proposes to make it an offense against the federal government for a person to exercise an inalienable right of mankind ___the right to sell the property one has in their labor ___ unless they register with government, collect a tax for the federal government, file sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, keep any records Congress may dream up, and also be subject to audits which will be necessary for compliance purposes of the alleged fair tax all of which is what the American people now complain of under existing taxation!

You are also wrong when asserting the alleged FairTax has nothing whatsoever to do with state compensation by a proportional vote in Congress equal to the share of the federal tax burden they carry

But don’t take my word for what the founder’s intended with regard to representation and proportional obligation if Congress should lay and collect a direct tax among the states, read what Chief Justice Fuller says in crystal clear language in:POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.

Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language.

The rule for the tax mentioned in H.R. 25, which reaches people’s property, real and personal, requires the following formula for laying such a tax:

FAIR SHARE FORMULA FOR A STATE’S SHARE OF A GENERAL TAX LAID AMONG THE STATES


State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX
Total U.S. Population

In any event, thank you for your personal and unsubstantiated opinions.


JWK

If we can make the majority of voters dependent upon a federal government check, [the fair tax family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills

People are free under the FairTax. No one forces you to start a retail business,

JWK

Mr. Madison remarked that "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot, 255.

Let me throw a monkey wrench into this by asking what is the PUBLIC int this country these days? The citizens and legal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the United States, which was probably true during the day, or in years afterwards. Or the mass of illegals that do not consider themselves under the jurisdiction of the US? Those that sneak in here, and take our jobs while being paid under the table while not owing any income taxes whatsoever.
These are the noses that will be counted in redistricting, which if one lives in a heavily ethnic area where few prefer to speak Ingles, we Americans, taxpayers and voters, will end up being trumped by the Census count, especially those living in states with less than 40 million illegal noses.
I faithfully have paid all my taxes every since my first paycheck as a munchkin. But the onslaught of illegals and the massive tax code stipulations and nuances are making it almost prohibitive to file my own taxes.
Saw a great cartoon in New Yorker magazine with a simplified form of the 1040: Line 1) How much money did you make last year? Line 2) Send it in.
This whole thing has gotten so muddy, but I would love to know what the definition of public was when it was defined by Mr. (James) Madison, rather than the new definition which may be purported by Jose Hassan Vladimir Madison. Supreme Court, where are you?

Under the FairTax, illegal aliens would pay the FairTax when they make purchases of new goods and services like everyone else, but they are excluded from receiving the Rebate, which is available only to US citizens and Legal Residents, which assures that until they leave or are deported, they are at least paying more than their fair share of the cost burdens they create for the federal government.

In addition, under the FairTax, there is no income tax to offset with contributions to 501 C3 organizations, which will greatly reduce the amount of corporate contributions made to illegal alien advocacy organizations like the ACLU, NCLR, NCLR's 300 affiliates nationwide, MALDEF, Mecha, the Southern Poverty Law Center, all these phony "charity" organizations we spend all our time fighting against who collectively have more power in our Congress than the American People, and who as a result have destroyed our country with Open Borders, bankrupted our states and federal government, stolen millions of jobs from American Workers and deflated wages and salaries for millions of other American Workers.

Without a corporate tax deduction and no PR benefit otherwise, because supporting these organizations in any manner let alone with tax-payer subsidized monies is very unpopular with American consumers, these companies will stop doing so.

www.fairtax.org

The amazing thing about the ringleaders behind the alleged fair tax is, fairtax.org is happy to declare at its web site that the alleged fairtax is a “progressiveâ€

[quote="johnwk"]The amazing thing about the ringleaders behind the alleged fair tax is, fairtax.org is happy to declare at its web site that the alleged fairtax is a “progressiveâ€

Originally Posted by Judy

1. The FairTax IS a consumption tax which is a tax on new goods and services exactly as the founding fathers envisioned.

BIG LIE!



Taxing consumption, the founders way!


In effect, our founding fathers intended, as a first method to raise a federal revenue, was to have Congress lay imposts and duties at our water’s edge, which included taxing specifically selected articles of consumption, preferable those considered to be luxury. The logic and fairness of these taxes on consumption is explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21:

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. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

Under our founding father’s method of taxing consumption (see our nation’s first revenue Act) note that each article is judiciously selected and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax.

In addition to the above mentioned tax on specifically chosen articles of consumption, an across the board tonnage tax on imports was also laid by our founding fathers as a way to help raise a national revenue from foreign business owners wishing to sell their products on American soil --- sort of like an entry ticket fee into a flea market.

However, if insufficient revenue was raised from the above mentioned “external taxesâ€

Oh!! So now you want raise all tax revenue for the federal government from excise and tariff taxes established by states instead of a consumption tax on all goods and services established by the federal government and politicize every product and service in our country 50 different ways for hundreds of thousands of products and services. Gee, that's cool! Really! Where do the people store their 100,000 pages of 50 different state versions of excise and tariff tax codes to fund the federal government?

So if you like caviar and pay your politician more than the person who likes bacon pays their politician, then you can pay less tax on your caviar than someone pays on bacon.

I would oppose that vehemently. Everyone should pay the same tax rate on all new retail goods and services, which is an indirect consumption tax, whether you know it or not, and should do so according to a federal law, not 50 different state laws with no apportionment between states which is not required for indirect taxes, just as they weren't required for tariffs, with exemptions for everyone on essentials provided for with a Rebate, which is exactly what the FairTax does.

I am a Protectionist, who opposes Free Trade. I support taxed and regulated international trade, support our customs and duty taxes, which are tariffs on imports to protect our trade, industries, jobs and standard of living. All free trade agreements should be repealed post haste and our imports taxed and regulated at a level to bring our foreign trade balance out of huge deficits into surpluses. These should be paid at the "water's edge" or the "border" by the importers, business or otherwise, in addition to the FairTax.

The US had a $681 billion foreign trade deficit in 2008 and has had a foreign trade deficit in excess of $400 billion a year since 2002, and in excess of $600 billion a year since 2004, when we should have had a foreign trade surpluses instead of foreign trade deficits every year.

I also support the use of quotas to restrict the volume of imports back-hauled by US companies from foreign countries of products and services that can be produced or provided here.

But dealing with the Free Trade problem and restoring protected trade using tariffs, customs and duties, and quotas is a different problem than the one of eliminating the federal income-based taxes and converting them to an indirect, progressive consumption tax.

As for you calling me a liar because I point out to you that the FairTax is a consumption tax, you need to clean up your act. If you have a link that defines a consumption tax differently than wikipedia or dictionary.com or any source, then please post it.

I've already provided you with the link to wikipedia that defines a consumption tax as a sales tax on goods and services, which it is. Wikipedia has no reason to lie. Neither does dictionary.com which is now my second source for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consumption+tax

"consumption tax
 
"–noun
"a tax, as a sales tax, levied on consumer goods or services at the time of sale."

The FairTax is a national retail sales tax on new goods and services charged at the final point of sale to consumers, which makes it the very consumption tax you claim you want. The FairTax has a Rebate which is not "welfare" as you claim, but the very means to exempt essentials and necessities of life that you claim is required under the US Constitution and intended by the founding fathers to ensure fairness, which makes it a progressive tax instead of a regressive tax. The FairTax is also an indirect tax instead of a direct or general tax, because it's not mandatory on you, it's a tax paid by the voluntary choice of purchasing new goods and services above an amount of spending to sustain one's family.

You claim you want a consumption tax, which the FairTax is, and that is indisputable. You claim you want something fair, but yet you want to use excise taxes instead of sales taxes and pick and choose what tax will be placed on certain items. Excise taxes are the most unfair of any tax, they are the taxes of socialists, using discriminatory taxes to manipulate consumers into buying one thing instead of another by penalizing them with taxes.

You're a bouncing ball, johnwk. You bounce from wailing that the FairTax is bad because the legislation doesn't repeal excise taxes, when it can't, because it's repealing income-based taxes in the IRC while excise taxes ear-marked to do certain things the socialists want are provided for under a variety of other laws, unrelated to the IRC.

Then when you're informed that the FairTax is a consumption tax, the very tax you claim you want, you then turn around and claim oh no you don't want that consumption tax because what you really want are the very excise taxes you claimed earlier you didn't want and because the FairTax didn't eliminate them, the FairTax is unconstitutional.

It will never get any better than the FairTax, financially, economically, morally, constitutionally or pragmatically. The FairTax taxes all new goods and services at the consumer level of consumption at the same rate without prejudice or discrimination. The FairTax exempts all essentials for everyone at the same amount for adults and the same amount for children, based on the same family consumption allowance, without prejudice or discrimination. The FairTax is an indirect tax like tariffs and excise taxes and is not determined by states and is not subject to apportionment.

You're more than welcome to oppose the FairTax, if you don't like it, but the simple truth is that it is constitutional, it is not subject to apportionment like a direct tax or general tax on states, because it is not a tax on states, it is an indirect progressive tax on consumption without prejudice or discrimination and the very best tax legislation proposal that has ever been presented to the American People. Hopefully, they will seize the opportunity to fix at least 1 major problem in our country and pass HB 25 presently in the US House of Representatives and its sister bill SB 296 in the US Senate and do so pronto.

www.fairtax.org

Originally Posted by Judy

Oh!! So now you

“What is the FairTax plan? The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal … a progressive … tax“___ fairtax.org i.e., from each state according to its ability. Now where have we heard that idea expressed?

JWK

If we can make the majority of voters dependent upon a federal government check, [the fair tax family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills