Thread: FairTax and Trade

Originally Posted by Judy

You need to write more clearly then, because you're calling FairTax proponents socialists and progressives because of a method to exempt federal sales tax on necessities of life . . .

Talk about clarity, once again you make stuff up and misrepresent what I have posted and what the alleged fairtax does.


Contrary to you above assertion, that I’m calling “FairTax proponents socialists and progressives”, my words were more specific and directed at “Fifth Column socialist clowns who created the socialist friendly fairtax which offers free government cheese.”

Additionally, the alleged fairtax does not exempt the 23 percent sales tax on necessities of life as you falsely assert. The necessities of life are taxed just as other consumer articles are taxed under the alleged fairtax.

What the socialist friendly fairtax does is create a new socialist entitlement called the ”Family Consumption Allowance” LINK

“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—
“(1) the rate of tax imposed by section 101, and
“(2) the monthly poverty level.”


As we can all see, the “family consumption allowance” is a monthly entitlement check sent to every qualified household which they may spend as they please. The monthly entitlement check’s alleged intention, as expressed at fairtax.org, is to prevent “an unfair burden on low-income-families” so they may purchase a rationed supply of “tax-free” purchases, presumably the necessities of life which will have a 23 percent tax added to their cost under the alleged fairtax.

Whether intentional or not, and I believe it is intentional, the family consumption allowance does make “low-income-families” dependent upon our federal government for monthly check to pay for a rationed supply of “tax-free” purchases which in turn encourages these families to vote for socialists who promise to increase the allowance.

We were warned against this very thing in the Federalist Papers? A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers

In contrast to the alleged fairtax which does tax the necessities of life, our founder’s method to avoid oppressing the poor while taxing articles of consumption, was to exempt articles of necessity from taxation by a “judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions”. See FEDERALIST NO. 21


“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, 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 at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his 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. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced 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.


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.”





For confirmation on how our founders intended to tax consumption here is a link to our countries first revenue raising act An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandise imported into the United States. Note how each article is selected and a specific amount of tax is laid upon the article selected.



Now, Judy, instead of obfuscating, misdirecting and employing a number of stupid debating tricks, and rambling on and on as you did in your last post, how about discussing the obvious consequences attached to the “family consumption allowance”, which all thinking people would agree creates a dangerous voting block dependent upon government for a monthly subsistence check.

JWK


A nation of people made dependent upon government for their subsistence, is a nation doomed to being enslaved by the iron fist which feeds them.