Disqus - Latest Comments for john w k

Re: Googling the Fair Tax

john w k — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 23:23:41 -0000

The alleged fair tax, H.R.25, is rejected at a conservative site in a NEW POLL by more than a two to one margin in favor of our Constitution's original tax plan!

Seems the supporters of H.R. 25 are unable to defend their socialist friendly proposal against the wisdom of our Founderâ€™s original tax plan.

The only tax reform we need is to have the following words added to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Here is an HONEST COMPARISON between H.R. 25 and our Constitution's original tax plan.

Re: It’s Still Alive!

john w k — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:34:58 -0000

Here is a MESSAGE TO FAIR TAX RALLY PARTICIPANTS

Regards,

JWK

Re: It’s Still Alive!

john w k — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 01:02:38 -0000

My goodness Ms U

That’s one heck of a rebuttal to the arguments presented in a MESSAGE TO FAIR TAX RALLY PARTICIPANTS Simply call it a rant and make an unsubstantiated claim.

Perhaps you wish to expand somewhat on your assertion?

Waiting…….still waiting…….

Regards,

JWK
ACRS

Re: It’s Still Alive!

john w k — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 09:39:13 -0000

In answer to TD’s post 15 above, I posted links to arguments against H.R. 25 rather than post the particular arguments in their entirety as a courtesy to not flood another’s web page. But since you present a challenge, how about debunking the following argument concerning the socialist friendly, big government friendly H.R. 25 tax proposal?

H.R. 25 proposes to create a massive redistribution tax plan under its family consumption entitlement.

Heck, even the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform identified the family consumption allowance as an “entitlement” program…the largest entitlement program in America [if H.R. 25 should pass] costing about $ 600 billion per year which would make Hillary Health Care look like chicken feed!

The panel found in its conclusion:

“Like other consumption taxes, the full replacement retail sales tax has pro-retail growth features. Nevertheless, the Panel does not recommend a full replacement retail sales tax. Without a large cash grant program to ease the burden of the tax, a retail sales tax would not be appropriately progressive. A cash grant program to make the tax appropriately progressive would cost at least $600 billion per year – which would make it America’s largest entitlement program. The Panel concluded that it was inappropriate to recommend a tax reform proposal that required the federal government to collect and redistribute this amount in additional revenue from taxpayers. The Panel also was concerned with administrative and compliance issues associated with a retail sales tax, as well as difficulties involving coordination with existing state sales taxes.”

The unavoidable truth is, the family consumption allowance entitles those who do not work for a living and do not contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance. Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; prostitutes and bookies and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but make babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. As a matter of fact the above would be getting an approximate $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25 for either breaking the law or sitting at home making babies. Why on earth would a freedom loving American support H.R. 25?

The family consumption allowance happens to be a socialist windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and, would be a gift to Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress who would gladly promise to increase the family consumption allowance during elections to buy votes and remain in power!

Can you picture Ted Socialist Kennedy on the Senate Floor giving a speech to increase the family consumption allowance to offset the tax on the necessities of life?

How dare those who have imposed H.R. 25 on our nation’s poor, now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon other necessities of life under H.R. 25!

The family consumption allowance would create a new and very dangerous voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check. Why in the world would any freedom loving person support such a plan over our founding fathers original tax plan?

NEWSFLASH!

The ACLU filed a class action suit in federal court today on behalf of five hundred inmates in the Skunks Hollow County Jail who are demanding they receive the $400. per month family consumption allowance under H.R. 25 to offset the 23 percent tax they pay on articles purchased at their jailhouse commissary, and pay on other articles purchased through the mail.

A spokesman for the ACLU claimed the family consumption allowance being excluded to inmates under a provision of H.R. 25, simply because they are in jail, is a violation of equal protection of the law.

The Judge, Lefty Leftotwit, told the Attorney General who is defending the exclusion of the allowance to inmates, that he is inclined to rule in favor of the inmates and sees no reason why inmates should be subject to different tax law simply because they are inmates. The Constitution requires the uniformity of such taxes and until the Constitution is amended, he stated, his hands are bound by the Constitution and it appears each inmate is entitled to the $400 per month allowance.

Judge Leftotwit gave the Attorney General two weeks to prepare a brief as to why federal tax law should apply differently in this case.

Rumors were afloat that a lawyer named Boortz was being contacted by the Attorney General to assist in the case.

Regards,

JWK ___ a proud supporter of our founding father’s original tax reform plan.
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ___Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

Re: It’s Still Alive!

john w k — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:05:03 -0000

Surprise. H.R. 25 is not a consumption tax. H.R. 25 is a general, across-the-board tax among the states upon property to fill the national treasury , which our founding fathers provided the rule of apportionment to be applied to if such a tax were to be laid.

H.R. 25 reads as follows:

SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.

`(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.

`(b) Rate-

`(1) FOR 2005- In the calendar year 2005, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

H.R. 25 is an across-the-board 23 percent tax upon the value of property sold! A consumption tax identifies specifically chosen articles of consumption and then places a specific amount of tax on each specific article of consumption chosen for the tax.

Here is a recent example of Congress taxing a specific article of consumption to high___ see: Fed luxury tax 1990

Also see:

1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats

Had the tax only been 2 or 3 percent, if probably would have been paid without much resistance. But 10 percent was outrageous and so, the people avoided the article [boats] just as our founding fathers predicted!

"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." See Federalist #21:

The beauty of requiring Congress to select specific articles of consumption and limiting it to articles of luxury, as opposed to an across the board tax on the sale of property, is this___ 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___ it prevents “an extension of the revenue.”

H.R. 25 circumvents the self-regulating feature of taxing consumption as the founding fathers intended. In addition, the kind of tax described in H.R. 25, [a general tax among the states based upon the value of property] which was practiced under the Articles of Confederation, was debated during the framing of our Constitution and a rule was adopted required such a tax to be apportioned among the states, basing each state’s share of a total being collected upon its number of votes in Congress Assembled___ a rule which boils down to representation with proportional obligation, a rule which the friends of big government, and socialists dread with a passion!

For documentation of what transpired during the Convention with regard to the tax in question see Republican tax reform attacks federalism,free market, and promotes democracy!

Regards,

JWK

Re: It’s Still Alive!

john w k — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:43:17 -0000

A GENERAL MESSAGE TO ALL

H.R. 25, in my opinion, is a socialist type of tax and violates a fundamental rule of our Constitution.

I have provided irrefutable documentation in Republican Tax Reform Attacks Federalism, free market, and promotes democracy!
that H.R. 25 violates the agreed upon rule by which the various states, under the Constitution, agreed to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury.

Our founding fathers agreed during the Convention of 1787 to change the rule for a general tax from a tax based upon wealth, to a general tax among the states which tied representation and taxation together!

Each state agreed, by its ratification of our Constitution, to pay a general tax based upon its voting strength which would insure that those states paying the lions share of the tax burden to fund the Constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government, would likewise have a proportional voice, equal to their financial contribution, in how their money would be spent.

H.R. 25 ignores this important rule. H.R. 25, just as income taxation [ a Marxist type of tax], seeks to intentionally calculate the amount of tax to be paid from wealth, property and financial success ___ a political philosophy advocating from each state according to its ability, rather than an equal per capita tax apportioned among the states as the founding fathers intended and the various states agreed by their ratification of our Constitution.

Why on earth would one support a tax proposal which would, just as income taxation now does, undermine and subjugate our founding fathers rule for a general tax among the states?

Seems to me if a person is a sincere supporter of our Constitution and they want a fair system of taxation, they would, at the very least, demand a provision to be attached to H.R. 25 requiring the rule of apportionment to be observed when laying the H.R. 25 tax among the states. And, without such a rule being applied to the tax, they would not support H.R. 25 as it violates this important rule of fairness.

Regards,

JWK
ACRS
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." _____Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:12:55 -0000

Another observation concerning H.R. 25, the alleged Fair Tax.

Another objection to H.R. 25, the alleged FairTax, is its attempt to resurrect a socialist type of tax allowable under the Articles of Confederation___ a general across the board tax based upon wealth in which each member state agreed to contribute into the common treasury in proportion to its assessed wealth.

Article VIII. of the Articles of Confederation states:

"All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint."

But this kind of tax, a general tax based upon wealth by which the various member states agreed to contribute into the common treasury under the Articles of Confederation, was rejected during the Convention of 1787 and protection was afforded against it by a new rule requiring the general tax to be apportioned among the states and basing each state's share, not upon wealth, not upon "income", but upon each state's number of representatives in Congress---in other words representation with proportional obligation___ the new rule for a general tax which socialists and the friends a profligate big government hate with a passion because it is an antidote to a spendthrift big government and takes the socialist sting out of a general across the board tax upon wealth in which member states are to contribute into the common treasury.

Although H.R. 25 does not calculate each state's share of the tax upon its assessed land value as done under the Articles of Confederation, it attempts to accomplish the same socialist objective by calculating the contributions of each member state by the value of property sold and its economic enterprises as reflected in business transactions within each particular state, and is, without question, a general wealth based tax which the wise Framers agreed, and those ratifying our Constitution agreed, may be laid among the states, but requires an apportionment based upon each state's number of representatives in Congress Assembled, which was an important compromise during the Convention of 1787!

H.R. 25 is another attack upon federalism, attempts to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution was intended to forbid directly, and seeks to establish a socialist friendly type of wealth based tax in which the most productive member states in the Union would be compelled to carry the burden of taxation while the least productive states may feed from the public trough using their vote without contributing in proportion to their voting strength.

In harmony with the new rule of apportionment agreed to by the ratification of our Constitution, and when the various states are required to contribute into the common treasury in a general tax such as H.R. 25 is, Congress is required to determine a total sum needed to be collected under the general tax and then notify each member state of its share of the total amount to being collected, basing each state's apportioned share on its allotted number of representatives, and, when each state`s share of the total being collected is raised and deposited with the Treasury of the United States, the tax is to be suspended in those states having paid their apportioned share of the general tax being collected.

Now, how does one confirm the historical truth of this matter, and, was this the intention of the framers and ratifiers of our Constitution? Well, we can do this by reading from the state ratification documents as to what the founders intended with regard to the various member states contributing into the common treasury in a general direct tax.

EXAMPLE:

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire

"Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition- "

But were the above stated intentions generally understood and agreed to by the founders and then practiced by actual legislation for a general tax which would confirm such intentions? Well, let us read from the legislative Acts in which the general tax is involved:

APPORTIONMENT OF A DIRECT TAX TO RAISE A TOTAL OF $ 2 MILLION TREASURY DEPARTMENT MAY 25TH 1798

An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the united states [1st direct tax July 14, 1789 for $2 million and each state's share of the $2million being raised.]

An Act to repeal the internal taxes April 3rd, 1802

An Act for the assessment and collection of direct taxes, July 22, 1813

Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each state's share of the tax.

Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.

And, 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,
CLICK HERE
Bottom line: the only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation's original tax plan:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Regards,
JWK
ACRS

To study the founder's plan CLICK HERE and scroll down to

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

To see what freedom loving people and real Americans are supporting CLICK HERE

The strength of our constitutional system is found in the people's will to rise up and defend their constitution--- it is not found in a piece of paper which merely guarantees the right to rise up.

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:13:13 -0000

More on The FairTax Con Artists!

To understand the FairTax fraud being perpetrated by Neal Boortz, one must first understand the 16th Amendment did not create any new tax. The Amendment merely clarified a question about a constitutional provision requiring "apportionment" of a tax calculated from income!

This happens to be an extremely important point and exposes why the sales pitch given by the FAIR TAX CON ARTISTS, especially Neal Boortz, their ring leader, is just that----a con job plain and simple!

We are told by Boortz his plan will eliminate "income taxes" [taxes calculated from income] and relieve us of the massive paper work and man hours wasted with such a tax. But this is a bold face lie made by Boortz for two reasons:

1.

The tax Boortz mentions can only be "eliminated" by a constitutional amendment forbidding Congress to calculate a tax from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

To this day, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no pending legislation on Capitol Hill promoted by the Fair Tax Con Artists which proposes: The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Without such an amendment to our Constitution, the tax mentioned by Boortz in his book and its collection agency is not eliminated as his book fraudulently portrays on its cover!

2.

But let's give Mr. Boortz the benefit of doubt and that it is his intention, by the language of H.R. 25, to "eliminate taxes calculated from income".

Sad to say even this turns out to be wishful thinking. If H.R. 25 was enacted into law tomorrow, and Congress followed its language to the letter, H.R. 25 makes no attempt by its language to prohibit Congress from laying an "excise tax" as mentioned in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), a case decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment upholding an excise tax calculated from corporate profits, gains, and income.

The Fair Tax Con Artists having left this loophole, invites a future Congress, in order to be in compliance with H.R. 25, to simply erase the word "Revenue" from "Internal Revenue Code" and replace that word with "Excise", as in "Internal Excise Code," and likewise erase the word "Revenue" from "Internal Revenue Service" and replace it with "Excise", as in "Internal Excise Service", and then go about its business inflicting the same time consuming and costly misery upon Corporations as now done under "income taxation", but in addition, these corporations will also have to abide by and follow a second rule book promoted by Boortz under H.R. 25, with all its new regulations for record keeping and the payment of taxes as stipulated in its language!

And if you think this would not quickly happen with Congress' never ending appetite to increase its piece of the pie created by America‘s businesses and labor, you would also have to believe there would be an earth shattering outcry from the people of America if H. R. 25 was adopted and after its adoption Congress decided to enact a small "pay their fair share" additional excise tax upon corporations and other wealthy scoundrels who make millions of dollars a year in "profits" and bleed the poor working people, as was alleged about Leona Helmsley, who just happened to pay more in taxes than the combined taxes paid by any 20 average working people in New York, but was then sent to jail because of Congresses predatory appetite.

But wait! I though Boortz was a defender of people being free to earn a profit. So why, tell me why on earth does he promote a plan which provides the tools to Ted Socialist Kennedy, and his disciples in Congress, to continue to bleed the productive members of society, while giving a $ 400 per month bonus to un-wed moms to stay at home and make babies under his family consumption allowance?

Why does Boortz promote a plan which paves the way to create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year___ the cost of which would make the projected price tag of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed?

Why on earth would Boortz, the self anointed enemy of socialism and defender of free enterprise, promote a plan which offers a windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and would give Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples on Capitol Hill a very valuable tool, the family consumption allowance, which they will be more than happy to promise to increase during election time to buy millions of votes to remain in power? Do these socialists not do this now with the minimum wage, social security payments, aid to families with dependant children, Pell Grants, and you name it from the shopping list of socialist give-away- programs created by Congress___ the only difference with H.R. 25 is, its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check!

Were we not warned by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers that control over a man subsistence is a control over their will?

Come on all you Boortz fan Fair Tax stooges, answer the questions!

Regards,
JWK
ACRS

The only stinking tax reform we need is to demand our employees add the following words to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

It does not take 135 pages of bull [H.R. 25] to accomplish real tax reform, it only takes the will of the people to rise up and demand their employees, their public servants, add the above words to their Constitution, bringing us back to our Founder's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN

Regards,
JWK
ACRS

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"---Jefferson

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:12:41 -0000

john w k - nowhere in your comments did I see anything that explained how a sales tax is in any way "socialist".

likwidshoe:

We were talking about H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax which contains a "family consumption allowance". Taxing articles of consumption in the manner our founding fathers intended is far different that the tax described in H.R. 25, and far different than a national sales tax, both of which I disagree with based upon the wisdom of our founding fathers.

In any event, did you miss the following in regard to the Boortz Plan and why it is socialists friendly?

But wait! I though Boortz was a defender of people being free to earn a profit. So why, tell me why on earth does he promote a plan which provides the tools to Ted Socialist Kennedy, and his disciples in Congress, to continue to bleed the productive members of society, while giving a $ 400 per month bonus to un-wed moms to stay at home and make babies under his family consumption allowance?

Why does Boortz promote a plan which paves the way to create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year___ the cost of which would make the projected price tag of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed?

Why on earth would Boortz, the self anointed enemy of socialism and defender of free enterprise, promote a plan which offers a windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and would give Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples on Capitol Hill a very valuable tool, the family consumption allowance, which they will be more than happy to promise to increase during election time to buy millions of votes to remain in power? Do these socialists not do this now with the minimum wage, social security payments, aid to families with dependant children, Pell Grants, and you name it from the shopping list of socialist give-away- programs created by Congress___ the only difference with H.R. 25 is, its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check!

Were we not warned by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers that control over a man subsistence is a control over their will?

Regards,

JWK

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:12:57 -0000

Likwidshoe,

I thought we would agree on the socialist friendly nature of the Neal Boortz supported H.R. 25, and agree because of the family consumption allowance!

Now, should I explain why an across the board national sales tax, although not as socialistic as H.R. 25, is also socialist friendly___ mind you, it is not as socialistic as Neal's plan, but it is socialist friendly, big government friendly, and, unlike our Founder's original tax plan, an across the board federal tax on the purchases of all articles of consumption needlessly burdens America's businesses industries and laboring class people without any checks and balances to encourage Congress to adopt sound fiscal policies beneficial to America's businesses, industries and working class people.

I believe that in addition to searching for a fair system to fill the national treasury, we ought to also insure the method provides self regulating checks and balances to discourage Congress from engaging in reckless spending and borrowing practices.

Shall I continue?

Regards,

JWK

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:13:22 -0000

Robert,

I believe you would have fit right in with our founding fathers during the Convention of 1787,and I mean that as a genuine compliment. The sad thing I see is that few people, especially those who believe in the protection of individual liberty and unalienable rights, fully understand the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to.
In a previous post I gave the documented background concerning the rule of apportionment as applied to our founding father's plan. Now, I will try to put that plan into a concept which you may be able to relate to.
Picture ten or twenty businesses in a section of town where armed robberies and burglaries begin to cause serious problems for the business owners. The business owners get together to see how they can solve this problem on their own. They decide that hiring an armed guard to patrol the area 24 hours a day would probably solve their problem. Of course, in addition to hiring three guards to serve on different shifts, there would be the additional cost of purchasing a patrol car, upkeep, communications equipment, uniforms, etc. And so, they try to work out an acceptable plan by which they all are to contribute to finance the security operation.
In addition to financing the operation, decisions will also have to be made from time to time as to who to hire, how much to spend, and establishing the actual rules which shall be followed for the security operation.
One suggestion is made that each business owner contributes 2 percent of the total sales of their business and each business owner gets to cast one vote when policy maters are to be determined___ a majority vote shall carry.
This is immediately objected to by several business owners. In a number of instances there are two or three businesses housed in a large building, each of which wants a vote. Others object and claim if there is only one building to be protected, only one vote should be allowed regardless of how many businesses are in the building. Why give each business owner a vote? The rule is also objected to by some of these same business owners [those housed in one building] because their combined sales are at least four or five times higher than some other businesses housed in their own building, and they would be contributing a much larger amount into the general fund to protect their building, but when it came time to making policy decisions, the remaining single business owners housed in their own building would control policy by their combined larger voting strength.
A suggestion is then made that each building to be protected shall be considered as a party to the security plan and each party shall be allotted one vote for each business owner contained in that building. In addition, when contributions are required to be made into the common treasury, a total sum needed shall be determined and that sum shall then be apportioned among the parties based upon their number of votes [businesses in that building]. In other words, each protected building contributes in proportion to its allotted number of votes___ representation with proportional obligation___ a rule establishing an equal contribution from each business owner and likewise giving an equal vote in policy making.
This is, in general, what our founding fathers agreed to when agreeing to apportioning among the states as I have documented in a previous post!
A national retail sales tax undermines the rule by which each state is to contribute into the common treasury and allows a state with a large voting strength in Congress to dominate in the setting of policy, but without having to contribute a proportional amount in financing that policy.
A national retail sales tax, income tax, flat income tax, value added tax, etc., used to finance the functions of our federal government removes one of the most important checks and balances our founding fathers agreed upon to help insure sound fiscal and economic policies___ policy making with proportional obligation!
Does this make sense to you?
Regards,
JWK

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation's original tax plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:13:15 -0000

Robert,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean regarding different agendas within the context of political vs. business, and within my example. Remember, my example is within the intentions under which our federal Constitution was adopted as a commercial agreement between the states, and part of those intentions limit the authorized functions of elected representatives by a written constitution. The limitations of those functions were best stated by Hamilton:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

So, although I agree that businesses have a specific objective while politicians have an objective as you correctly describe, the written federal constitution was designed to limit the authorized functions of the federal government. As Jefferson correctly stated:

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"---Jefferson

And so, your concern was aptly addressed by the framers of the constitution when limiting the authorized functions of the federal government they created.

But your concern does have real merit when applied to the particular state constitutions and the specific conflicting interests of businesses and state politicians. But this is not what we are addressing now, which is our federal government and a method by which to finance its authorized functions.

Your proposal of a constitutional amendment mandating a maximum tax rate, say, 20% [on what?] and a balance budget within 2%, does not take into account for unforeseen emergencies such as a war. Our founders addressed that problem by intending to have Congress raise its ordinarily needed revenue from indirect taxation: imposts, duties and excise taxes [which have their own self regulating features], but if an emergency should arise and Congress had to borrow to meet its expenditures, then a general tax among the states was to be laid to extinguish the deficit, apportioning each state's share on its voting strength in Congress assembled.

This general tax establishes a moment of actability for each state's congressional delegation who would have to return to their state with a bill for its apportioned obligation in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress and the various state Legislatures and Governors having the burden to raise this revenue and then send it off to Washington without getting the chance to spend this money themselves!

This creates a situation in which the Governors of each state and their various state Legislatures have a very real interest in keeping a jealous eye on the spending habits of their delegations sent to Washington. To remove this conflict of interests, Congress no longer abides by the intended apportioned tax, has placed an un-apportioned tax directly upon the people themselves, and has set itself free from the scrutiny and reprisals of their state elected officials. It is called breaking the chains of the constitution!

For the documentation of this general tax as it was used when our Constitution was being observed by our folks in Washington, see my post above, December 25, 2005 at 11:49 am

In any event, and with regard to your description of folks in government "Their agenda is to have ever larger and more powerful govt,". , I would say:

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 with a national debt which exceeds $50 Trillion. Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant, and the new servant pays tribute, through taxation, to a gangster government which ignores our most basic law...our constitutions, state and federal.

"He has erected a multitude of new officesand sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance" ___Declaration of Independence

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees, their public servants add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation's original tax plan:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Regards,

JWK

P.S. There is much talk these days about the national debt. So, just what is the size of the national debt? For a real answer see: Measuring the Federal Government's Unfunded Liability

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:12:58 -0000

JWK: The problem with your solution is that it relies on govt to limit its expenses to those necessary, and they have no incentive to do that. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Robert,

What I promote is a return to our founding father's "solution". I would like to take credit for their plan, but I can‘t . Unfortunately, not one in ten thousand Americans understand the intentions and beliefs [the legislative intent] under which our Constitution was agreed upon. And so, Congress is not only free to, but does in fact ignore some of its most important built-in rules, one of which was intended to provide the incentive you refer to . . . the intended requirement to impose the apportioned tax among the states when insufficient revenue is raised from impost, duties and excise taxes, and each congressional delegation having to return to their own state with a bill for its apportioned obligation in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress. Thus leaving the various state Legislatures and Governors with the burden to raise this revenue and then send it off to Washington without getting the chance to spend the money they have raised:

"Picture, for a moment, the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [31/435] of the 1995 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Dele-gation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Mem-bers!" See: Kurowski on Tax and scroll down to:
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Truth is, Robert, our founding father's plan worked so well in controlling the actions of Congress that by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

Regards,
JWK

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees, their public servants, add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation's original tax plan:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn't take 135 pages of bullstuff, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship...it only taxes 32 words for the people of America to gain control of a runaway Congress!

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:13:10 -0000

The Fair Tax is proposed as a Fair, Simple, and Transparent tax system.

You bet H.R. 25 is Transparent___ but it sure is not Fair as is suggested!

For example, the monthly family consumption allowance checks which would be sent out by government under H.R. 25 would come from taxes paid by people who work for a living, pay the H.R. 25 tax, and thereby contribute into the common treasury.

The family consumption allowance entitles those who do not work for a living nor contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance! Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but makes babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. Even criminals who are locked up in prison and jail are entitled to the allowance. In fact, each of the above are entitled to get a $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25, for not contributing into the common treasury, which turns out to be another socialist transfer of wealth entitlement program.

H.R. 25, the alleged FairTax, would create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year! The cost of this entitlement to the American Taxpayers would make the projected cost of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed.

Hey Boortz, and all you Fair Tax Neal Boortz Stooges, where are you? Come out and defend your socialist transfer-of-wealth tax plan.

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees, their public servants, add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation`s original tax plan:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn`t take 135 pages of bullstuff, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship, it only taxes 32 words for the people of America to gain control of a runaway Congress!

To study Founder`s original tax plan CLICK HERE and scroll down to:

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

Regards,
JWK,
ACRS

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:12:43 -0000

Dewey wrote:

Your premise that only people who work pay the FairTax shows your basic misunderstanding. The Fair Tax is a consumption tax. It does not require the taxpayer to work, only to spend. All who spend pay the tax except the poorest among us. Spending is the source for contribution to the common treasury.

ANSWER

My "premise is "contribute into the common treasury". Un-wed moms who do not work for a living and receive a monthly government welfare check who would purchase articles under the H.R. 25 consumption tax would not be contributing into the common treasury because the money they spend comes from the common treasury. The same applies to the thugs I mentioned as the money they spend is really other people's money which they stole. But under H.R. 25, they would receive a $400 a month bonus taken from the common treasury..

Dewey wrote:

however, if you only repeal the 16th amendment you leave it to congress and the K Street lobbyists to come up with a replacement income source. Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather have a system which the citizenry agrees is the best choice. I believe the FairTax to be that system.

Discussion and debate on a topic as important as this is needed to insure we have the best system available. Criticizing a system is needed but doing so without providing an alternative is meaningless verbage.

ANSWER

I guess you didn't know that our Constitution, not the folks over at K street, determines how Congress shall raise its revenue. And, that Constitution without the 16th Amendment provides a specific plan to raise a federal revenue, our founding father's original tax plan which is the "alternative" you must be seeking.

To study the Founder's plan CLICK HERE and scroll down to:

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

Regards,
JWK

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 09:02:01 -0000

Hey Dewey,

When a person disagrees with something which is stated, rather than make unsubstantiated counter claims, reasonable people quote that which they disagree with and then present their objections along with supportive documentation and a well reasoned argument. You have offered nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion and misdirected the subject matter avoiding the particular issues being raised.

Tell me Dewy, under H.R. 25, are criminals who are locked up in jail entitled to the family consumption allowance? Are un-wed moms, who stay at home are not gainfully employed and make multiple babies to increase their monthly welfare check, entitled to the family consumption allowance and would, under H.R. 25, be given a $400 per month bonus, just for staying home? [NOTE: The $400 figure given is the estimated average size of check which would be sent out monthly to each household by government. You, Dewey, are the only one here being disingenuous and obfuscating].

How about drug dealers and drug addicts, burglars, armed robbers and car thieves, Dewey, are they too entitled to the allowance, or did I make something up?

Tell me Dewey, is it not true that the family consumption allowance would create the largest entitlement in the history of America, an entitlement which would make Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed?

And tell me Dewey, is it not true that the family consumption allowance would give Ted Socialist Kennedy a very valuable tool which he and his socialist pals on Capitol Hill would promise to increase to remain in power just as they now do with the minimum wage, social security payments, aid to families with dependant children, Pell Grants, and you name it from the shopping list of socialist give-away- programs created by Congress? The only difference with H.R. 25 is, its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check! Isn't this true Dewey?

Now tell me Dewey, is this "family consumption allowance" feature of H.R. 25 really necessary? Can it be cleaned up to remove its undesirable effects and attributes? And how do we prevent the family consumption allowance from being used by dishonorable politicians to buy the votes of "the poor and under privileged"? Is it not true that the only way to prevent the family consumption allowance from being manipulated by Congress would be by the adoption of specific limitations being added to our Constitution? Does H.R. 25 make such a proposal?

You also assert the tax which would be imposed under H.R. 25 is constitutional. Tell me Dewey, are you familiar with the most fundamental rule of constitutional law? That rule requires the intent of the Constitution to be carried out as it was contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it.

In my post of December 25, 2005 at 11:49 am I provided ample documentation regarding a new rule by which the various states agreed to allow Congress to lay and collect a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury. That rule requires an apportionment of the tax among the states based upon each states allotted number of representatives as permitted under Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution. H.R. 25, by its own language, imposes a tax upon the value of property as was allowed under the Articles of Confederation. But that type of tax was specifically rejected by the ratification of our existing Constitution and a new rule was adopted as expressed in Article 1, Section 2 and Article 1, Section 9 In addition, the tax imposed under H.R. 25 cannot be classified as an impost, duty or excise tax as these taxes were understood and practiced by our founding fathers. The tax does however fit within the meaning of a general type of tax among the states, and so, such a tax requires its apportionment based upon representation...a very important compromise agreed upon during the framing and ratification of our Constitution! I know socialists and the friends of big government hate the rule of apportionment, but there it is, in our Constitution!

Oh, and BTW, Dewey, you wrote: "We have heard your opinion of the unwed mothers and the thugs, how do you feel about the multi-millionaire who inherited their money?"

To answer your question Dewey, the money they spend when purchasing under H.R. 25 would not be money stolen from another, nor handed to them from the common treasury, and so, there is a very real contribution by them into the common treasury. What's the matter pal, do you have something against people inheriting money? I know socialist do.

Finally, you ask if I have considered what would happen in my own life should the H.R. 25 become the law? I have, Dewey, and that is the very reason why I reject the idea...it keeps the status quo in tact and merely rearranges the chairs on a sinking ship. It does nothing to control the wasteful spending and borrowing of Congress, and it is intentionally designed to fund existing big government and its countless political plum jobs which redistribute money taxed away from hard working Americans, and, the plan you support contains no checks and balances to make member of Congress immediately accountable when engaging in deficits spending___ all of which would immediately change if our Founding Fathers plan were put back into practice by adding the following words to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

See how easy real tax reform is Dewey? It doesn't take 135 pages of bullstuff, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship...it only takes 32 words for the people of America to establish a fair system of taxation and gain control of a runaway Congress!

CLICK HERE for the Founder's Plan and scroll down to:

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

Regards,

"He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance" ___Declaration of Independence

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:02:14 -0000

Well, Dewey, I see you continue to post unsubstantiated claims rather than present your objections to what I have posted along with a well reasoned counter argument. Why do you continue to offered nothing but your unsubstantiated opinions and misdirected the subject matter and avoid the particular issues being raised?

I noticed you stated that I continue to promote a philosophy that can never become law. Seems to me the last time I checked, my philosophy is promoting what is in harmony with that of our Constitution, the supreme law of our Land:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." See Federalist No. 21.

Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from the federal treasury and hand it out to people within the various states as described in H.R. 25.

Nor does Congress have a constitutional delegation of power to lay the kind of tax mentioned in H.R. 25 which is calculated from the value of property unless the tax is apportioned among the states, basing each state's share upon its number of allotted representatives as described in Article 1, Section 2, and further restricted by Article 1, Section 9.[no, I made no mistake in my citing. Both provisions establish a rule for taxation.]

Apparently you support a subjugation of our constitutional system and prefer to expand the powers of Congress without the necessary constitutional amendments being adopted by the people.

I also noticed you suggest H.R. 25 "is fairer to all Americans, does not require a $13 Billion federal agency to administer, and is not intrusive into your personal life."

Sorry pal, but you are very, very much misinformed about the consequences of H.R. 25. I believe every freedom loving person, including those who are business owners, have a very real reason to object to H.R. 25!

Neal Boortz has suggested a featured attraction of H.R.25 to business owners is that H.R. 25 will close down the IRS, end a tax calculated from corporate profits and stop the wasteful time consuming and costly record keeping Corporations are now required to maintain to track money flow such as , business expenses, wages and salaries paid, and other outlays and earnings, in order to calculate a tax from income which they then send off to government.

Tell me Dewey, and you may first want to check in with your handlers at the propaganda site you recommend, is it not true that by the very language of H.R. 25, no attempt was made to repeal or stop Congress from laying and collecting an excise tax as upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)___ a case upheld prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and a case which upheld a tax calculated from corporate "income" ? Does H.R. 25 address this kind of tax Dewey? The answer to this question Dewey is very important. And, the truth is, this kind of tax remains untouched as a loophole under H.R. 25 and Congress' power to impose an excise tax upon corporations and calculate the amount of tax to be paid from corporate income remains fully in tact!

So, in spite of all the Fair Tax Con Artist talk about repealing various sections of the IRS Code and closing it down as portrayed on the cover of the Fair Tax Con Artist's Book, the misery now suffered under income taxation, the Internal Revenue Service and the IRS Code, remains alive by a very real loophole left by the architects of H.R. 25!

If H.R.25 is adopted and Congress followed its language to the letter as it is intended by the Fair Tax Con Artists with the loophole they have left, Congress is invited to simply erase the word "Internal" from "Internal Revenue Code" and replace that word with "Corporate", as in "Corporate Revenue Code," and, likewise erase the word "Internal" from "Internal Revenue Service" and replace it with "Excise", as in "Excise Revenue Service", and, go about its business inflicting the same time consuming and costly misery upon Corporations as now done, but in addition, these corporations will also have to abide by and follow an additional rule book with all its new regulations for record keeping as stipulated under H.R. 25!

Come now Dewey, is this not a reasonable objection to your touted Fair Tax? Corporations and those Congress decides to lay an excise tax upon, will wind up having twice the amount of record keeping and be left with two different kinds of taxes to be paid!

Truth is, Dewey, H.R. 25 doesn't "eliminate" squat as Con Artist Boortz portrays on the cover of his book, and it especially does not even attempt to stop Congress from calculating a tax from corporate income. H.R. 25 has carefully left a loophole so Congress may decide at its pleasure, especially a socialist dominated Congress, to enact, say a small tax upon those wealthy evil corporations and scoundrels who make millions of dollars a year and bleed the poor working people, such as was alleged about Leona Helmsley who they sent to jail for an alleged tax fraud, but actually contributed more in taxes than any twenty average working people in New York. Give me a freaken break Dewey.

Face it Dewey, you have been conned and punked by Neal Boortz the wannabe fountain of all knowledge. Admit your mistake, move on, and stop being a Fair Tax Stooge and puppet of the establishment. Join real tax reform and support the demand to have the following words added to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

See how easy real tax reform is Dewey? It doesn't take 135 pages of bullstuff, loopholes and gobblygoo [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship...it only takes 32 words for the people of America to establish a fair system of taxation and gain control of a runaway Congress!

CLICK HERE for the Founder's Plan ___ start reading at:
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Regards,
JWK

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 08:01:46 -0000

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

What a long discussion. Not always intelligent and lately hardly polite discourse but it is important. Our tax code is a mess and keeping it is costing each of us time, money and stress == and $2,000 annually to make up for tax evaders.

I see no one suggesting a better alternative than the FairTax, either in this discussion or in the national debate.

Well, I guess from your above statement and additional comments in your post it is safe to conclude you not only support H.R. 25, but assert H.R. 25 is a better revenue raising system than our nation's original tax plan which has been repeatedly offered as an alternative to H.R. 25 in this thread.

Unfortunately, you have offered no comparison between the two and merely presented a combination of inaccurate, irrelevant and unsubstantiated commentary reflecting your personal support for H.R. 25. Talk about a discussion not always being "intelligent"___ indeed!

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

Being able to keep all one's paycheck or pension, having a prebate to exempt us from taxation on food and medicine, and being free to determine how much tax we pay by how much money we spend on NEW items only is a totally fair and economically sound way to go.

This statement is factually incorrect! The family consumption allowance which you refer to as a "prebate", which is really an entitlement created under H.R. 25 and would deplete our national treasury of an estimated $ 600 billion a year, does not "exempt us" from taxation on food and medicine.

The truth is, everyone still pays the 23% tax on the necessities of life, and, the family consumption entitlement rations tax-free basic necessities including medicine, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each family when spent on such items.

But, just for the record, our founding fathers also liked the idea of taxing consumption to help disburse the expenses of Congress in a fair and equitable manner, but they never intended such a tax to be laid upon the tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct America's businesses nor the necessities of life! So, let us review the Founder's method of taxing articles of consumption .

In Federalist #21: we find the following quote:

"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. " "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."

Now, what is Hamilton talking about? How may the amounts to be contributed by the rich and poor to be determined by one's own option? And, how is private oppression of taxes on articles of consumption to be avoided?

Surprise! The answer is to be found in that part of the quote which says, "by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions" which is not the kind of tax a NRST is which would oppress America's businesses, industries and poor working people.

A across the board NRST, in addition to being oppressive upon America's businesses, is a plan to tax the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child's room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon the necessities of life!

The words of Hamilton obviously indicate certain articles of consumption ought to be excluded from the list of taxable items___ the necessities of life, tools of production and supplies necessary to conduct American businesses___ thereby removing the oppressive nature of taxation and making the tax a more voluntarily paid type of tax, which is exactly what our founding fathers practiced!

A consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in THE FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT FOR OUR COUNTRY

NOTE: those interested may use the PREV IMAGE and NEXT IMAGE buttons at the above link to study the bill___it is refreshing to study statesmen creating a revenue raising bill beneficial for America's businesses, industries and labor force, as opposed to politicians acting in their own self interest and on behalf of internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation [the NAFTA - CAFTA CROWD] !

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, as our founding fathers intended, creates a self regulating check and balance upon Congress, just as Hamilton indicates!

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 and thereby defeat an extension of the revenue, just as Hamilton explains above!

For a recent example of how effective the founder's method of taxing consumption works to control the amount of tax on a specific article chosen by Congress see:Fed luxury tax 1990 in which Congress attempted to lay an outrageous 10 percent tax on boats. And then see: <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263" rel="nofollow">1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats

Had the tax been one or two percent rather than the outrageous 10 percent, it probably would have been paid without much resistance and not adversely affect the industries involved which caused Congress to immediately repeal the tax because of its self regulating feature!

Bottom line, unlike the establishment proposed NRST, our founder's plan grants almost unlimited power to raise essential revenue, [imposts, duties and excise taxes in addition to a general apportioned tax among the states], but also provides various checks and balances to control the actions of Congress and makes Congress immediately accountable if it should resort to borrowing to meet its expenses which then requires a general across the board tax to be apportioned among the states to extinguish the deficit created by Congress___ a tax requiring each state's Congressional Delegation to return to their own state with a bill for their state's apportioned share to extinguish the deficit which leaves the various state Legislatures and Governors with the job of raising such revenue because of Congress' failure to meet its own expenses. What a wonderful moment of accountability created by our Founder's plan, which is dreaded by the friends of a big federal and socialist government. How dare someone would even think of such accountability!

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

This tax program was developed by much better economic minds than any demonstrated here. Experts from major institutions like Harvard, Stanford, Rice, MIT and more spent a decade developing it with input from taxpayers. Every objection raised here was studied from every angle and the best solution put into the FairTax.

An irrelevant and unsubstantiated comment!

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

You naysayers are obviously speaking "off the top of your heads" without doing any research on the matter.

Another irrelevant and unsubstantiated comment!

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

Bringing in arguments like claiming that we gauge success only by comparing with others is a silly and childish (and spurious) argument that is not only untrue but not on the subject. "Keeping up with the Joneses" is a Madison Avenue concept designed to encourage the uninformed to buy more -- it has nothing to do with the way real people spend their money. Only Hollywood promotes that idea.

More mindless irrelevancy

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

The reason the FairTax has no exemptions is that once you exempt something, those who do not qualify for the exemption are punished. That's not fair and it's what we have now -- in spades.

So, your pals over at Harvard, Stanford, Rice and MIT believe drug dealers and drug addicts, burglars, armed robbers and car thieves, all who are not gainfully employed and thus do not contribute into the common treasury, and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home and makes babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, and even criminals who are currently locked up in prison and jail, ought to be entitled to an approximate $400 per month family consumption bonus paid to them by hard working Americans. And, they [your anointed idols] believe so because to not do so would not be "fair"?
Your funny pal, very, very amusing!

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

When we have our full pension checks and paychecks we can control how much we spend on taxes. And we will all cut our tax spending. But with the FairTax that won't cut government income because the FairTax taxes the $6 TRILLION crime "industries" that now pay no tax at all.

Is that so? I can just picture drug dealers, illegal gambling operations, prostitutes, fences dealing in stolen goods, and the countless bootlegging operators all lining up to pay a 23% tax on the sales and services they provide. In fact, if they followed H.R. 25, they would have to increase their service costs by 23%. But, not to worry as they will all send this increase off to Congress!

Give it up pal, H.R. 25 is not "tax reform" it is nothing more than a con job advanced by the friends of a big socialist friendly government.

Want real tax reform? Then work to add the following words to our Constitution bringing us back to our Founder‘s plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn't take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship...it only takes 32 words for the people of America to establish a fair system of taxation and gain control of a runaway Congress!

Regards,

"He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance" ___Declaration of Independence

Re: The FairTax Book

john w k — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 13:02:00 -0000

Wow! I was going to label you the Queen of Spin, but I will hold off on that temptation.

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

My statement is correct, it's yours that is false and intentionally misleading. Since the national treasury will be taking in more than $6 TRILLION plus $350 Billion (see my first post for where that comes from!), there's no reason to fear the prebate. You didn't justify your $600 billion figure -- just what do you base that on? You can't use the entire population of the US because that includes people who do not hold valid social security cards, which is what makes it possible for an individual to receive a prebate.

Sorry my dear, but the family consumption allowance is an entitlement no matter how you spin it. As to the $ 600 billion projected cost figure which would come from the federal treasury to finance the family consumption entitlement and its administrative costs, the figure came from a House Ways and Means Committee Hearing document. But if you disagree with the figure, that's fine, whatever figure you use is that which will come from the federal treasury to finance the family consumption entitlement

I wrote:

The truth is, everyone still pays the 23% tax on the necessities of life, and, the family consumption entitlement rations tax-free basic necessities including medicine, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each family when spent on such items.

Sunnye Tiedemann responds:

And the IMPORTANT thing is that's what we are spending already on the "already tax free" foods and items we purchase now. Aas Mr. Greenspan says, companies don't pay taxes, customers do. The difference is that with the FairTax we know it and can control it. Also, the FairTax is not on everything we buy -- it's only on NEW goods and services.

More spin my dear? The statement I responded to was in fact inaccurate! And just for the record, your one-size-fits-all family consumption entitlement does not work, especially for people who are sickly and have enormous medical bills, which includes life sustaining medication which would have an added 23 percent cost added to the selling price.

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

With the FairTax, businesses are not taxed on materials and business expenses LIKE THEY ARE NOW. The FairTax is as close as we can get in a totally different world (we have technology now) from the 18th Century. You, John W K, have not done your homework on the FairTax. You are writing from misunderstanding and downright ignorance

Ignorance? My goodness...name calling so early in the game? Come now my dear, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and other tradesmen who are self employed will pay the 23 % tax on the supplies they purchase at retail. It is not nice to tell fibs my dear. These poor souls will also have to register with the federal government [ see SEC. 502. REGISTRATION] to engage in their occupations and also keep burdensome records and reports as Congress may so desire. The path which leads to such oppression is found in the language of H.R. 25 which you may have missed and reads:

SEC. 407. JURISDICTION.

`(a) STATE JURISDICTION- A sales tax administering authority shall have jurisdiction over any gross payments made which have a destination (as determined in accordance with section 405) within the State of said sales tax administering authority. This grant of jurisdiction is not exclusive of any other jurisdiction that such sales tax administering authority may have.

(b) FEDERAL JURISDICTION- The grant of jurisdiction in subsection (a) shall not be in derogation of Federal jurisdiction over the same matter. The Federal Government shall have the right to exercise preemptive jurisdiction over matters relating to the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

I wrote:

A consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in THE FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT FOR OUR COUNTRY

Sunnye Tiedemann responds:

And that's what got us where we are today. Besides, if you tax the wealthy heavier than the middle class, why would the middle class want to accumulate wealth? That's counterproductive because our national economy depends on the growth of wealth for individuals as well as industry.

Huh? What? Have you been drinking again my dear? How does your response connect with my statement above?

I wrote:

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 and thereby defeat an extension of the revenue, just as Hamilton explains above!

Sunnye Tiedemann responds:

That's such an innocent and idealistic statement. Since when has Congress actually done anything efficiently? I've spent more than 50 years studying Congress and I haven't seen anything like that yet. Taking the wealthy is regressive and non-productive.

Sorry you disagree with Hamilton. As to your studying, perhaps you haven't been studying from the proper source materials, for example the Annals of Congress! Had you done your homework my dear, you would have discovered there was a time when Congress was very "efficient". That time was when our founding father's original tax plan was practiced!

As a matter of fact, the Founder's Plan worked so well that by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

I am most definitely not your pal -- I am a woman twice your age (I can tell that by the way you express yourself) and more than twice your experience.

Oh come now, sweetheart, I just don't believe you are posting in this forum from your grave, you seem to be full of life and a feisty sort of gal! Twice my age? That simply can't be true. You see my dear, I was delivering ice to people with ice boxes in the early 1950's and still have my ice tongs.

Sunnye Tiedemann writes:

You need to read the Sixteenth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution...) it simply addresses apportionment. The right of Congress to tax is in the First article to the Constitution. Repealing the 16th, (which is part of the FairTax plan, by the way, although not part of the bills)will simply take away Congress's power to use the census and reapportionment as a basis of taxation. It does nothing else.

Well my dear! May I suggest your accompanying me in a fine dinner and a celebration in our moment of agreement? Hopefully you won't be offended if I demand to pay the tab, but that is the way things were done when I started to date many, many years ago.

The reason for celebration is you, unlike most people, realize the 16th Amendment is not Congress' source of power to calculate a tax from "income"!

As I pointed out to Dewey,

Tell me Dewey, and you may first want to check in with your handlers at the propaganda site you recommend, is it not true that by the very language of H.R. 25, no attempt was made to repeal or stop Congress from laying and collecting an excise tax as upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)___ a case upheld prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and a case which upheld a tax calculated from corporate "income" ? Does H.R. 25 address this kind of tax Dewey? The answer to this question Dewey is very important. And, the truth is, this kind of tax remains untouched as a loophole under H.R. 25 and Congress' power to impose an excise tax upon corporations and calculate the amount of tax to be paid from corporate income remains fully in tact!

So, in spite of all the Fair Tax Con Artist talk about repealing various sections of the IRS Code and closing it down as portrayed on the cover of the Fair Tax Con Artist's Book, the misery now suffered under income taxation, the Internal Revenue Service and the IRS Code, remains alive by a very real loophole left by the architects of H.R. 25!

If H.R.25 is adopted and Congress followed its language to the letter as it is intended by the Fair Tax Con Artists with the loophole they have left, Congress is invited to simply erase the word "Internal" from "Internal Revenue Code" and replace that word with "Corporate", as in "Corporate Revenue Code," and, likewise erase the word "Internal" from "Internal Revenue Service" and replace it with "Excise", as in "Excise Revenue Service", and, go about its business inflicting the same time consuming and costly misery upon Corporations as now done, but in addition, these corporations will also have to abide by and follow an additional rule book with all its new regulations for record keeping as stipulated under H.R. 25!
Come now Dewey, is this not a reasonable objection to your touted Fair Tax?

Corporations and those Congress decides to lay an excise tax upon, will wind up having twice the amount of record keeping and be left with two different kinds of taxes to be paid!

Truth is, Dewey, H.R. 25 doesn't "eliminate" squat as Con Artist Boortz portrays on the cover of his book, and it especially does not even attempt to stop Congress from calculating a tax from corporate income. H.R. 25 has carefully left a loophole so Congress may decide at its pleasure, especially a socialist dominated Congress, to enact, say a small tax upon those wealthy evil corporations and scoundrels who make millions of dollars a year and bleed the poor working people, such as was alleged about Leona Helmsley who they sent to jail for an alleged tax fraud, but actually contributed more in taxes than any twenty average working people in New York. Give me a freaken break Dewey. Face it Dewey, you have been conned and punked by Neal Boortz the wannabe fountain of all knowledge. Admit your mistake, move on, and stop being a Fair Tax Stooge and puppet of the establishment. Join real tax reform and support the demand to have the following words added to our Constitution:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

You see my dear, the wording I suggest is critical in ending the type of tax we both seem to find repulsive and an abomination___ a kind of tax which is a tool of those who find a free market place objectionable and interferes with the big socialist type of government which they prefer. The object is not to merely repeal a redundant and confusing amendment which granted no new power of taxation to Congress, the object is to forbid Congress from calculating a tax from any lawfully realized money.

In closing, my dear, I suggest you reconsider what you are supporting, it is not what it appears to be on its surface.

Sincerely,
JWK

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"---Jefferson