www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] My Fellow Americans

reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!


It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the
corporate tax burden.  And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance
taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a
fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average
American.  That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax
proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing
the 16th amendment to the Constitution.  So we may just end up with a bizarre
hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is
confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks
have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax).

However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will
become law.  There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around
the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine
the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention
its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates.  I would be
interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine
being able to trade US securities tax-free :-)


Sean
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 

So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!


 
 
 It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the
 corporate tax burden.  And with the elimination of capital gains and
inheritance
 taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a
 fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the
average
 American.  That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the
FairTax
 proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require
repealing
 the 16th amendment to the Constitution.  So we may just end up with a bizarre
 hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is
 confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks
 have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax).
 
 However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will
 become law.  There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around
 the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine
 the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention
 its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates.  I would be
 interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors
however--imagine
 being able to trade US securities tax-free :-)
 
 
 Sean
 
 


The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift 
taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have 
the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing 
the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.

In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free. Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.

Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.
Oct 19 2005
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj6n99$1585$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 

So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!


 
 
 It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the
 corporate tax burden.  And with the elimination of capital gains and
inheritance
 taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a
 fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the
average
 American.  That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the
FairTax
 proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require
repealing
 the 16th amendment to the Constitution.  So we may just end up with a bizarre
 hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is
 confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks
 have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax).
 
 However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will
 become law.  There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around
 the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine
 the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention
 its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates.  I would be
 interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors
however--imagine
 being able to trade US securities tax-free :-)
 
 
 Sean
 
 


The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift 
taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have 
the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing 
the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.


Regarding this particular issue I was repeating a portion of the wiki you
linked.  Perhaps it should be corrected.


In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free.


The officially stated poverty level tends to be a good bit below the level
required to live in most areas, particularly in regions with an abnormally high
cost of living.  Minimum wage numbers should be a sufficient testament to this.
Also, low income households tend to spend all of their income on consumable
goods, simply by necessity.  Considering this, I am not convinced that the
reimbursement amount will be sufficient to offset the increased living costs
that a massive sales tax increase would create.  I also wonder what would happen
to regional tax laws.  For example: some states tax food but not clothing, while
others do the reverse.  Would this law change things such that everything is
taxed everywhere?  If not, it might be substantially more affordable for
poverty-level families to live in regions with favorable sales tax laws.

As for my comment about individuals shouldering the corporate tax burden...  If
we assume that the government must receive the same dollar amount in tax
revenues after the change as before the change then the impact on different
sectors is simply a matter of determining how that obligation is distributed.
Currently, corporations pay a substantial percentage of the national tax
obligation through corporate and payroll taxes and through capital gains tax.
Also, many corporations tend to spend relatively little on consumable goods.
Since all of these taxes will be eliminated and replaced only by a fixed sales
tax increase, it seems reasonable to conclude that this decreased corporate
obligation will be made up for by revenue from individuals.


Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.


When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  I am also skeptical that retail prices are
22-25% higher because of taxes--complaince costs shouldn't figure into the
equation as they will remain with the new system (unless I'm misunderstanding
what is meant by "compliance costs").  I do agree that prices would adjust down
in the new system, but if so it would be no more than to keep post-tax prices
constant.

All of this has me wondering about the impact on multinational corporations as
well.  Under the new system, wouldn't it be more profitable to do all purchasing
overseas where the tax per unit is typically far below 25%?  How would this
impact the ability of domestic manufacturers to remain competitive?  I'll admit
I know next to nothing about international business law so this question is not
at all rhetorical.


Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.


I firmly believe that this new tax system would be quite nice for individuals
with a decent disposable income.  The elimination of capital gains tax alone is
an incredible bonus--just look at how the wealthy profited from the slight
capital gains tax decrease two years ago.  And having met people who pay 60% or
more of their yearly income in taxes (all of whom invest and spend only a small
portion of their income on consumable goods), I can say with confidence that to
replace this with only a 25% sales tax would have many of them dancing in the
streets.  But I have absolutely no confidence that such a change would be at all
good for our currently horrendous national debt nor do I belive it would be good
for those at the poverty-level.  I also have no faith in the "trickle down"
theory of economics, and while I expect that such a system would make the rich
richer, I do not expect that the poor would fare quite so well.

That said, I could easily be wrong.  This is my initial reaction to what I read
on the Wiki rather than an informed response.  It's not a change that feels like
it would work for the people.  That it may work for me is immaterial in my
opinion.


Sean
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dj6tc2$1ut2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...

In article <dj6n99$1585$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 

So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!


 
 
 It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the
 corporate tax burden.  And with the elimination of capital gains and
inheritance
 taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a
 fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the
average
 American.  That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the
FairTax
 proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require
repealing
 the 16th amendment to the Constitution.  So we may just end up with a bizarre
 hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is
 confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks
 have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax).
 
 However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will
 become law.  There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around
 the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine
 the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention
 its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates.  I would be
 interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors
however--imagine
 being able to trade US securities tax-free :-)
 
 
 Sean
 
 


The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift 
taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have 
the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing 
the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.


Regarding this particular issue I was repeating a portion of the wiki you
linked.  Perhaps it should be corrected.


In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free.


The officially stated poverty level tends to be a good bit below the level
required to live in most areas, particularly in regions with an abnormally high
cost of living.  Minimum wage numbers should be a sufficient testament to this.
Also, low income households tend to spend all of their income on consumable
goods, simply by necessity.  Considering this, I am not convinced that the
reimbursement amount will be sufficient to offset the increased living costs
that a massive sales tax increase would create.  I also wonder what would happen
to regional tax laws.  For example: some states tax food but not clothing, while
others do the reverse.  Would this law change things such that everything is
taxed everywhere?  If not, it might be substantially more affordable for
poverty-level families to live in regions with favorable sales tax laws.

As for my comment about individuals shouldering the corporate tax burden...  If
we assume that the government must receive the same dollar amount in tax
revenues after the change as before the change then the impact on different
sectors is simply a matter of determining how that obligation is distributed.
Currently, corporations pay a substantial percentage of the national tax
obligation through corporate and payroll taxes and through capital gains tax.
Also, many corporations tend to spend relatively little on consumable goods.
Since all of these taxes will be eliminated and replaced only by a fixed sales
tax increase, it seems reasonable to conclude that this decreased corporate
obligation will be made up for by revenue from individuals.


Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.


When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  I am also skeptical that retail prices are
22-25% higher because of taxes--complaince costs shouldn't figure into the
equation as they will remain with the new system (unless I'm misunderstanding
what is meant by "compliance costs").  I do agree that prices would adjust down
in the new system, but if so it would be no more than to keep post-tax prices
constant.

All of this has me wondering about the impact on multinational corporations as
well.  Under the new system, wouldn't it be more profitable to do all purchasing
overseas where the tax per unit is typically far below 25%?  How would this
impact the ability of domestic manufacturers to remain competitive?  I'll admit
I know next to nothing about international business law so this question is not
at all rhetorical.


Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.


I firmly believe that this new tax system would be quite nice for individuals
with a decent disposable income.  The elimination of capital gains tax alone is
an incredible bonus--just look at how the wealthy profited from the slight
capital gains tax decrease two years ago.  And having met people who pay 60% or
more of their yearly income in taxes (all of whom invest and spend only a small
portion of their income on consumable goods), I can say with confidence that to
replace this with only a 25% sales tax would have many of them dancing in the
streets.  But I have absolutely no confidence that such a change would be at all
good for our currently horrendous national debt nor do I belive it would be good
for those at the poverty-level.  I also have no faith in the "trickle down"
theory of economics, and while I expect that such a system would make the rich
richer, I do not expect that the poor would fare quite so well.

That said, I could easily be wrong.  This is my initial reaction to what I read
on the Wiki rather than an informed response.  It's not a change that feels like
it would work for the people.  That it may work for me is immaterial in my
opinion.


Sean


I say let's go back to what the original framers of the constitution intended -
raise all Federal revenue though indirect taxes (e.g.: tariffs) and get rid of
the rest. Give all of the "responsibility" for welfare and the like back to the
states and they can tax whatever they'd like to provide for that. That way we'd
have 50 big experimental social science labs (one of the primary reasons behind
having 'states' in the first place) and sooner or later they'd gravitate toward
what works instead of continuing the failed Federal social policies initiated
over the last century or so (most since that damned 16th Amendment was ratified
- sponsored by a Republican no less!).

Hmmm - a nutball, you say? Well, a century ago, when the U.S. first became a
major player on the international stage despite also being a very young country,
what I describe above was basically the way things worked.

The authors or the U.S. Constitution got so much right that I find it hard to
believe that they got the two most important issues - acceptable Federal tax
policy on private citizens AND states rights and responsibilities - so wrong as
to have needed so much change over the last 80 years of 230 years.

If we don't get control of people and organizations suckling on one Federal
Gov't teet or another, we will soon be finished as a Republic I'm afraid.

It's funny - as other major economies (China, India) around the world move
toward capitalism and decentralized Gov't to better provide for their citizens,
the U.S. is moving more towards socialism and bigger Govt' (no matter which
major party is in power). Seems kinda bass-ackward to me.
Oct 19 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Dave wrote:

 In article <dj6tc2$1ut2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
 

In article <dj6n99$1585$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...


Sean Kelly wrote:


In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...



So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!



It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the
corporate tax burden.  And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance
taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a
fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average
American.  That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax
proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing
the 16th amendment to the Constitution.  So we may just end up with a bizarre
hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is
confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks
have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax).

However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will
become law.  There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around
the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine
the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention
its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates.  I would be
interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine
being able to trade US securities tax-free :-)


Sean


The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift 
taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have 
the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing 
the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.


Regarding this particular issue I was repeating a portion of the wiki you
linked.  Perhaps it should be corrected.



In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free.


The officially stated poverty level tends to be a good bit below the level
required to live in most areas, particularly in regions with an abnormally high
cost of living.  Minimum wage numbers should be a sufficient testament to this.
Also, low income households tend to spend all of their income on consumable
goods, simply by necessity.  Considering this, I am not convinced that the
reimbursement amount will be sufficient to offset the increased living costs
that a massive sales tax increase would create.  I also wonder what would happen
to regional tax laws.  For example: some states tax food but not clothing, while
others do the reverse.  Would this law change things such that everything is
taxed everywhere?  If not, it might be substantially more affordable for
poverty-level families to live in regions with favorable sales tax laws.

As for my comment about individuals shouldering the corporate tax burden...  If
we assume that the government must receive the same dollar amount in tax
revenues after the change as before the change then the impact on different
sectors is simply a matter of determining how that obligation is distributed.
Currently, corporations pay a substantial percentage of the national tax
obligation through corporate and payroll taxes and through capital gains tax.
Also, many corporations tend to spend relatively little on consumable goods.
Since all of these taxes will be eliminated and replaced only by a fixed sales
tax increase, it seems reasonable to conclude that this decreased corporate
obligation will be made up for by revenue from individuals.



Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.


When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  I am also skeptical that retail prices are
22-25% higher because of taxes--complaince costs shouldn't figure into the
equation as they will remain with the new system (unless I'm misunderstanding
what is meant by "compliance costs").  I do agree that prices would adjust down
in the new system, but if so it would be no more than to keep post-tax prices
constant.

All of this has me wondering about the impact on multinational corporations as
well.  Under the new system, wouldn't it be more profitable to do all purchasing
overseas where the tax per unit is typically far below 25%?  How would this
impact the ability of domestic manufacturers to remain competitive?  I'll admit
I know next to nothing about international business law so this question is not
at all rhetorical.



Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.


I firmly believe that this new tax system would be quite nice for individuals
with a decent disposable income.  The elimination of capital gains tax alone is
an incredible bonus--just look at how the wealthy profited from the slight
capital gains tax decrease two years ago.  And having met people who pay 60% or
more of their yearly income in taxes (all of whom invest and spend only a small
portion of their income on consumable goods), I can say with confidence that to
replace this with only a 25% sales tax would have many of them dancing in the
streets.  But I have absolutely no confidence that such a change would be at all
good for our currently horrendous national debt nor do I belive it would be good
for those at the poverty-level.  I also have no faith in the "trickle down"
theory of economics, and while I expect that such a system would make the rich
richer, I do not expect that the poor would fare quite so well.

That said, I could easily be wrong.  This is my initial reaction to what I read
on the Wiki rather than an informed response.  It's not a change that feels like
it would work for the people.  That it may work for me is immaterial in my
opinion.


Sean


 
 
 I say let's go back to what the original framers of the constitution intended -
 raise all Federal revenue though indirect taxes (e.g.: tariffs) and get rid of
 the rest. Give all of the "responsibility" for welfare and the like back to the
 states and they can tax whatever they'd like to provide for that. That way we'd
 have 50 big experimental social science labs (one of the primary reasons behind
 having 'states' in the first place) and sooner or later they'd gravitate toward
 what works instead of continuing the failed Federal social policies initiated
 over the last century or so (most since that damned 16th Amendment was ratified
 - sponsored by a Republican no less!).
 
 Hmmm - a nutball, you say? Well, a century ago, when the U.S. first became a
 major player on the international stage despite also being a very young
country,
 what I describe above was basically the way things worked.
 
 The authors or the U.S. Constitution got so much right that I find it hard to
 believe that they got the two most important issues - acceptable Federal tax
 policy on private citizens AND states rights and responsibilities - so wrong as
 to have needed so much change over the last 80 years of 230 years.
 
 If we don't get control of people and organizations suckling on one Federal
 Gov't teet or another, we will soon be finished as a Republic I'm afraid.
 
 It's funny - as other major economies (China, India) around the world move
 toward capitalism and decentralized Gov't to better provide for their citizens,
 the U.S. is moving more towards socialism and bigger Govt' (no matter which
 major party is in power). Seems kinda bass-ackward to me.
 
 


I completely agree with your analysis. IMHO, the FairTax is a step in 
this direction. BTW, these sort of ideas which you are expounding are 
part of the Libertarian argument. (To which I am strongly sympathetic) 
Its no supprise that the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank, 
strongly supports this bill.
Oct 19 2005
parent Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:
Kyle and Dave - I see things from your perspective as well...

I think its called Jeffersonian....

Thanks,
Trevor Parscal
Oct 19 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj6n99$1585$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 

Sean Kelly wrote:


In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...



So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!



It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the
corporate tax burden.  And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance
taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a
fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average
American.  That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax
proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing
the 16th amendment to the Constitution.  So we may just end up with a bizarre
hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is
confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks
have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax).

However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will
become law.  There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around
the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine
the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention
its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates.  I would be
interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine
being able to trade US securities tax-free :-)


Sean


The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift 
taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have 
the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing 
the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.


 
 
 Regarding this particular issue I was repeating a portion of the wiki you
 linked.  Perhaps it should be corrected.
 


The wiki article I linked to I read as my first introduction to the 
bill, I have since read the bill itself in its entirety, and have found 
that the wiki contains a load of factual errors. :-P


 

In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free.


 
 
 The officially stated poverty level tends to be a good bit below the level
 required to live in most areas, particularly in regions with an abnormally high
 cost of living.  Minimum wage numbers should be a sufficient testament to this.
 Also, low income households tend to spend all of their income on consumable
 goods, simply by necessity.  Considering this, I am not convinced that the
 reimbursement amount will be sufficient to offset the increased living costs
 that a massive sales tax increase would create.  I also wonder what would
happen
 to regional tax laws.  For example: some states tax food but not clothing,
while
 others do the reverse.  Would this law change things such that everything is
 taxed everywhere?  If not, it might be substantially more affordable for
 poverty-level families to live in regions with favorable sales tax laws.


Regarding the poor and the rebate. I believe the poverty level income 
figures published by the Department of Health and Human Services are 
basically the maximum of the incomes of the areas of the country 
considered to be poverty level. In addition to this the department 
publishes different figures for different states. That being the case, 
my assertion that the poor wont pay taxes stands.

The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)


 
 As for my comment about individuals shouldering the corporate tax burden...  If
 we assume that the government must receive the same dollar amount in tax
 revenues after the change as before the change then the impact on different
 sectors is simply a matter of determining how that obligation is distributed.
 Currently, corporations pay a substantial percentage of the national tax
 obligation through corporate and payroll taxes and through capital gains tax.
 Also, many corporations tend to spend relatively little on consumable goods.
 Since all of these taxes will be eliminated and replaced only by a fixed sales
 tax increase, it seems reasonable to conclude that this decreased corporate
 obligation will be made up for by revenue from individuals.
 


Yes, you are right, individuals would bear more of the tax burden.


Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.


 
 
 When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply
because
 its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
 offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs
will
 simply mean increased profits.  I am also skeptical that retail prices are
 22-25% higher because of taxes--complaince costs shouldn't figure into the
 equation as they will remain with the new system (unless I'm misunderstanding
 what is meant by "compliance costs").  I do agree that prices would adjust down
 in the new system, but if so it would be no more than to keep post-tax prices
 constant.
 


Even if companies dont offer goods at lower prices, (which they would, 
in order to get an edge on the competition) think of stock options and 
dividends. With earnings sky rocketing, that money would find its way 
back into shareholder's pockets (read - your 401(k)). I think that by 
eliminating the built-in welfare of the income tax (lower incomes having 
a negative tax rate) the government even saves at least some money on 
the bargain.


 All of this has me wondering about the impact on multinational corporations as
 well.  Under the new system, wouldn't it be more profitable to do all
purchasing
 overseas where the tax per unit is typically far below 25%?  How would this
 impact the ability of domestic manufacturers to remain competitive?  I'll admit
 I know next to nothing about international business law so this question is not
 at all rhetorical.
 


In Title II, Section 905 of the bill, it states:
	
" (a)In General- All persons, in whatever capacity acting 			(including 
lessees or mortgagors or real or personal property, 	fiduciaries, 
employers, and all officers and employees of the 			United States) 
having control, receipt, custody, disposal, or 			payment of any income 
to the extent such income constitutes 			gross income from sources 
within the United States of any nonresident alien individual, foreign 
partnership, or foreign corporation shall deduct and withhold from that 
income a tax equal to 23 percent thereof.

(b) Exception- No tax shall be required to be deducted from interest on 
portfolio debt investments.

(c) Treaty Countries- In the case of payments to nonresident alien 
individuals, foreign partnerships, or foreign corporations that have a 
residence in (or the nationality of a country) that has entered into a 
tax treaty with the United States, then the rate of withholding tax 
prescribed by the treaty shall govern.'."

In Title II, Section 102(a):

"(a) In General- For purposes of this subtitle--

(1) BUSINESS AND EXPORT PURPOSES- No tax shall be imposed 
                                          under section 101 on any 
taxable property or service 				for--

(A) a business purpose in a trade or business, or

(B) export from the United States for use or consumption outside the 
United States, if, the purchaser provided the seller with a registration 
certificate, and the seller was a wholesale seller."



 

Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.


 
 
 I firmly believe that this new tax system would be quite nice for individuals
 with a decent disposable income.  The elimination of capital gains tax alone is
 an incredible bonus--just look at how the wealthy profited from the slight
 capital gains tax decrease two years ago.  And having met people who pay 60% or
 more of their yearly income in taxes (all of whom invest and spend only a small
 portion of their income on consumable goods), I can say with confidence that to
 replace this with only a 25% sales tax would have many of them dancing in the
 streets.  But I have absolutely no confidence that such a change would be at
all
 good for our currently horrendous national debt nor do I belive it would be
good
 for those at the poverty-level.  I also have no faith in the "trickle down"
 theory of economics, and while I expect that such a system would make the rich
 richer, I do not expect that the poor would fare quite so well.
 
 That said, I could easily be wrong.  This is my initial reaction to what I read
 on the Wiki rather than an informed response.  It's not a change that feels
like
 it would work for the people.  That it may work for me is immaterial in my
 opinion.
 
 
 Sean
 
 


The sales tax is calculated to be revenue-neutral, i.e. would bring in 
the same amount as the income and other taxes.

If you dont believe in "trickle down" then this isnt for you. But it is 
proven to work.

Kyle
Oct 19 2005
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)


One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax
laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a
prime example.  There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New
Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to
encourage its residents to shop locally.  If their sales tax went from 8% to 33%
this effect would be even more pronounced.  This possibly isn't a reason in
itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting
fact.


Even if companies dont offer goods at lower prices, (which they would, 
in order to get an edge on the competition) think of stock options and 
dividends. With earnings sky rocketing, that money would find its way 
back into shareholder's pockets (read - your 401(k)). I think that by 
eliminating the built-in welfare of the income tax (lower incomes having 
a negative tax rate) the government even saves at least some money on 
the bargain.


The shareholder's pockets perhaps, but how far above the poverty line do folks
have to be before they have acces to a 401k?  I grant that the new system would
encourage people to save so perhaps things would improve, but I think this
largely supports my argument that the law would be better for the wealthy than
the poor.  That said, its sheer simplicitly is definately appealing.  I'll have
to find some time to read the bill today.


Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 

The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)


 
 
 One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax
 laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a
 prime example.  There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to
New
 Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to
 encourage its residents to shop locally.  If their sales tax went from 8% to
33%
 this effect would be even more pronounced.  This possibly isn't a reason in
 itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting
 fact.
 


Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% 
sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.


 

Even if companies dont offer goods at lower prices, (which they would, 
in order to get an edge on the competition) think of stock options and 
dividends. With earnings sky rocketing, that money would find its way 
back into shareholder's pockets (read - your 401(k)). I think that by 
eliminating the built-in welfare of the income tax (lower incomes having 
a negative tax rate) the government even saves at least some money on 
the bargain.


 
 
 The shareholder's pockets perhaps, but how far above the poverty line do folks
 have to be before they have acces to a 401k?  I grant that the new system would
 encourage people to save so perhaps things would improve, but I think this
 largely supports my argument that the law would be better for the wealthy than
 the poor.  That said, its sheer simplicitly is definately appealing.  I'll have
 to find some time to read the bill today.
 
 
 Sean
 
 


Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is 
not for you.
Oct 20 2005
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj907a$46s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 

The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)


 
 
 One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax
 laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a
 prime example.  There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to
New
 Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to
 encourage its residents to shop locally.  If their sales tax went from 8% to
33%
 this effect would be even more pronounced.  This possibly isn't a reason in
 itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting
 fact.


Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% 
sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.


You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on
clothing at all:

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf

It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared
foods.


Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is 
not for you.


I believe in it to a point, but I think there's a bit of slippage between theory
and practice.  What happened when the US currency was floated off the Gold
standard is sufficient testament to that IMO.


Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj907a$46s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 

Sean Kelly wrote:


In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...



The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)



One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax
laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a
prime example.  There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New
Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to
encourage its residents to shop locally.  If their sales tax went from 8% to 33%
this effect would be even more pronounced.  This possibly isn't a reason in
itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting
fact.


Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% 
sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.


 
 
 You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on
 clothing at all:
 
 http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf
 
 It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only
prepared
 foods.
 


No, I dont misunderstand you.

Before NST:

NJ = 0% NY = 8%

After NST:

NJ = 23% NY = 31%

The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than 
before the NST.


 

Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is 
not for you.


 
 
 I believe in it to a point, but I think there's a bit of slippage between
theory
 and practice.  What happened when the US currency was floated off the Gold
 standard is sufficient testament to that IMO.
 
 
 Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj9i6l$jaa$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

Sean Kelly wrote:

 
 You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on
 clothing at all:
 
 http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf
 
 It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only
prepared
 foods.


No, I dont misunderstand you.

Before NST:

NJ = 0% NY = 8%

After NST:

NJ = 23% NY = 31%

The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than 
before the NST.


Oops, I misunderstood.  You had said before that this bill would not alter state
tax law, and I took that to mean that NJ state tax on clothing would remain at
0%.  That it would be raised to 23% is a substantial difference.



Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj9i6l$jaa$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 

Sean Kelly wrote:


You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on
clothing at all:

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf

It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared
foods.


No, I dont misunderstand you.

Before NST:

NJ = 0% NY = 8%

After NST:

NJ = 23% NY = 31%

The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than 
before the NST.


 
 
 Oops, I misunderstood.  You had said before that this bill would not alter
state
 tax law, and I took that to mean that NJ state tax on clothing would remain at
 0%.  That it would be raised to 23% is a substantial difference.
 
 
 
 Sean
 



What I meant was that it would not override any existing sales tax, they 
would just add. I think you understand. :-)
Oct 21 2005
prev sibling parent reply Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:
I don't care to debate politics here - but...


Sean wrote...

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  


This is sort of silly. Have you ever heard of a Hundai? They can make thing
cheaper, cause its from Korea and labor is cheap, and they sell their cars for
less money... And you know, modern Hundai cars are pretty high quality...


Trevor Parscal
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj7ere$m0o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Trevor Parscal says...

I don't care to debate politics here - but...


Sean wrote...

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  


This is sort of silly. Have you ever heard of a Hundai? They can make thing
cheaper, cause its from Korea and labor is cheap, and they sell their cars for
less money... And you know, modern Hundai cars are pretty high quality...


So why don't other car manufacturers feel the need to be price competitive with
Hyundai? :-)


Sean
Oct 20 2005
prev sibling parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dj7ere$m0o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Trevor Parscal says...

I don't care to debate politics here - but...


Sean wrote...

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  


This is sort of silly. Have you ever heard of a Hundai? They can make thing
cheaper, cause its from Korea and labor is cheap, and they sell their cars for
less money... And you know, modern Hundai cars are pretty high quality...


Trevor Parscal


Just had to add that a huge part of the cost of labor difference can be
accounted for by taxes and Gov't regulation. In other words, one of the primary
reasons that U.S. citizens need such relatively high pay to maintain our std. of
living is because of the tax and regulatory burden of the Federal Gov't.
Oct 20 2005
prev sibling parent J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dj6kpf$q58$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...

In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!


It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the
corporate tax burden.  


That's one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it is that individuals
are already paying the taxes of corporations. Corporates just add their tax
burden to the costs of the goods that they sell. When you buy anything from a
corporation, a portion of the price goes to pay their tax bill. They don't
itemize it on the receipt, but the it's certainly part of the price of doing
business with them.

Part of the idea behind the FairTax is that we could expect the base price of
goods to go down if we changed from a national income tax to a national sales
tax. In competive markets, the business with the best price can sell the most
product. It makes sense to me.

jcc7
Oct 20 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
on a related OT topic I'm still wishing for some serious calendar reform:
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/calendar-reform.html
and http://www.theworldcalendar.org/


"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
 heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!
Oct 19 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:
This is an incredibly radical change to the tax code.  What are the chances 
of this actually passing?  I would guess its not likely at all.

-Craig
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Craig Black wrote:

 This is an incredibly radical change to the tax code.  What are the chances 
 of this actually passing?  I would guess its not likely at all.
 
 -Craig 
 
 


www.fairtaxblog.com

The bill is now supported by almost 50 congressmen.

Detailed stats here:

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/scorecards/
Oct 19 2005
prev sibling parent reply JT <jtd514 ameritech.net> writes:
Yeah its not going to happen. First of all the current federal 
government is closer to organized crime than politics, the IRS is a 
private entity and we dont even know who owns the trust which controls 
it.  Most likely its the private owners of the federal reserve. The 
legal definition of "income" is "profit from a business" - a man trading 
labor is not taxable. Somewhere along the way they suckered us into 
paying the corporate tax burden. They also suckered us into establishing 
an illegal central bank - by calling it a federal reserve. Now they 
actually confiscate our wealth and hand it over to the owners of the fed 
- not the government - at the tune of $40 million an hour. All for the 
benifit of using their fancy (yet worthless) green paper. But hey, they 
have guns n stuff.

What is going to happen is a national point of sale tax on top of the 
income tax. This national sales tax will result in a federal ID card and 
federal terminals at all points of sale. This will be the road to their 
orwellian promised land. It will take a major revelation to turn the tax 
burden back upon the corporations. A revelation that turns the entire 
illegal system that is the federal reserve and IRS onto its ass as 
exactly what its is: the greatest scam of all time. I believe the 
awakening is happening, so we shall see...

Im glad people want real tax reform - the awakening is afoot! But we 
need to go deeper and abolish the federal reserve itself or we are doing 
is throwing a bucket of paint over it.


Craig Black wrote:

 This is an incredibly radical change to the tax code.  What are the chances 
 of this actually passing?  I would guess its not likely at all.
 
 -Craig
Oct 20 2005
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj7jab$14ia$1 digitaldaemon.com>, JT says...

Im glad people want real tax reform - the awakening is afoot! But we 
need to go deeper and abolish the federal reserve itself or we are doing 
is throwing a bucket of paint over it.


I agree that Keynesian economic policy turned out to be kind of a mess, but at
this point it's not likely that the Fed is going anywhere--they manage trillions
of dollars of securitized national debt.  What would happen to all that?


Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent reply JT <jtd514 ameritech.net> writes:
"turned out to be kind of a mess" ? This is the way it was designed. It 
was always just a scam. It was designed to transfer your wealth to the 
owners of the fed via inflation through the mechanism of expanding the 
elastic money supply. i.e. they just print more money. There is no real 
'debt' the way we percieve. We have a bunch of very slick criminals 
handing us a bill and we just shrug and go "gee i guess we owe it" when 
in fact its mostly just rental fees on worthless green paper.

for example, if you could take a piece of paper, color it green with a 
crayon, write $100 on it in magic marker, and then LOAN it to someone 
for $100 PLUS INTEREST - would you or would you not eventually own 
everything? Would the planet not eventually be 'in debt' to you? Heck, 
would they even physically be able to pay it back? (hint: no debt = no 
dollars)

Im sorry - I dont owe any blue blood family any "debt" just because they 
conned my great-grandfathers generation into the federal reserve. In 
fact I want a refund.

I dont know the exact solution but it starts somewhere with a REAL 
CURRENCY not this fiat nonsense we have been brainwashed into believing 
is money. The dollar doesnt even rate as high as a 'bank note' - its not 
anywhere near money. The legitimate securities should be transfered and 
the illegal ones flushed right down the toilet. my solution would also 
be to lock up the criminals behind this nonsense. Of course this gets 
into a place americans just dont want to go - but it all begins with 
abolishing the federal reserve. anything else is just games.


Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <dj7jab$14ia$1 digitaldaemon.com>, JT says...
 

Im glad people want real tax reform - the awakening is afoot! But we 
need to go deeper and abolish the federal reserve itself or we are doing 
is throwing a bucket of paint over it.


 
 
 I agree that Keynesian economic policy turned out to be kind of a mess, but at
 this point it's not likely that the Fed is going anywhere--they manage
trillions
 of dollars of securitized national debt.  What would happen to all that?
 
 
 Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent JT <jtd514 ameritech.net> writes:
Well Im getting carried away here - the fed scam is something Im quite 
passionate about. I will let you guys get back to your discussion, but I 
want to suggest a book. This is a fantastic book that I think every 
American should read regarding the history of our central bank. There 
are better books but this is the best introductory material out there 
and gives a wonderfull overview of history.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0912986212/002-7900086-8464069?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html

"A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be 
prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." - Congressman 
Ron Paul (Member, House Banking Committee)
Oct 20 2005
prev sibling parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dj7jab$14ia$1 digitaldaemon.com>, JT says...

Yeah its not going to happen. First of all the current federal 
government is closer to organized crime than politics, the IRS is a 
private entity and we dont even know who owns the trust which controls 
it.  Most likely its the private owners of the federal reserve. The 
legal definition of "income" is "profit from a business" - a man trading 
labor is not taxable. Somewhere along the way they suckered us into 
paying the corporate tax burden. They also suckered us into establishing 
an illegal central bank - by calling it a federal reserve. Now they 
actually confiscate our wealth and hand it over to the owners of the fed 
- not the government - at the tune of $40 million an hour. All for the 
benifit of using their fancy (yet worthless) green paper. But hey, they 
have guns n stuff.

What is going to happen is a national point of sale tax on top of the 
income tax. This national sales tax will result in a federal ID card and 
federal terminals at all points of sale. This will be the road to their 
orwellian promised land. It will take a major revelation to turn the tax 
burden back upon the corporations. A revelation that turns the entire 
illegal system that is the federal reserve and IRS onto its ass as 
exactly what its is: the greatest scam of all time. I believe the 
awakening is happening, so we shall see...

Im glad people want real tax reform - the awakening is afoot! But we 
need to go deeper and abolish the federal reserve itself or we are doing 
is throwing a bucket of paint over it.


That's what I fear the most about any tax "reform". They will end up
compromising with the myrid of special interest groups out there and basically
we will end up with a higher tax bill and less freedom.


Craig Black wrote:

 This is an incredibly radical change to the tax code.  What are the chances 
 of this actually passing?  I would guess its not likely at all.
 
 -Craig
Oct 20 2005