Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, January 11, 2008
Jerry Bowyer :: Townhall.com Columnist
Answers for the FairTax Faction
by Jerry Bowyer
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Yes, I've read the legislation.

No, I don't listen to the radio show.

No, I'm no stupid, idiotic, dishonest, evil, an employee of the IRS, spouse of an IRS employee, or part of a conspiracy of journalists against the middle class.

Yes, other conservative economists who have asked tough questions about the FairTax warned me to get ready for a gusher of hate mail.

Yes, the fact that the FairTax faction (after reading a torrent of insulting email, that word seems right to me) defaults to abusive speech from the beginning means that they are a movement of zealots with a weak case.

No, my questions are not all answered in the book or at fairtax.org or in the legislation.

No, my questions are not really answered by the emails and posts which I have received. What have been answered are the questions which remind the FairTaxers of other easier questions to are addressed on the web site.

No, the FairTax will not be simple. The debate in response to my latest article proves that.

No, the apologists who responded to me did not even remotely deal with the problem of the interest portion of mortgages.

Yes, I know that that interest isn't supposed to be taxable. But I also know that if all interest remains non-taxable, there will be a massive movement towards discounting house and durable goods sales prices and then making up the difference with high interest rates.

No, none of the fairtaxers seem who wrote to me seem to know that under the legislation, only some of interest is non-taxable.

Yes, that's right the government will decide what a reasonable interest rate is, and then tax you for anything above that.

No, the legislation's choice of how to interest is not actually reasonable at all. It uses the Treasury bond rate, which is very low.

So, yes, you will be paying sales tax, not just on your house, but on a substantial part of your interest as well.

Yes, this makes the effective tax rate on houses (and cars, and washing machines, etc.) and anything else bought with borrowed money, higher than on goods not purchased on credit.

Yes, this hurts the poor.

Yes, this punishes people with sub-prime mortgages.

Yes, it means that every time the Fed meets, it finds itself not just setting monetary policy, but tax policy as well.

No, this is not just interest about the interest problem. I could go all day on about this plan. Employee discounts, tipping, taxing churches: every element of this plan is fraught with complexity. The fact that the FairTaxers shout down questions like this tells us a great deal more about them than it does about the proposed plan.

Yes, I'm done – for now.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jerry Bowyer is a radio and television talk show host.

Be the first to read Nathan Alderman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

fair tax
My main issue with it is the requirement to remove a Constitutional Amendment and approve another.

Not to mention states with existing income tax would have to find another way to measure income, since the current ones use federal AGI.

Mr.Bower
I wondered if you were going to read the responses and yes, nearly every one of the responses was "read that worthless book".

LOL, every investigation I have done on this scheme is that it is a ripp-off for everyone below an income level of 800,0000 year.

So what is your plan, Mr. Bowyer?
Maintain the current monstrosity? Flat-tax? VAT? APT? What is your plan, Mr. Bowyer?

Betty
You obviously haven’t read many of my posts from the beginning of this column or on other columns. There is no need to quote Karl Marx to me as I am probably a much bigger anti-communist than you are.

No, I have no problem with Joe W. making a profit from his wheeling and dealing in stocks. I just have a problem with him paying a lower rate of taxes on a larger income.

If you had read some of my previous posts what I had advocated was a flat tax on ALL income, with no exemptions and no exceptions at a rate of 10%. If we are going to go through the trouble of an amendment lets go for the whole banana and not just another complicated and unfair system under a bad name.

If Joe makes 800,000 selling stocks then he pays 80K in taxes. If Mr. Schlob makes 50K stuffing fiberglass in hot water heaters at AO Smith then he pays 5K in taxes.

INCOME is not the proper basis
Consumption is the only legitimate, constitutional basis upon which to tax.

From Federalist No. 21:

"...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. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ``in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.''

If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country...."

The Founders of this nation are SPINNING in their graves.




I've never heard of you.


Who are you again???

Fair Tax or Con Job?
I found this comment on the PP explaining issues regarding the fair tax. I hope you find this as educational as I do!

Buzz- I worked in sales taxation for better than 20 years for 9 Fortune 500 companies, and the FAIR???tax bears faint resemblance to state sales taxes.

Objection #1 - It is a CON JOB. The founders of FTorg gathered seed money to the tune of $tens of millions from Enron, Shell Oil, and other capital intensive companies. These $millions were shelled out to the “expert” economists cited ad infinitum in “the Book” as being authoritative. (They are authoritative as any other whore, I suppose, but then I digress. )The capital intensive manipulators have $hundreds of billions in deferred income tax liabilities that are FORGIVEN the moment FT passes.

READ MORE


http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/fair-tax-or-con-jo b

Alan Greenspan......on taxing capital
From: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname= 108_senate_hearings&docid=f:89738.pdf

Page 29......

"...Mr. Greenspan. First, Congressman, let me just repeat a cliche
which happens to be true, namely, that capital doesn't pay any taxes. Only people pay taxes. What happens is that you impose taxes on organizations which then deflect them elsewhere, but at the end of the day, all taxes are paid by people.

I've always argued that this is a very inefficient way of organizing revenues within a government and that we are far better to gain our taxes directly rather than putting them on capital because all it does is slow down the growth of economic activity and the revenue base from which the revenues actually occur.

And I've argued over the years for the elimination, where we possibly could, of taxes on capital. And I, as you probably are aware,have always argued for the elimination of the capital gains tax. And the reason is I think it's an extraordinarily inefficient tax, an inefficient means of raising revenue in the sense that, by imposing itself on capital, it reduces the growth rate in the economy.

Now, having said what I just said, I need not answer the rest of the questions that you raised...."

Taxing corporations is one of the dumbest things we've ever done to ourselves. It is analogous to shooting ourselves in the foot.

The US inflicts one of the highest combined Corporate Income Tax rates in the OECD. To add insult to injury, it isn't eligible for border adjustment!

It is frankly a miracle that we have any manufacturing sector left in this country.

Is fair tax good for you?
Take your total taxes in any given year.

Divide that number by .23. If your Retail expenses exceed that number, you will pay more taxes under the fair tax. If your retail expenses in the year are less than that amount, you will benefit.

The whole interest question is interesting, but to suggest that prices will be lowered and supplemented with higher interest assumes that their is no competitive market out there for lending money.

So Jerry
You seem to be a very negative person. Re-read your article. There you go.

You mentioned interest and went on to blather about taxing it. Your interest in interest is not interesting, and make no sense. If you talk about savings account interest, it's not taxable. If you are talking about mortgage interest, it a non-issue...

Another Gripe
One other huge complaint that I have with this law is the quality of it’s composition. It is, by far, the poorest written piece of legislation that I have ever seen, As I pointed out last night in one exchange when discussing the taxability of insurance payouts, one section implies that they are not taxable as long as the taxes were paid on the premiums and another referenced section implies that they are taxable. It is written such that a regulator can pretty much interpret most of it any way they want. This has to have been done intentionally.

Typically you do not see the legalese employed in the actual bills that are passed. They are worded to be clear in intent at the same time that some structure is provided. Once the bills have been approved they then go to the agency charged with implementing them. There the actual regulation is written and that will contain the legalese. After the regulation has been written, commented on, and approved they usually also write a reg guide that will tell you how to “comply” with the regulation or at least, what they would consider the easiest and most easily audited was of compliance with the regulation.

It doesn’t appear that they are going that route with this bill.

Vic
The legislation was written by two tax attorneys who realize that God-willing, life insurance policies "mature" long after they're written. Contracts can span decades. If the premium isn't taxed, then the payout should be. If the premium has been taxed, thereby reducing the amount of death benefit purchased, then the payout shouldn't be.

This is analogous, in some respects, to the current treatment vis a vis key-man life.

Betty
IN this case we were takking about payouts for medical treatments, but it doesn't matter. The law is still conflicting whether it is talking about life insurance or medical insurance.

Remanufactured Products, Illegal Aliens
Would a remanufactured Engine count as new?

Here is what I understand, maybe I am wrong. If it is counted as a new retail sale, all components used to upgrade the product would not be taxed. If it is not considered a new retail sale, the purchases on all those products would be taxed.

Clearly this favors the latter since the value of the work you put into a product would not be taxed. Clearly this means people would try to classify more stuff as used and once again, the IRS really does not go away. It just changes its function.

In my opinion, the real reason to do the FairTax is the implications for non tax payers like illegal immigrants. Everyone pays taxes if they buy products, and unless your a citizen you don't get the monthly prebate.

You've got that back-erds.
All new retail sales are taxed, including the cost of labor.

Per the Bill, the IRS is given three years from the cut-off date to conclude audits, investigations, etc. After three years, the IRS is defunded and the Bill requires the destruction of all income tax records.

The sales tax is to be administered by the states. For those states that do not impose a sales tax, they can contract with sister states for tax administration.

And you are correct, the Fair Tax taxes illegal immigrants, visitors, etc.

Jerry Bower: Vindicated by Insults
Hi, I'm Jerry Bower. I believe that crazy people posting mean comments in response to my article proves my facts are accurate and my thinking sound.

Please. Jerry, you do ask _some_ reasonable questions about the FairTax, and it is indeed worth debating. However, I think what the majority of commenters were critiquing was the fact that _most_ of what you asked has not only been answered, but would have been trivially easy for you to investigate, comprehend, and report accurately on (even if you ultimately remain skeptical).

You seem to think that if the FairTax has the slightest complexity, allows the possibility of any corruption, or is in any way influenced by monetary policy, it is not worth considering. You're setting up a straw man. No one is claiming the FairTax is perfect with regard to complexity, corruption, or economic distortions -- only that it is dramatically better than our current system (or indeed virtually any income tax system).

It's easy to point out imperfections in any policy or system, but that's a weak argument for maintaining the status quo. You have to compare the available options and choose the best. You have made no case that any other system (including the current one) would be better than the FairTax.

I don't think you're a bad person, and you're probably reasonably smart, but you're not nearly as clever as you seem to think.

WELL SAID ALDIN!!!
And I've asked Mr. Bowyer to disclose the plan he supports.

You were "done" before you started.
Who are you? A Hugh Hewitt hack?

Being recently retired...40 years (CPA, taxes, banking, etc), I had to scratch my head regarding your nonsensical language and arguments. You're babbling nonsense. You're a fraud! As Mark Levin would say, "Shut-up you dope!"

FairTax less prone to special interests
The nice thing about the FairTax is the simplicity of the tax itself. There's one rate and everyone sees it every time they make a purchase. If any special interest succeeds in winning themselves an exemption, either the government would have to settle for less revenue, or that one single rate would have to be raised, and everyone else in the entire country would notice and protest. That will make it much more difficult for special interests to win special treatment.

The current system leaves the effects of many taxes invisible and unmeasurable to most people (especially corporate taxes) and makes it easy to shift the burden around to subgroups who will not rise with a single, powerful voice.

Will there be zero influence of special interests in the presence of the FairTax? Of course not. But that's a ridiculous standard. The goal is a system that is much more robust against such influences -- the FairTax is such a system.

FairTax not simple.
OK, but compared to what?

No honest person can consider the current tax code in any way "simple", and it sure isn't fair. Self-employed owners and under-the-table workers make out like bandits while standard-paycheck workers get killed.

Another good question from Jerry
Oh my gosh! According to Jerry Bower, some people cheat on state sales tax. From that we can deduce that the amount of cheating under the FairTax would be greater than the amount of cheating that currently exists under our income tax system or that would exist under every other conceivable alternative to the current system (and that such cheating will not be made up for by the other economic and social benefits of the FairTax).

Jerry, is it possible you made a bit of a leap there? Do you have any numbers or evidence of any kind to suggest the amount of cheating under the FairTax will be unworkable? Or should we all just trust your gut on this one?

Oh yeah, I know, you were just "asking questions," not really drawing any conclusions. But note, your question was simply whether there would be cheating on the federal tax given that there's cheating on the state tax. Of course the answer to that is yes, so you clearly mean to imply that the possibility of any cheating disqualifies the FairTax from consideration.

A smart question would be to ask how cheating would compare across different possible tax systems and how that would net out after considering all the other costs and benefits of those systems. Perhaps no one quite has the answer to that, but the answer might well be that the FairTax wins. Of course, that wouldn't play into your flip article. Much easier to ask irrelevant questions with obvious answers.

The problem with your arguments...
is that most everything you are saying simply does not match with the FairTax legislation, the FairTax.org website, or the FairTax book. You can claim all you want that you read these things, but when you contradict these sources it shows you either are not being honest about reading them or you simple have not understood what you read.

Really?
So now Fair Tax advocates are just dumb. I think we understand the legislation a lot better than some animals do.

Aldin makes another fantastic point...
No one to my knowledge has provided any hard evidence that the amount of cheating that will occur under the Fair Tax, and there will be cheating, will even equal the amount under the current system. The number of people who currently work under the table is staggering.

And the infamous "black market" argument assumes an unending supply of goods will be available to supply said "Black Market." Where or where are they going to come from?

In order to supply this supposed "black market," we're going to need a Wal-Mart in every community. Better start digging now. This is going to make Boston's BIG DIG look like child's play!!!

for DavidM
DavidM writes: "Not to mention states with existing income tax would have to find another way to measure income, since the current ones use federal AGI."

Not only that.
I used to live in Rhode Island. Rhode Island's income tax is simply set as a percentage of your federal income tax. So they would have to rewrite those laws entirely and find some other way to compute their income tax.

AnimalFarm1984
I do believe you are in error. I've read much of the FairTax website and have argued the point of FairTax on Patgray.com as "Darren".

All the favorable opinions expressed here for FairTax (and I'm a huuuuuuuge supporter of FariTax) as well as Jerry's original post about FairTax are pretty much on point with what FairTax advocates are claiming.

The FairTax is so easy to understand that I "converted" a CPA in favor of FairTax. All his questions, much the same ones Jerry asked were easily answered simply by browsing their website. The mentioned CPA bought the book and rendered victory to me. He was then convinced this system works much better than the current system. That's no small vicory for the FairTax authors when considering what a financial retard I am. (That's in terms of understanding tax terminology, not the concepts).

Read my next post for one of the very fundamental reasons I support the FairTax

GAME ON!
I'm willing to debate.......Let's RUMBLE!!!!!

Tranfersing questions over
I'm still waiting for straightforward answers to the questions I asked with the previous column. So I'm going to post my real-world application scenarios and maybe this time proponents of what looks more and more like a half-baked, pie-in-the-sky piece of idealism.

"Producer to Producer" Sales?
There is no such thing as a transaction between producer and producer. Every person and company who buys something, even if they intend to make it into something else, is a consumer.

A mining company sells its finished product (iron ore) to a steel company that sells its finished product (steel) to a lid and jar manufacturing company which sells its finished product (steel lids -- with matching jars), to a mayonnaise company which sells its finished product (commercial-sized jars of mayonnaise) to a deli chain which transports the mayonnaise to its local branch which sells its finished product (a Turkey club on wheat to go).

What's fair about taxing only Joe Smith, who put his turkey club into his lunch pail on the way to the iron mine?

For that matter, why should there be a tax on the jar mayonnaise sold to a food distributor AND a tax on that same jar when the food distributor (who did not use the mayonnaise in any kind of production process), sells the jar to an independent deli who uses it to make turkey clubs identical to the chain deli's club except for costing 23% (or 30%), more because they had to pay tax twice?

Buck
Please Buck, get off the anti-depressants, you make Michael Savage's rants against them, partiicularly on how they drive you more insane more credible (I love Savage BTW).

This is assuming your post is not a prank.

Taxing Houses #1
#1 Mr. Anderson, a contractor with money to invest, buys a chunk of land (one must assume that any land which is not sitting on new fill in what was previously a body of water is used and thus not subject to taxation), and builds 5 houses on one portion of that land. He sells 3 of them immediately to Mr. Bhaer, Ms. Channing, and the Debenhams, who immediately move in.

But he sells house #4 to Mr. Ely, who believes the property is underpriced and intends to rent it for a year then sell it for a profit. Finally, Mr. Anderson keeps house #5 for 5 years and furnishes it as a show house since he's investing the profits from the other 4 transactions in additional construction.

After 5 years, the house is no longer new because, though it was never lived in and never previously sold, it has accumulated 5 years of wear from the multitudes of people who have tromped through it. The Foster family are delighted to get this used (and presumably tax-free), house, for a substantial discount below the price of Mr. Anderson's otherwise identical house 27, the last new house he built in his development.

Houses 2
Situation #2,
The Gerard Family (parents and married son), all work in construction trades so that they have all the skills, knowledge, and equipment, to build a house from the ground up. They do so, building a new house.

They live as a group in that house, which included a "mother-in-law" apartment so that sharing a dwelling across the generations is pleasant and acceptable to all, for 50 years until the last grandchild who has inherited the place she lived in since her birth decides to move to the other end of the country to live near her new husband's family. The house has never been sold but it cannot be considered new because its been lived in for 50 years.

What taxes are paid when?

Houses #3
Let us return to Mr. Anderson. Perhaps he develops an emotional attachment to one of his houses. I never said whether he was married or single so I'll say single. He's a hands-on fellow who is putting in the plumbing when the new electrical contractor, Juanita Juarez (a legal citizen of Puerto Rican descent) arrives. Eyes meet through a forest of stud framing, proximity escalates attraction, and by the time she's done running the network cables they yield to their temptations in front of the master bedroom's gas fireplace -- resulting in an unexpected but not unwanted pregnancy.

They marry and decide that the most romantic thing possible would be to live in house #15 where they first met and where they consummated their love.

If I understand the explanations of the "fair tax" correctly, Mr. Anderson pays not taxes on his building materials because that is a "producer to producer" transaction. So not a penny of tax has been paid on a single finish nail in house #15. But, instead of selling his investment property, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson live in it and raise their child there.

Is Mr. Anderson, having changed his mind about the destiny of house #15, now expected to track down the receipts for every bit of material used on that house, return to the suppliers, and pay the "fair tax"? Or is the tax paid by the family who, 7 years and 3 kids later (Juanita is Catholic), buys a heavily used and far from mint-condition house when the Andersons move to larger quarters?


Houses #4
Two couples, the Hendricks and the Isaacs purchase identical used houses sitting side-by-side on the same street in the same development. They both plan to upgrade and modernize their houses. The only difference is that the Hendricks plan to live in their house while the Isaacs, having received a bit of a windfall of some kind, bought theirs in order to do a bit of casual house-flipping.

On Saturday morning both are at Lowes buying tile to upgrade their bathrooms. The fact that the Hendricks pay a sales tax and the Isaacs do not isn't so odd -- things intended for resale are not generally subject to sales tax. BUT, since the Isaacs house, being used even though its been upgraded, isn't subject to the "fair tax" so it seems that no tax will ever be paid on that tile.

And what is to stop the Hendricks from buying the lumber for their sunroom addition tax-free by using their exemption from their home business of building picnic tables and storage sheds? Tax evasion isn't going to vanish -- it will just shift form a bit.


for Betty
Betty asks: "And the infamous 'black market' argument assumes an unending supply of goods will be available to supply said 'Black Market.' Where or where are they going to come from?"

Over the Internet, obviously. Products purchased from websites located in Canada, Mexico, and elsewhere.

Example: Just two months ago, I logged onto EBay.com and purchased an item from a private seller in Australia. Go ahead, tell me how you would collect the FairTax on it!!!

What the FairTax does is create a huge incentive for retailers to set up shop in foreign countries and sell their products via Internet websites to Americans.

You don't think that will happen? The Internet porn industry is already a multibillion dollar worldwide industry. All of which is illegal, and underground. The FBI is engaged in a constant game of "whack-a-mole" trying to shut down child porn sites, which spring up in another country as soon as they get shut down in one country.

And that's what will happen with the FairTax. You'll be sending Government agents all over the world to demand that those foreign websites pay the FairTax whenever they sell to American consumers. Good luck with that.

John Konop
About the "$hundreds of billions in deferred income tax liabilities that are FORGIVEN the moment FT passes." for the 'founders' of the FairTax.

Would it not be a lot easier and cheaper to lobby congress to get a loophole passed? The 23 million seed money would have bought a lot of votes in congress for a loophole. Maybe one is already there by now.

If I had that much on the line I would not waste it on the hope of getting something like the FairTax passed.

Yes, These Scenarios Matter!
From the tail end of the previous column's thread:

You say my questions *could* be answered and you imply that it doesn't really matter that the vaunted slim number of pages doesn't actually contain said answers.

I say that it matters tremendously that something apparently serious people are seriously attempting to pass into law HAS NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY THOUGHT THROUGH and contains such gaping, drive-a-truck-through holes.

By the time people like me have pointed out all those holes and the holes have been plugged it will be right back to the staggering complexity of the current unholy mess.

Aldin
I could tell the questions being asked were loaded questions.

I could tell the Jerry Bowyer was just fishing for the insults, hate mail, and non-answers to use as an excuse to then disregard the whole concept because of the rudeness of SOME of its supporters.

Old liberal trick and tactic.

That would be like disregarding Ron Paul due to his supporters.

I've tried to avoid that, and just disregard the rude and foul mouthed people and consider the bill on its own merits.

Is the FairTax perfect? No. No tax plan is perfect, but in comparison to the existing tax system/code the FairTax is a he!! of a lot better and more in line with the intentions of our founding fathers to limit the power of politicians in Washington D.C.

I'm all for reasonable questions and debate of the idea so that any problems and issues are identified and resolved before it becomes law. Now is the time to do it. But rather than engage in discussion and debate, Jerry Bowyer obviously had ulterior motives with his columns.

Aldin
"It's easy to point out imperfections in any policy or system, but that's a weak argument for maintaining the status quo. You have to compare the available options and choose the best. You have made no case that any other system (including the current one) would be better than the FairTax."

To carry over a founding principle of our legal system:

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

True, the current system is a mess. That doesn't mean that just anything will be an improvement. Those proposing a reform are the ones obligated to prove that their reform won't be a worse mess when actually implemented in the real world.

True Confessions time.....
I'm a CPA and Lawyer.......

I see and deal with the INSANITY on a daily basis. Code, regs, rev. rul, rev proc, IRM, Tax Court cases...all of it my stomping grounds....all of it evidence of mass insanity.

I met with a gentleman today who had not filed his taxes from 2000 to 2005. Back taxes/penalties/interest.....over $60k due. This man, in the twilight years of his life, on low income, now has to deal with this issue. Mr. Bowyer, where is the decency and dignity in that? Does that appeal to your perverse sense of FAIRNESS or JUSTICE?

To add insult to injury, the firm he engaged to do his 2006 taxes mis-handled the engagement. I have to file six years of returns and correct the 2006 return. To what end? Am I contributing ANYTHING that is REAL to the GDP? I don't think so. Here's how I see myself: I help people comply with self-imposed stupidity borne of a mass hysteria...the hysteria of ENVY.

The Fair Tax is the ultimate in Pay-as-you-go for virtually all. Never again will the credible threat of lien and levy of private property in satisfaction of tax debt hang over the citizens of the US...let alone those who are least able to afford cousel. The Flat Tax certainly CANNOT match that aspect of the plan. And I'll be able to engage myself in meaningful work after this passes.

There is no reason that we can't find a better way to tax ourselves. We should NOT: fear our government, divulge the intimate details of our financial lives or pay for the God-given, unalienable right to earn our own living.

Buck
Steve Forbes is married to the flat tax. Walter Williams, an otherwise BRILLIANT man, does not understand it.

Milton Friedman, God rest is soul, repented of his design of the withholding tax system.

From: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2092

"...Friedman, who admitted being “one of the architects” of the Treasury’s proposal for a withholding system, correctly noted in his memoirs that the system “would have been introduced had I been involved or not.” Withholding was an essential element of the government’s wartime revenue grab. “At the time,” concluded Friedman, “we concentrated single-mindedly on promoting the war effort. We gave next to no consideration to any longer-run consequences. It never occurred to me at the time that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom. Yet, that was precisely what I was doing.”"

So what's your point, Buck?

Constitutionality - Part 1
OK, so, as told to AnimalFarm, my last post did not express my fundamental support for FairTax and cry against our current tax system. This the post.

I'm a strong conservative (I don't like the title but that's the best way to describe my political leanings). I will support Duncan Hunter until he calls it quits or until the Primaries (I'd prefer until after the General Elections myself). I am also a big supporter of the Constitution, which had no income tax originally.

My brother-in-law sent my the Google film "From Freedom to Facism" and I was dumbfounded to their argument that there is no law requiruing anybody to fill out a 1040 form to the IRS. To do so would violate the 5th Amendment protecting citizens from self-incrimination. So I reasoned that in order to carry out the 16th Amendment you have to violate the 5th Amendment. And that's not just and Amendment, it's part of the Bill of Rights. That's political sacred ground *NOT* involving rights to *NEVER* take away.


Constitutionality - Part2
Also, recently lawyer David Cryer won a court case against the IRS and here’s the interesting part of that prosecution: David Cryer simply asked the IRS to prove the constitutionality of the income tax. THEY IRS COULD *NOT* PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW that the income tax was constitutional.

So, Jerry rails against the hypothetical imperfections of a concept that would follow the Constitution as originally written and intended and yet lives in a world where he is forced at gunpoint (if that’s too dramatic than go ahead ant *not* pay your taxes and let’s see what will happen to you) to obey a non-existing law. A law which violates the Bill of Rights.

I am fundamentally supporting the FairTax based on constitutional principle. My reasoning is that the Constitution is a document inspired by God for the protection of man’s rights (citizens subjected to its authority) and protection which come from God himself.

FairTax restores constitutional thinking and pure tax simplicity to America.

See this on the VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH
From: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/TColemanAnd rews.htm

""Congress went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion."

"The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds."

"The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men." ..."

MORE


VIOLATION OF FOURTH..
Continued........

"..."The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die."

"As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well."

"The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men."

"I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves..." "

Mother of 4
"For that matter, why should there be a tax on the jar mayonnaise sold to a food distributor AND a tax on that same jar when the food distributor (who did not use the mayonnaise in any kind of production process), sells the jar to an independent deli who uses it to make turkey clubs identical to the chain deli's club except for costing 23% (or 30%), more because they had to pay tax twice?"

The very example you give here is reason to go FairTax. Under the FairTax, only the retail product will be taxed. Under the current system, all the steps to get the mayonaise to the retail store s taxed, and then the sale is taxed. This is in addition to your paycheck already being taxed.

Allow a government to take its people directly and you get tyranny. Allow a government to tax only consumption and you'll find freedom.

Everyone should see this
Patriotic Snot writes: 7:45 PM
.

My brother-in-law sent my the Google film "From Freedom to Facism" and I was dumbfounded to their argument that there is no law requiruing anybody to fill out a 1040 form to the IRS.
------
The scam of the tax system is propped up so well, it takes a real investigation to uncover all the twists it has taken to become the monster it is today.

Betty
Great post (all of them actually). Yes, We The Subjects are guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of our income tax government. We The People would restore a tremendous amount of power to ourselves by abolishing all federal taxes and implementing one national sales tax base on what we chose to buy.

To Patriotic Snot
Well, I guess BUCK put you in YOUR proper place with that well-reasoned, erudite, insightful post. I'm sure you are crushed...absolultely crushed.

Um, Buck....Dr. Friedman met the Lord in 2006. Let's not drag his name through the mud.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2006 /db20061117_169299.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_busines sweek+exclusives

Buck
You just gave my post more creedence. get off the anti-depressants.

"You ain't makin' any Sale That Way,Bub!"

"Bub"? What are you, Wolverine? Chill out my friend.

Here's a reply by Denis Calabrese as to why the "FairTax is far superior to the Flat Tax". Basically the Flat Tax includes hidden taxes such as corporate taxes. The Flat Tax is good and much better than our unconstitutional system but FairTax is way better. Let me know if the link doesn't work and i'll point you to the FairTax website link.

http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/47-flattax.wvx

Now, pseud-intellect? please inform me as to the constitutionality of *any* direct tax on income, including the Flat Tax. Here's the link to David Cryer's court victory. He explains how it is not.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59 515

To Patriotic Snot
Thank You, kind Sir.

I'm amazed at how acquiescent the populace has become. It is as if they CANNOT fathom life without an income tax. I feel a tremendous sense of obligation to free this and future generations from the mass hysteria.

The Ludwig Von Mises Institute has a wonderful e-book on "The Income Tax: The Root of All Evil," here: http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp


talent scout
very true. It never even dawned on me that i was being scammed by paying taxes. I've always thought, "that's wat you do. You're a good citizen by paying taxes." But just to reiterate the pint, both to you and to Buck, there is NO LAW that says you have to fill out a 1040 form to the IRS. NONE. And yet we are by the use of force subjected to filling out a 1040 form.

FairTax all the way!!!

Betty
And I was one of them!!! as i told talent scout, I thought, "that's what you do as a good citizen." I also wondered about how the government would fund all it's stuff (and indeed it's waaaaaay too much) without an income tax. FairTax was my answer to both why we as citizens do *not* have to be taxed directly *and* how the government ccan still fund all their stuff.

Buck
As you research i'll fully welcome your explanation as to how a Flat Tax, which taxes your income, is in any way, shape, or form, constitutional.

I wonder how many
Americans have bothered to read into how the income tax came to be?
It is a sordid tale of distortions and out right fraud

Buck
You said to Betty: "Williams will not accept your National Sales Tax until three conditions are met.You Betty, are so superior,maybe you can tell us exactly what those conditions are and rebut them."

Please state those three conditions and i'll bet you kudo points those conditions are not addressed on FairTax.org

I'm still waiting for your response as to how the Flat Tax, which taxes yur income, is constitutional.

talent scout
"I wonder how many
Americans have bothered to read into how the income tax came to be?
It is a sordid tale of distortions and out right fraud."

I've never read about it except for non-mainstream news and blogs. It was "Freedom to Fascism" that first enlightened me to the fraud and that has been confirmed many times to me from World Net Daily, the Neil Boorze show and the like.

Mother of 4
Here's a clip from Denis Calabrese as to the issue of taxing services.

http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/47-flattax.wvx

Buck
I'm bored so I'm just looking at this site and still no Buck response.

how is the Flat Tax, which taxes your income constitutional.

You said to me,"When you can rebut Flat Taxers and answer the concerns of Real Conservatives like Friedman and Williams,then maybe we'll be more accepting of some of your views.Until then,"NO SALE"!"

Funny how you qualify people who support an un-Constitutional issue like taxing the nation's people directly on their income as "Real Conservatives". Nothing can be further from the truth. At least not under the type of cnservatism which describes me.

Patriotic Snot
I just wish the American people would take a very hard look at how such a system as we now have has come to be.

Its just so hard for most to think our own government will use any scam they can dream up to tax us all.

We are under the control of the most vile bunch of hoodlums this country has been able to produce with the Federal Reserve banking thieves.

Buck - Repost
I guess I love you Buck. Here's a repost with a clarifier than I'm off for a bit while I get the kids to bed.

[REPOST]
You said to Betty: "Williams will not accept your National Sales Tax until three conditions are met.You Betty, are so superior,maybe you can tell us exactly what those conditions are and rebut them."

Please state those three conditions and i'll bet you kudo points those conditions are not addressed on FairTax.org

I'm still waiting for your response as to how the Flat Tax, which taxes yur income, is constitutional.
[END REPOST]

Actually I wanted to say:

Buck, why don't you post those three qualifiers and I'll bet you kudo points that they are already addressed on FairTax.org's website.

In other words, whatever those three qualifiers are, I've complete confidence that they have already been addressed on FairTax's official website.

Betty
I notice that you have taken some flak, to put it mildly. I also am a federal tax specialist. Part of my job involves helping people with their IRS related problems. There are many good people who work for the IRS, but the system itself has almost become an out-of-control disaster in my opinion. I would love to be put out of a job by a "fair" tax system. And I do believe that to be possible. Mr. Bowyer appears to be jumping all over one particular "fair tax" proposal. I believe that a national sales tax of some sort, however unlikely to be ever enacted, is worthy of exploration as a good way to get rid of the current income tax mess. There have been countless tax "reform" acts aimed at simplifying the IRS system, and the tax code and regulations just keep growing, and growing......

Holy Caca
I need to clarify this post (Jan. 11, 7:45), ¡muy pronto!

"That's political sacred ground [the Bill of Rights] *NOT* involving rights to *NEVER* take away"

I meant "That's political sacred ground involving rights to *NEVER* take away from We the People."

Phew, glad that's clear. That double negative said something completely different than what I intended.

Buck
SO YOU SUPPORT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION? And you tie yourself with "Real Conservatives"? WOW. I'm flabberghasted.

"Brushaber vs. Union Pacific,Pollack ? As Philadelphia D.A. Lynne Abraham said "The Law is what The Supreme Court says it is !" actually i've no idea what that court case is/was. but as to the law being what the Supreme court says it is? I respectfully say, h*ll no!!! With that logic We the People own nothing as per the, what was it, the Kilo decision? Also, pending decision in the jose Medellin case which George W. threw into the judiciary, foreign courts would have a say-so in our judicial rulings. None of this is constitutional. Furthermore, if anybody agrees with laws being whatever the Supreme court says they are than we might as well abolish the other two branches of government.

Since you're too lazy t oprovide the three requirements, (I'm not going to look for them, at least not to appease you, since they are apparently not even important enough for you to post) please move on to another line of argument.

The Fair Tax
You have absolutely no Idea what you are talking about. One you never read HR25. And you just proved it.


Patriotic Snot
But which sale of that STEEL is the retail sale?

Every step in the chain is the sale of a finished product. And in the sale of the finished jar of mayonnaise to the independent deli is the retail sale the sale to the distributor (who does no production of any kind but merely warehouses it and sends it along), the sale of the mayonnaise, or the sale of the sandwhich?

"fair tax"
Fair tax is a joke. I was rich I would think a consumption tax was a boondoggle. Does a rich family of four pay 10 times as much for food as a lower middle class family? Instead of paying 20K for a car their car costs 160,000K? No it doesn't.

This reason alone is enough to kill the deal...people buying a house they are going to live in pay tax on it. People buying investment properties don't pay taxes. Should be the exact opposite.

The rich have the power and does anyone REALLY think they won't get the best deal?

What is FAIR is the FLAT tax. Close the loopholes and everyone pays 10%.

Patriotic Snot
I'm not watching videos or reading outside books.

If the "fair tax" is really as simple as its advocates keep saying then I expect that enthusiastic proponents will be able to give me a simple, straightforward explanation.

Otherwise, I have to conclude that it really isn't that simple when you try to apply it to the messy and untidy process we call life in the real world.

Mother of 4
"Patriotic Snot
But which sale of that STEEL is the retail sale?

Every step in the chain is the sale of a finished product. And in the sale of the finished jar of mayonnaise to the independent deli is the retail sale the sale to the distributor (who does no production of any kind but merely warehouses it and sends it along), the sale of the mayonnaise, or the sale of the sandwhich?"

First and foremost, do you realize that not only are sales taxed today but also the exctraction of resources? All the steps taken to get steel, mayonnaise and sandwiches to the market are taxed. and then their sales are taxed again. Not only that, but you are taxed even before you buy anything at all.

Mother of 4
On your examples of houses.
The way the FT is supposed to work is this. All products and services are FT taxed to the first consumer of the products or services. If a wholesaler keeps something in inventory for 10 years and then sells it, FT is collected. If he doesn't he pays FT.

Just remember who ever first use the products or services pays or they collect the FairTax from whomever they sell it to.

Your example of the tile bought. The wholesaler would have to show what happened to the tile; resold, still in inventory or destroyed when they are sales taxed audited. This is how state sales taxes work and they are hard to get around. Sales tax audits are every 2-3 years.

Lets say I built a sunroom on my house but I deducted all on the material and labor from my income tax. I claimed I used it to build a car wash that I was starting. But then after a few years of making not much from this 'business' I got out of it but I still deducted expenses from my income. All I had to do was lie to the IRS and claim a small amount of income from said 'business' but I would make sure I had lots of deductible expenses.

The IRS is hit and miss audits. They have 200 million(?) to watch now after the FT they would have 2-20 million.

Patriotic Snot
You are evading the question.

I admitted in my first post on the first article's responses that the current system is an unholy mess.

"Fair tax" proponents' unwillingness/inability to answer justifiable questions about how the "fair tax" applies to practical, real-world scenarios make this proposed reform seem half-baked and ill-thought-through at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

I repeat what I said previously: I'm willing to give the "fair tax" a hearing. It might indeed be better than the current mess. However all I'm hearing is hand-waving and evasion when legitimate questions are raised. That sort of behavior on the part of any idea's advocates is usually a signal that the idea lacks substance.

After all, throughout history many fine and noble-sounding ideas have been smashed on the hidden shoals uncovered when attempting to implement them in the real world and in the face of real human nature.

Taxation and Monetary Policy
Talent Scout has touched on an interesting aspect of this debate....the interplay between fiscal and monetary policy.

Gold reached yet another new, nominal high today---nearly $900/oz.

This is a legitimate part of the debate....I think Bowyer gets it at some level, but he's clearly unqualified to lead the discussion.

The Fed, M3, And the real inflation rate need to be examined at length and depth.

I remember the stagflation years of the 70's well. I think we're about to be treated to a repeat performance, courtesy of the morons at the Federal Reserve. Time will tell.




whatever twice
The idea that every piece of potentially salable property in the country will be tracked for decades to determine whether it is "new" or "used" is one of those shoals I'm talking about.

Not only would that be a bureaucratic nightmare but it would run smack into heavy public resistance because people know very well the difference between some that is new and something that is used. Redefining a heavily-used item as "new" and thus taxable, just because its never been sold at retail before, will simply not fly. Human nature forbids.

TO MEL
Thanks for your support and candid comments. I agree with you. The system is out of control. May you find fulfilling employment "on the other side." My best to you.

mother of 4
That video is about 1 minute long. You can't watch it, I can't help you.

First, what is your conclusion? Follw the status quoe? Implement a Flat Tax? Decrease taxes? What's your solution.

From what I understand, FairTax taxes only products to consumers, not warehouse folks. under our current system however, looking ofor steele is taxed, extracting ore is taxed, selling it to a refiner is taxed, selling it to the warehouse guy is taxed, selling it to the retailer is taxed, and selling it to the end-line consumer is taxed. Again this in addition to the cunsumers being taxed all along the way. Money made from selling ore is taxed as well as income paid from those profits. Money made selling a refined steel product is taxed as well as income paid to workers from those profits. Money made from selling a finished steel product to the warehouse is taxed as well as income paid to workers from those profits. Money made from selling the same finished steel profit to the final retailer is taxed as well as income paid to workers from those profits. The final sale of that finished steel product is taxed as well as income paid to workers from those profits. than those workers are taxed again when they buy a finished steel product.

UnderFairTax *ONLY* the final sale of the finished steel product is taxed, NO INCOME which is unconstitutional.

Jig Saw Puzzle
The current tax plan is a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. The Fair Tax plan is five piece pre-school puzzle. It gives a complete picture with less pieces.

Mother of 4
If you admit that the current system is a mess why will you not entertain in minute video bits?

What is *YOUR* solution if you don't like what you have?

To Patriotic Snot
Since you are interested in the Bill of Rights, you seem like the sort of chap who might be interested in Federalist No. 84. I commend it to your reading. http://patriotpost.us/fedpapers/fed_84.html

I find it to be an absolutely fascinating perspective on the debate between Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. With 200 + years of history on our side, I must conclude the Federalists were brilliant and prescient men....and correct in their assessment.

Madison's first proposal for the BOR is here:

http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/madamend.htm


Mother of 4
How do you keep a depreciation schedule? That is on the books for 20 years. Inventory is on the books until it sold or destroyed.

When you sell something now you have to have receipts on how much you paid for it and improvements so you are only taxed on the profit of the sale. Otherwise any and all of the sale would be gains.

To Buck
Have you ever read Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution?

Please reconcile the provisions of Article I, Section 8 with Dr. Paul's position vis a vis taxation.

Since we're being Constitutional, can you likewise point to that article, section, clause of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal government to oversee the retirement planning of the citizens?

The medical care of the citizens?

How about the one which authorizes every other socialist welfare program?

I commend Federalist No. 41 to your reading:

http://patriotpost.us/fedpapers/fed_41.html

Starting about 7/8ths through the document, with:

"....Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a MISCONSTRUCTION....."

Buck
again the anti-depressants are kicking in. Buy something on herbal remedies for your condition.

Ron Paul is a fraud. Also, he talks and votes but does nothing to act. I've posted as much several times right here on Townhall.com. I will vote third party if Huckabee wins the Primaries. He's pro-illegal immigrant, pro-tax increase, and currently hired a CFR insider for foreign policy advise.

I will not do your osting for you. If i look into whatever the three requirements are, i'll do so at my own pleasure. you're the lazy one for outright brining up the issue and than not posting what the issue is. If you can't do that than open another line of argument.

Here's a link on the latest of my very not-Ron-Paul-friendly posts.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/01/02/r on_paul_on_immigration?page=full&comments=true

Just look for my username.

Also, you said, "While we're at ,We want you to tell us what you know about Paul's Tax Strategy. Then we'll have a better "Take" on your Real Agenda! You're Up,Buster!" PLEASE EXPLAIN?


Betty
I've read off and on part of the federalist papers and yes, indeed, the Federalists were very much insightful as to the long-term consequences of the type of government that should be established. Thanks for the Paper 84 recommendation.

Patriotic Snot
Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and "replace it with nothing." Clearly, that's not realistic.


Buck
You said to me: "If you're such a Constitutional Purist,why don't you support Dr. Ron Paul's Strategy?" Since i aldeay addressed the Ron Paul part, let's focus on the dependent clause in your sentence, "If you're such a Constitutional Purist".

Yes, I enjoy the Constitution as have already stated why: It's a document inspired by God for Man. It set up the United States of America which is God's political blessing to the world. which is why you yourself support an un-Constitutional provision such as the Flat Tax, which taxes your income directy which the IRS itself could not defend in a court of law, and you tied that support to "Real Conservatives". As a Conservative I truly don't know how to respond to that other than to say that supporting something un-Constitutional and doing so *knowing* it is un-Constitutional, is *NOT* the conservatism I belong to, nor care to.

If supporting un-Constitutional destructive garbage is your gig, feel free to justify here why you think that way.

But again, I'm *NOT* going to do your posting for you. If you can't post three things than please don't base your argument on those three things.

Betty
My point is that Ron Paul has *done* nothing in his 30 years of public service to abolish the IRS. he talks it but doesn't act on it. The only pieces of egislation I can think of that's he's written and proposed are pork spending provisions for the 14th District of Texas. He votes against them but he does so knowing full well they will pass. He's *done* nothing for the borders, *done* nothing for Ramos and compean, *done* nothing to reduce spending, *done* nothing to abolishe the IRS. 30 years is a long time to do nothing.

This is off topic though. Feel free to post your thoughts at the John Stossel link I provided for Buck and I'll be more than happy to discuss this there.

I will hand it to Paul though, his Constitutionalist talk resonates with me and many others. I just happen to condlude it's not legit. You may think ohtherwise and that's fine with me.

Your last reply to Buck was most appropriate.

Buck
"Betty Boop
Yeah Betty, lot's of us have,Have you? I got my dog-eared book on the constitution right here at my desk.Where's yours? Now you tell us,what's unconstitutional about tariffs, excise taxes,user fees and highway fees !And why aren't you supportin' Dr. Ron Paul's Tax Strategy? And be specific ! You're up, Girlie!"

LOL, and you won't even post three things. You're up boyie.