Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul, Fair Tax, Women Voters, VICTORY! Ron Paul Should Flip-Flop on this issue.by John Armstrong
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
A few years back I was getting ready to fly to South Africa. I don't recall exactly what caused me to pick up the FairTax book by Neal Boortz and John Linder, but I did. I didn't read it on the plane until near the end of the journey; but when I got into it, I couldn't put it down. I read it when we rode from Cape Town to the Cape of Good Hope. I read it in my hut between safaris later in the trip when we were at the Kruger game reserve. The point is that even with dancing monkeys all around, I couldn't put it down. I actually read the book. Much like Ron Paul, the Fair Tax is easy to dismiss with soundbites if you don't understand it. If not for Ron Paul, I would be supporting the heck out of Huckabee for one reason and one reason only--the FairTax. But I want to have my cake and eat it too, so here is my attempt to convince you to let me.
I really feel that Ron Paul and the Fair Tax need not be mutually exclusive and adopting it as part of his platform could not only help him win, but could also serve as a mechanism to cause even more positive change for the years following Dr. Paul's time in office. Before I explain exactly how, let me start with an explanation of the Fair Tax. If you are already well versed on this issue, just skip it. But before you make a comment accusing me of being a "Huckabee shill", read the article.
The Fair Tax or FairTax
Under this legislation the income tax would be replaced with a national sales tax. Not only would individual income tax be replaced, but all capital gains, death taxes, and corporate taxes would be as well. The reason for this is that there is no such thing as a "corporate tax." It sounds good to tax a corporation, but in the end all taxes paid to the Federal Government by corporations equates to money not paid to the corporations' employees or owners (shareholders). This isn't some crackpot idea, the idea for the FairTax was created by some of America's most brilliant economic thinkers.
Here are some of the things most don't understand or consider when talk of the Fair Tax comes up:
The 23 (or 30 percent depending on how you do the math) tax is not in addition to the prices we are already paying. There is already a 20-30% invisible tax embedded in the cost of goods and services we use due to our current system. By ripping out the current system and including the national sales tax, prices would remain at essentially the same level they are now.
It doesn't hurt poor people. Every American would receive a check (or deposit) called a "prebate" at the beginning of the month for the taxes she would pay in order to meet the basic necessities of life (the first of our creator endowed rights listed as being self-evident in the Declaration of Independence). Wealthy people do pay more in this system because they buy more. But they don't pay more simply because they are "rich." If poor people choose to buy more, they would pay more on a percentage basis of their income than rich people do, but the right to consume is not a god given right and I see no reason why this would be unfair. The concept that someone should pay more because they earn more is very un-American. This system also would tax people who have inherited money and buy things with it who now don't pay much in income taxes because they don't have an income.
Another reason average Americans aren't hurt under this system is that a tax is only paid once when the item is new (at least at the federal level). The wealthy person would pay this tax on his new BMW, but Joe Mechanic wouldn't pay it on his used Accord.
Yet another reason middle income people would benefit is that they wouldn't have to pay an accountant to do their taxes each year. They also would never have to worry about an expensive audit or proving they spent what they spent in order to receive deductions or credits.
Everyone would benefit due to charitable giving. It is a mistake that people only give because they receive a tax deduction for doing so. Studies have shown that charitable giving increased dramatically when Reagan dropped the tax rates. If people have more money, they give more away. It's that simple. This giving would help more average and poor Americans in need.
People would get to take home 100% of their paychecks--not what's left after the government gets its part. They could use this money to buy stuff at essentially the same prices they are paying now.
By eliminating all federal corporate taxes we would get most, if not all of our jobs back from overseas and some new ones as well. This would create an historic economic boom. Every company in the world would have to move to the United States in order to compete due to our tax system. The ending of capital gains taxes would encourage investing creating yet more impetus for strong economic growth and even more better paying jobs where people got 100% of their pay and spent it creating more prosperity and more income for the government.
Since all of our illegal immigrants don't pay income tax but do buy things, they would then pay into the system they are currently robbing. Same with drug dealers, bookies, prostitutes, etc. Ever see a movie with a drug dealer riding in a Pinto?
The cost of collecting such a tax would be miniscule in comparison to the cost of running the IRS. You can look up the numbers www.fairtax.org, but the cost of supporting the infrastructure of the IRS is ridiculous. All it would cost for this new system is changing a number in a cash register as well as a little paperwork for each state or establishment to send into Washington. This cost is taken into consideration in the plan and the states would be reimbursed for this small cost.
People could still cheat on their taxes, but it would now require two people (the merchant and buyer) to do it instead of just one. Now the government cheats people out of money by having a code that is so complex nobody understands it so they don't take all of the deductions they could.
It would put a lot of people out of work (IRS agents, lobbyists tax attorneys, accountants, tax compliance officers, etc.) but the resulting economic boom would quickly find a way to use these bright people's minds and efforts in a way that would actually be productive to our country instead of making them cops and crooks in order to enforce our current system.
The increased money the government would receive should be enough to actually save all of the programs we have like Social Security, etc.
So what's the hold up? Well, under the current system the people who make the laws, the lobbyists and powerful corporations--not the Congress elected by the people, get special favors and tax exemptions. While paying taxes may cost these groups more than paying no taxes would, in business it's about having an advantage over your competition. And while company X may have to pay 20% under this system instead of 0% under the Fair Tax, paying 20% is still good if your lobbyists got you that rate while your main competitor has to pay 30%. Another reason is that right now the government owns all of your individual income and allows you to keep a certain amount. If you don't believe me, just don't pay your taxes for a while and see how quickly they can take everything for you in order to satisfy your tax debt. Why would they want to give this up?
This is Where Ron Paul Comes in
David Cox wrote an article recently on lewrockwell.com recently about the problems with the FairTax. The overall theme of this article is that we could end up with both the national sales tax AND the income tax. And I agree with him. It is possible which is why Huckabee supporting the Fair Tax is kinda scary. The 16th Amendment would have to be repealed in order to ensure we didn't have both. Who is the one man that you know would make sure we got rid of the IRS? Ron Paul.
Now to how adopting the Fair Tax could help Ron Paul win, why it fits him philosophically, and why it would be good for our country long term.
First of all, he could adopt this positiong quickly without selling out his principles. It would be a way to eliminate the IRS. He has said he would replace it with nothing, but he has also said that he doesn't believe with the state we are in he would actually be able to end the IRS in just a 4 year period. He could explain that he would adopt the Fairtax to eliminate the IRS and thus end a massive government bureaucracy and by implementing his reduced spending plan, eventually we would be able to end the FairTax (which would be far easier) altogether.
Politically this would be a major coup. Outside of the Religious Neo-Conservatives, Huckabee draws most of his support from proponents of the Fair Tax. These supporters are quite well organized and do things the Ron Paul camp does to support their cause like going to post offices on April 15th to hand out literature, having a national distribution list of supporters, and a list of all representatives and where they stand on the issue of the FairTax. Other than the FairTax, these people have far more in common with Dr. Paul than they do Mike Huckabee as evidenced by one of the prevailing themes of the Fair Tax--do away with the guilty until proven innocent, government owns you and all of your property mindset that comes from the IRS. Getting all of these people on Ron Paul's side wouldn't be hard and would provide a major boost for him. Not unlike Ron Paul supporters who are willing to stomach some of the issues on which they don't agree with him for the overall good of his other policies, the FairTax proponents believe so strongly in the FairTax they are willing to support Huckabee even if it means looking the other way on some of his other issues.
Ron Paul himself has suggested in interviews that a National Sales Tax may be a way to make up for the government revenues lost by eliminating the IRS. While those of us who understand Ron Paul's candidacy believe that the IRS could be replaced with nothing if the government did what it was actually legally allowed to do under the Constitution, most American voters do not understand this or believe it. Statements like these (and the work of the MSM) serve to marginalize Ron Paul's message and undermine his legitimacy as a candidate among the average American. They may not like the IRS, but they believe it has to be replaced by something.
I think this is part of the reason Ron Paul doesn't do as well among women as he does with men. Let me explain by giving a personal example. I was engaged to a girl I dated for over four years back in 2004. I'll spare the details, but we ended up not getting married. I read a lot during the period after my engagement ended about the psychological make up of women; granted, as Ron Paul himself would say, we are all individuals. As individuals we all have rights, but people do tend to think certain ways as a group--like the religious right. So while the example I am about to give absolutely doesn't hold true for everyone it is still an interesting and applicable insight.
There is one thing I read during that time that really stands out to me and is relevant here. A man will end a long relationship with a woman even if he currently has no other dating prospects. Women are quite unlikely to end a long relationship unless they have somebody else already in place. The idea of ending the IRS and replacing it with nothing is appealing to men, but not to women and people who think like them. Since our government has now become a "nanny" and most people seem not to care, it isn't that much of a stretch to conclude that most people think more like the stereotypical security minded woman than a freedom-loving stereotypical man. More women voters means more likelihood of winning the nomination and election. Having a replacement plan instead of trying to convince people of something that seems nearly impossible like ending the IRS (death and taxes, after all) is a far easier sale to make.
The biggest danger I see in the Fair Tax is that it WOULD increase government revenues dramatically. Many of you probably have a relative or friend who makes a lot of money but never seems to have any. Maybe that person is you. While Ron Paul emphasizes and runs his office the Dave Ramsey way, most people and politicians don't. There is a reason most people who win the lottery end up broke again later down the road. There is a reason people can't pay their mortgages or qualify for refinancing. The reason is their personal spending habits. And Washington D.C. has a bank statement full of NSF fees long enough to make Britney Spears look like a school marm. No matter how much they make, they will find a way to blow it. Unless the person writing the checks is someone we can trust. Who could that be? Maybe someone who returns part of his congressional office budget to the treasury each year? Maybe someone who doesn't participate in the congressional pension program that taxpayers pay for? Maybe someone who didn’t vote for Rosa Parks, a personal hero of his, to receive a Congressional Medal that would have "only cost" the taxpayers a few ten thousands of dollars? Seems like a good choice to me.
If Ron Paul would adopt the Fair Tax, he would certainly seem more electable. If he were elected and the Fair Tax was passed, he could be trusted to spend the money wisely and constitutionally. We actually could get out of debt. We could save the programs that generations of Americans have become dependent upon. Once people received their entire paychecks and could see what they had been missing, they would be a lot more likely to accept the entire pro-freedom message since individual financial freedom is the one freedom that hits home first and most. These new voters could be counted on to put the right kind of people in office for years to come, and following the example set by legendary President Ron Paul, our national sales tax could go from 23% to something in the future like 2 or 3% once the debt was paid, productivity, opportunity, and income had increased exponentially, and government had been returned to its proper constitutional levels. If the FairTax passes and a normal candidate has the checkbook, it could one day be 50% and that still wouldn't be enough. I think the FairTax and Ron Paul could be a winning ticket.
Your fellow American,
John Armstrong
Like this Article? Thumb it.
Want to comment? It's fun. You have the same 1st Amendment Right that I do. Use it. I don't have the right to not have my feelings hurt if you don't like it.
Want to send it to a friend? Use the button below to send it to yourself first, then forward it on to avoid spam filters.
As always, and unlike the NFL, any rebroadcasts, retransmissions, accounts of this article, or downright theft of words or ideas contained herein, are completely okay with me when used to promote the cause of the Restoration of our Republic.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 249 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Dear John,
I read much passion in your post, we are all long past due at really looking at where America's wealth has gone.
Just like we need to address foreign policy when discussing the economy we need to address the Federal Reserve when considering taxes. The income tax was created to pay the central bank.
There may be a place for the tax method you describe, but we will never get out of hock as long as we use a debt based currency.
Please watch this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204
Or if your pressed for time, it's a long video, just watch part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683
Getting even close to shrinking the debt will cause a different kind of blowback. To be able to handle that blowback we would need to understand what's causing it.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-01-02 03:32:57
Greenback. I'm with you. Just trying to draw some fairtax people to our side. I have a common sense way of explaining monetary issue piece coming out soon. Thanks for those links. I might include them. I have a lot of passion if nothing else. Thanks for reading.
Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown, because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. Tom Frey, of the DiVinci Institute, foresees the coming collapse of the income tax system.
Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It's:
• SIMPLE, easy to understand
• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
• FAIR, loophole free and everyone pays their share
• LOW TAX RATE, achieved by broad base with no exclusions
• PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible
• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
• PRODUCTIVE, rewards, rather than penalizes, work and productivity
Its benefits are as follows:
FOR INDIVIDUALS:
• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
• You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"
• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
• Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices (due to reduced costs, increased competition)
• 29.9% mark-up yields 23% FairTax portion of prices
• Over the first year, "market-adjusted" FairTax prices comparable to current
• Every household receives a monthly check, or "prebate"
• "Prebate" is "advance payback" for monthly consumption to poverty level
• FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection
• Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
• Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry
• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS by individuals
• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates
FOR BUSINESSES:
• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
• Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"
• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
• No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
• Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S
• No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers
• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
• Global "free (and equitable) trade" becomes possible for currently-disadvanted U.S. exports
• US exports increase their share of foreign markets
FOR THE COUNTRY:
• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
• Jobs return to the U.S.
• Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.
• Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"
• Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"
• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie" increases
• No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business
• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow
The income tax system must ultimately fail, if for no other reason than that Washington politicians cannot seem to wean themselves from being "sucked down the spending hole" while seeking ways to hide the magnitude of taxation from those who ultimately pay for all of it - every working American. It's well past time to scrap the tax code and pay for government the way that America's working men and women are paid - when something is sold.
Something very similar to this article has been running through my head for a while as well but I've never managed to get it from my head onto the net. There are a couple of key points that I would like to add to what you have presented well here.
First, under a Ron Paul administration, the FairTax could be started at a significantly lower rate than the current proponents advocate as savings from our overseas expenditures would be realized almost immediately and pork projects would rapidly drop off the book as President Paul wields the mighty Veto pen. This advantage would make the FairTax under President Paul more palatable to those who worry about the rate being unbearably high. Starting at that lower rate would also reduce the dramatic windfall to the federal government that you worry about.
Second, I believe it is important to note that the FairTax may be the best chance to eliminate a great raft of other taxes, especially the corporate income tax and the inheritance tax, that pose as great a redistributionist threat to our economy but may not be as popular to eliminate as the dreaded income tax. If the income tax is eliminated without eliminating these other taxes as well, there will be very little further political impetus and consensus to finish the job as these taxes are typically hidden to the average American. If instead spending equivalent to the current income taxes is eliminated and the other taxes are replaced with the very visible FairTax the focus can then be shifted to continued reduced spending and the reduction of the FairTax rate to that which will support only proper Constitutional government function.
If the long term goal is elimination of as many taxes as possible then I think that the FairTax is a logical first step. I am aware that it has flaws and will require diligent attention during the next several administrations to prevent special interests from abusing and inflating it as thoroughly as they have the income tax, but it does have the advantage that any increases are immediately noticeable each time a consumer (that's every last one of us) walks up to a cash register.
I am also in agreement with Greenback above that the bigger issue is the Federal Reserve and the damage the fiat monetary system is doing to each and every one of us, but that is fairly well covered in Dr. Paul's other policy statements and in my humble opinion the FairTax could be a reasonable and principled plank to add to the good Doctor's platform.
Posted By: Helena Handbasket
Date: 2008-01-02 09:08:47
"Fair Tax" is Unfair Extortion
Ron Paul will support either of two taxes as being Constitutional if they are taken to the floor of Congress: the so-called "Fair Tax", or the NO TAX. He unveiled the details of the NO TAX on the Tonight Show in approximately the words, "I favor a flat tax, but I mean real flat, like zero." The NO TAX is the abolition of the individual income tax and the replacement of it with NOTHING! It necessarily requires the trimming of our budget by a few years' overgrowth, which is no problem for a Paul administration.
Every bullet point in favor of the "fair" tax is either matched or greatly exceeded by the NO TAX. (Even the corporate income tax would eventually be removed under a true NO TAX, but on a more gradual basis.) Anyone who compares the two versions and finds the "fair" tax fairer than the NO TAX has an agenda to push in favor of collectivists and against we the people.
The "fair" tax can only be sold by overcoming the initial public resistance to paying 30% extra every time they purchase. That may be spun aside just as a single "bimbo eruption" might. But after you realize the other problems with the "fair" tax you begin to spot the pattern:
How do you apply for the "prebate"? By permitting monthly government watching of your address and data. Same as "income tax refund", but more frequent. Where does the "prebate" come from? Deceptive accounting, same as the "income tax refund". Why would citizens become more aware because they see it at the register? They won't, same as the "withholding" system. Why would tax minimization end under the new regime? It won't; bizarre tax loopholes will be organized, same as under the old: in fact, the black market of "used" items will explode. Why will government spending be reined in? It won't, they will overspend by just enough to stay pretentiously solvent, just as the old system.
The problem is not the tax method. The problem is the evil of considering usurious taxation at all. Rearranging the deck chairs will solve no problems except those of the captain who wants to bail out his boat for another couple cycles by ensuring his own income streams while deceiving the people at the same time. Our problems remain as long as we permit evil men to offer us "heads I win, tails you lose".
The only solution is restoring morality. That will lead to NO TAX, RON PAUL, VOTERS UNITED, and VICTORY.
Posted By: FTF Institute
Date: 2008-01-02 09:58:58
The FairTax is nothing more than a fraud dreamed up and funded by billionaires to shift the tax burden to the middle class. It is not Libertarian as it increases the size and power of government and forces everyone into depending on the government for a monthly prebate check.
The FairTax plan taxes hard work - the sweat of our brows and the toil of our labor - while at the same time it makes free welfare money (inheritances, gifts, and capital gains), that wasn't worked for and wasn't earned, completely tax free. The FairTax is ANTI-FAMILY. The FairTax penalizes poor families for buying food, clothes, shelter, and medical care by taxing all the basic necessities of life. These things are NOT taxed right now (and shouldn't be) but they ARE HEAVILY TAXED under the FairTax plan. Remember this when you get barraged by a FairTax supporter that says the prebate will give you a portion of this additional tax back and you should be grateful to the new Big Brother Government for giving you anything back.
The FairTax bill penalizes those who live paycheck to paycheck taxing every dollar spent to make ends meet while UN-TAXING the rich and wealthy who live off of inheritances, trusts, gifts, and old money. The working poor spend everything they earn just to live so they are taxed on everything they earn under the FairTax (100 percent of income taxed). The rich spend only a fraction of their income on basic needs consumption so that are taxed on very little of what they earn. In other words, under the FairTax the poor will pay taxes on 100 percent and the rich are taxed on only 5 percent (or less).
For the real truth about the FairTax check out the FairTax Fraud Institute website (fairtaxfraud.com).
Posted By: Michael A. Miklasz
Date: 2008-01-02 10:00:41
I've studied the Fair Tax amendment ( HR25 ) and have read the book. I support the Fair Tax as a good second-option to a better solution.
I hope I'm not over-simplifying by stating that what we,as citizens, need to do to implement the Fair Tax is to contact our representatives in congress and let them know that that's what we want. Yes?
On the SAME hand, all we need to do, as citizens, is let our representatives know that we will no longer tolerate wasteful ( unconstitutional ) spending.
In my ( not at all humble ) opinion, it's just as easy to get congress to implement spending cuts as it is to implement the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax might be easier, as it allows for spending at current levels... but doesn't help fix the problem.
The Fair Tax is nothing but a temporary solution, which replaces a huge bureaucratic waste ( IRS ) with a smaller bureaucratic waste ( the agency that will STILL keep track of Americans' income and issue the Prebates ).
Since each solution requires convincing congress... why not go with the Ron Paul solution? - Cut spending to the level it was 10 years ago.
The Fair Tax says: It's OK, we can still afford it. Cutting spending says: It's NOT OK... let's stop it.
I am a FairTax supporter and would welcome Mr. Paul's support, however, the rhetoric from and surrounding Mr. Paul scares me a little. I agree many government departments are broken, but that doesn't mean that they did not have a good premise when they were created or a needed function in the future. Rather than making blanket statements that certain departments would be closed, it would seem to me that it would be more prudent to see if they can be repaired and returned to serve the need that exists today.
My fear is that we are "throwing out the baby with the bath water".
My problem with FairTax is that there is nothing to prevent a) an almost immediate increase in the tax percentage and b) nothing to prevent setting up another income tax immediately. And wouldn't we just be replacing the IRS bureaucracy with a FairTax bureaucracy? Someone will have to keep up with all those prebates.
I do not and cannot trust the government to stop picking my pockets until I am literally working for the government, relying on it to give back to me whatever it deems I should have.
Duane is not quite getting it yet. Many government programs had "good intentions" behind them at the onset. It does not take long for any and all of them to deteriorate into ineffective money pits requiring ever-increasing funds. I am not sure why these so-called "compassionate" programs turn into huge black holes, but it may have something to do with them being unconstitutional in the first place. Politicians have such a sense of shame about them that they are forced by their own consciences to keep expanding them into infinity lest one atom somewhere is "left out". They fear a possible political backlash from that one atom...
Abstinence is the best prescription. Just don't let well- meaning, self-righteous politicians have access to your pockets in the first place. Why are we not allowed to grow up and be willingly compassionate as individuals?
I hope you realize there is nothing stopping congress from increasing your taxes today. There is also nothing to stop them from establishing a national consumption tax on top of the income tax today. Even repeal of the 16th amendment does not make income tax unconstitutional, it simply makes it much more difficult to manage because it would have to be apportioned among the states.
As far as a bureaucracy to administer the FairTax it already exists in 45 states and the District of Columbia. Those are the states with a sales tax. Determining eligibility for the prebate would fall to the Social Security Administration.
From your second paragraph, I don't see where working for the government makes you any safer than the rest of us.
You sound like a home owner whose house has fallen into disrepair and the only solution you can see is to burn it down and build a new one. But wait, you don't want to build a new one.
Your final comment makes you sound just like a FairTax supporter. That's what we want to do. We want our entire paycheck and to decide when and how much we pay in taxes.
Dr. Paul has pointed out that all present personal income tax revenue is unneccesary if we merely roll back federal spending to the level of only a decade or less ago. He has a clear plan for doing so. Who among us can cogently argue such a rollback to be infeasible? Let's keep our eye on the prize, less government, not how to better pay for the government we've got.
Eek! No, Duane, I do NOT support FairTax. I see no sense in replacing one tax with another and calling it by a different name that "sounds" better. I can call sauerkraut "ice cream", but it will still be sour. I am for eliminating the taxes completely. The availability of tax revenues will always ultimately swell the size of government. If they have it, they will spend it.
I do work for the government indirectly because it takes first claim on all my labors. I do NOT receive a paycheck directly from the government, however. I just figure that it will come to the time when the government reaps all the fruits of my labor no matter where I work and doles out only what it wants me to have; it might even be enough to eat on. Think "gulag".
I know Congress can raise taxes anytime. I am a Huckabee survivor and am familiar with all the sneaky mechanisms in place to raise taxes. For instance, there was an outcry by landowners in Arkansas over being the only ones supporting the schools through RE taxes. Mike said OK, I will give all homeowners a Homestead exemption and replace the RE tax with a sales tax.
The outcome was that I now pay way more in sales taxes in a years' time than the exemption saved me and the poor guy with three or four kids pays way more than I do because he has to consume more (we are so bass-ackwards here that groceries are still taxed, but there is an effort underway to rid ourselves of that). The state's coffers swelled and the size of our state government along with it. Huckabee knows what replacing a flat tax with a sales tax can do and it is no wonder that he is all for it.
One could say that it is more fair but the people with children are the hardest hit. There are no prebates for them under this system. And there may be things that won't be taxed under FairTax. I predict that "rich white men's toys" may merit exemptions from this tax before the last fix, er, tweak, is in. We still suffer from corporate lobbying in America.
I know this is all supposed to be run through the various sales tax collection offices in each state. I am also aware of "Federal creep" where the Federal government injects itself into all the states business. I figure this will ultimately wind up with us having a "mini-IRS" in each state to watch over and enforce their "right" to our money. Sounds hideous.
Just sayin' that I do not trust the government to regulate itself. It is turning into the Blob, eating and growing. The bigger it gets, the more it needs to eat. The only way to check it is to starve it. They need to let me keep my paycheck and allow me to tell them what I feel needs to be spent. Cut government spending, throw out taxes, and leave me alone is pretty much my attitude toward federal government.
Abstinence for the Feds is what I meant. My house is not in disrepair but my country's house is in grave danger of falling completely apart.
Perhaps a FairTax may be an option at some point if we cannot rid ourselves of taxes entirely. I hope for the ultimate tax relief myself. Sorry for being too vague in my first post. I am voting for Ron Paul if that tells you anything ;-)
I've read your comments before. If you think the 300+ pages of HR 25 is long try ready the current tax code and regulations. It's over 60,000 pages and so complicated that if you ask the same question of 5 experts you will get 5 different answers.
The FairTax has NEVER been touted as governmental reform. It is simply a replacement for taxes on income. A different system for funding the government as it exists.
If you can change the government so that less money is spent then blessings upon you. But I live in the United States today and I believe that the FairTax is far better for this nation than the current system today. Besides, when you accomplish your goals it would be much easier to get rid of than today's system. Just change the rate to zero and stop the prebate.
Hi Edie. Like you, I haven't explained my position in the correct terms. Perhaps my response to Tom better clarifies my position.
BTW the Prebate is based on household size so the children do effect the amount the household receives.
Good luck between now and November '08. I know Mr. Paul has said he would never run as a Libertarian but he has a real uphill climb among the Republicans.
Posted By: Kevin Andrews
Date: 2008-01-03 07:16:00
Not every candidate will offer everyone, everything but character matters and Ron's got it. To that end, I wish he would support the FairTax, which on my scorecard is the No. 2 issue that affects America's future. It is a very Libertarian idea.
But the "War Against Islamic Fascism" is No. 1 with me and all other issues are trumped when we don't succeed. Unfortunately, he believes it is the coin of the realm for the Neocons.
Just a point of clarification..
There is NO requirement under the FairTax to report your INCOME for the purposes of receiving the PREBATE. That is calculated on FAMILY SIZE, not income. And, for all of you people who say the prebate is welfare, it is not! It is the mechanism by which the FairTax untaxes the poor. Without it, this bill would have no chance whatsoever of passing!
Edie, I can tell by your post that you have not looked at the FairTax at all. You have numeroue misstatements in your post. Please educate yourself about the details of the bill first. I have not known anyone who has been educated on the facts of the FairTax that was not for it!
All that aside, the MOST IMPORTANT thing the FairTax does is return the power to the people of this country. Anyone who says they dislike the "politics of Washington" should love it!
You have given the best description of the FairTax I have read. Thank you. I also agree with your view that implementation of the FairTax would be a positive first step to drastically reducing, if not eliminating, our tax burden. However, one thing needs to be put into proper context. As Ronald Reagan said, Presidents don't spend money, Congress does. We have the priveledge and responsibility to not only elect a President in 2008, but to send pink slips to every Congressman and Senator who votes to forcibly take our property and spend it like drunken sailors. If we want to see real change, we need to send these tyrants home. Let's not get distracted by the Presidential election and forget there are other local, state, and federal officeholders that we need to either vote for or fire.
I believe that our income tax needs to be either changed or discarded all together. That being said, I do not believe that the fair tax will ever pass.
And this is why:
Under the current income tax system, 98% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% earners, meaning the bottom 50% pay virtually no income taxes. Also many in the "bottom 50%" are eilgible for the EITC, meaning they get refunds when the did not pay any in. In effect a form of welfare or income redistribtuion.
How are you ever going to convince the media and the "poor" that they can benefit from a major tax change to our system, when they currently don't pay any income taxes?
The answer is you can't. No sooner will the fair tax passs, CBS will bring out the "poor" family of 4 that no longer receives their annual refund and talk about how they have been hurt by the new law.
As long as that situation exists, no fair tax will ever become law.
Add if you think tax changes are hard now, wait until the minority of our population pays 100% of the income tax.
All these tax proposals and their supporters always make me chuckle. You people accept the notion that government is entitled to the fruits of my labor. It is not. This is what you can't seem to get through your thick skulls. You can twist and manipulate taxation however you like; at the end of the day, it still amounts to armed robbery.
John, I am one of those voters that would support Paul if he would change his position on this one issue. My husband is also one of those voters. You did a fantastic job of illustrating this point. I understand that you are not trying to say that the Fair Tax is the final solution. You are saying that it is a great step along the way in a Libertarian plan for (no)government. I would be surprised if Paul would lose any of his current supporters if he embraced the Fair Tax so long as he was honest that he saw it as an interim solution. And the number of supporters he would gain, well, just figure it out from the Fair Tax book sales. I don't like Huckabee. I remember being so disappointed to read that he supported farm subsidies when I first learned about him 6 months ago (when I heard about this dark horse candidate supporting the fair tax) among other big government issues that I would prefer he didn't support.
But when I weigh all the issues and assign my priorities to them, well, I admit that I would probably hold my nose and vote for Huckabee. And my mentality/stance/views are what you are trying to communicate to the Libertarian base supporting Ron Paul. Libertarians are always saying how many Americans have Libertarian-leaning views and how if more Americans knew what the LP stood for, they would support it. Well, I know what it stands for and I support it, but I support the Fair Tax too. Maybe it's time for Paul supporters to dial down the hostility towards the Fair Tax supporters and realize that with more of us on the same side, we can take the first steps on the journey towards decreasing the size of government.
Posted By: Roger Hermann
Date: 2008-01-03 08:34:11
I enjoyed reading your article. I have to say that the flat tax is definitely better than the income tax, but that is like saying that a cut is better than a bullet hole. The problem I see is that if it is instituted, we will experience tax creep. People will want exceptions for good causes. Next we will have people upset because they will see that it is not that difficult to find a merchant and a customer who will conspire to avoid it. This will lead to calls for enforcement which will grow the beast until it becomes as oppressive as the existing IRS.
"Maybe it's time for Paul supporters to dial down the hostility towards the Fair Tax supporters and realize that with more of us on the same side, we can take the first steps on the journey towards decreasing the size of government."
The fairtax supportes state that it is revenue neutrel. It is the vehicle that collects taxes, not spend them. The journey towards decreasing the size of government can only be realized by spending less, something that even conservative republicans can't seem to do. Our federal government doubles in size every 10 years.
This forum is a breath of fresh air. This is the first discussion board I have seen in a long time where someone didn't call someone else a "moron" or other nasty name because they don't see eye to eye. It is a real discussion.
We probably will never see things the same way, but I have enjoyed the discussion. I just cannot reconcile myself to being a slave to the government and that is how I see their push to tax my income OR what I consume.
I am tired of feeding the Blob while it does its best to consume me via spying and removal of my rights. When something hurts a person it seems the logical step is to remove it from one's life, not to keep feeding it a slightly different diet so it can hurt you even more. I instinctively reject anyone or anything's "right" to own my work or spy on me in any way. The only way I see accomplishing that is to starve it out. I am a realist; I know there will always be some form of government in our local and state municipalities, but I have always felt that the smaller it is, the easier it is to work with. Just sayin'.
The games begin tonight in Iowa so I am popping the corn and planning on an all night saturation of political intrigue and ups and downs. It is heartening to see so many people so interested in the process this year. If nothing else, I do believe that the apathy has lifted in America and people are deciding to be heard at long last.
Posted By: Rob in Raleigh
Date: 2008-01-03 09:53:39
While I admit that the Fair Tax is much better than our current system, I am still completely against it. I support Ron Paul's stance of repealling the 16th, abolishing the IRS and income tax and replacing it with NOTHING!
My two biggest beefs with the Fair Tax are:
1) Another massive bureacracy will have to be created to deal with these ridiculous "prebates". Also, heroic entrepreneurs will surely be harrassed by this new batch of bureacrats that will replace the evil IRS, since now the taxes will be collected by sellers. This is unacceptable.
2 ) The biggest complaint is that the Fair Tax will deliver the same amount or more to the federal government every year. This is absolutely beyond unacceptable. The citizens of this country have no obligation to keep funding this government at its current unconstitutional and illegal size and scope. The size and power of this government needs to immediatley be minimized, not maintained.
The only way I'll ever even consider supporting the fair tax is if the rate is changed from 23% to maybe 3% (at most).
Until then, I'll support Ron Paul and his plan for 0% taxation and returning government to minimum size, ensuring the citizens their natural right to be free of tyranny, foreign or domestic.
I don't want to sound crass, but the posts here that decry the FairTax in favor of no tax somehow remind me of the child who will hold their breath to get what they want. They never do. It's hard enough to educate people on the real merits of the FairTax let alone replace the income tax with nothing. The FairTax can be passed with enough support from the people. No tax would take devine intervention or armed revolt. The latter has been done. I don't think that will happen again.
Posted By: Alex Wallenwein
Date: 2008-01-03 10:54:15
I tried to make a short post, but it turned into an article. Look for "How Ron Paul Will govern" here on NolanChart.
Three points for now:
(1) The FairTax leaves Congress with the same pending power it has now. The federal government under President Paul will not need that kind of money.
(2) The FairTax leaves the door open for Congress to hike the tax any time it wants to. That's bad news! Once the Fed is gone (and no more debts are owed to it), why does Congress need that kind of money?
(3) If we get to keep all of that money, both commerce and charitable giving will increase many times over. There is no need for a fair tax. States can impose income taxes if they want to. Then, peole sitll have a choice to move and avoid it. Why does the fedgov need that money?
Posted By: Rob in Raleigh
Date: 2008-01-03 11:12:59
To Tom Krop:
So a 23% sales tax that will keep this government massive and bloated will get the people's support, but 0% personal taxation which will force government to have discipline will get none? I doubt that.
All a president would have to do is go on TV and say "I want the income tax and IRS gone. Tell your representatives that if this is not done, they will not be reelected." Then if they didn't do it, the ones that replace them would.
But most importantly, as Ron Paul knows and has stated, the Federal Reserve must be addressed and dealt with. "Enacting the Fair Tax while leaving the Federal Reserve intact is like replacing the shingles on a house that's about to collapse due to a rotten foundation... pointless." That's what a friend of mine, who is an economics guru told me recntly.
You Fair Taxers need to look at the Fed. Since Neal Boortz is too lazy to, he's not going to tell you what you need to know, and what you need to know is that the The Fed is the root of all evil and is for all intents and purposes, more powerful than the government itself.
Look into The Fed and you'll be supporting Ron Paul in no time.
All a president would have to do is go on TV and say "I want the income tax and IRS gone. Tell your representatives that if this is not done, they will not be reelected." Then if they didn't do it, the ones that replace them would.
Are you serious? That announcement would be followed by a 24/7 barrage of ads and "news stories" from the MSM about how the "poor" and "the children" will suffer without all their programs from the nanny state. And where would we find 535 candidates willing to step up and run to replace those that wouldn't vote to abolish the IRS -- especially knowing that billions of dollars will be spent to support their opponent?
You first have to shrink the government and wean the dependent classes off the government teat. You cannot kill the monster by starving it. You must weaken it first and reduce it's appetite.
The FairTax is NOT supposed to modify the size of government or the amount of spending/waste which occurs.
The FairTax is simply a replacement system for the funding of the government as it exists. If your goal is to modify government the FairTax will not stand in your way, in fact it will make ending taxing on citizens easy. If you want a zero tax rate, and can reduce government spending sufficiently, the the FairTax is the best system to have in place. Just set the rate to zero.
The sense I get from reading the comments that many do not look at the big picture. To that end may I suggest that, those who have not already, read "The World Is Flat" by Thomas Friedman.
John's recitation of his engagement back in 2004 suggests that he is very much younger than I am, as do many of the comments to the article suggest the same of their authors. That means, most of you have lived in an era of massive central government and high, intrusive theft of your income. I am, for the record, the same age as Ron Paul, and I can remember a very different America, as I'm sure he does.
Back about 1960, a man named Willis Stone wrote something called "The Liberty Amendment." A brief 4 paragraphs, it held that federal government was involved in many business activities that had no constitutional authority for their existence, that within 3 years after the ratification of the amendment the feds would divest of all such unconstitutional activities, and since this divestiture would save so much in government spending, within 3 years of such divestiture, the 16th Amendment would stand repealed.
I give you one guess who has carried the Liberty Amendment to Congress! (By the way, I met Willis Stone in person in 1964 or so and Ron Paul about 5 years ago.) Also, the Liberty Amendment continues to be introduced to the Congress from time to time, where it languishes as do many good bills that would really help the country.
Now retired, I checked the Fair Tax Calculator, and it would appear that on my meager retirement funds, it would cost me about $8,000 a year MORE under the so-called "Fair" Tax. If I had no other objections, that alone would do it for me.
As several have commented above, there is nothing to prevent Congress from enacting BOTH a "Fair" Tax and an income tax. In fact, having studied the latter for nigh onto 20 years now, setting aside all the controversy over whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified or not, I know that 1) the income tax is unconstitutional in its application because it is administered as a direct tax, which is to be apportioned under the Constitution, and 2) the Brushaber decision of the Supreme Court in 1913 decided that the amendment gave Congress no new taxing power that it didn't already have under the Constitution. Ergo, repeal the 16th and I guarantee you Congress-critters will vomit up the Brushaber decision in a big hurry to re-enact an income tax---especially with the likes of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and/or Pelosi in charge!
As for rates, there is an anecdote about the discussion of tax rates in about 1914. Though the original rate was to be 3%, a cap of 10% was proposed, to which one Congressman stood up to object saying, "If we put a cap at 10%, some day some damn fool will want to raise it that high."
Dr. Paul is absolutely correct on two fronts. What we need to repeal is the Federal Reserve Act and get back on a sound money basis, and Congress must cut spending, which it would be forced to do if we had sound money.
There's nothing particularly fair about the "Fair" Tax except to the youngsters who cannot remember a time of sound money (as I can) and greater restraint by Congress on spending.
Let's elect Dr. Paul and give his program a chance before enacting something that may---I daresay will---become a real Frankenstein's monster!
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-01-04 01:11:05
1. The Fairtax would not be fair to people like Susana whose income was taxed her entire life and now with little income would be taxed again. This is true. However, Susana, it was your generation of voters who gave us this bloated government to begin with so consider that a tax on poor voting decisions.
2. The FairTax wouldn't be "better" than the income tax in that it wouldn't limit the size of the federal government. In fact, it might increase it because of the increased revenue and business productivity that would abound. HOWEVER, it would get rid of the IRS, give people a little taste of freedom, and be a major stimulant for the economy. None of those are bad things.
3. The point I am making is that the people who allowed my generation to be saddled with this obtrusive, obtuse government are also the ones who "can't believe" it's possible to end the IRS. Like (in some article I read) a baby elephant tied to a tree with a chain and kept there its whole life can't believe that it is able to break free from the tree when it is grown simply because it never remembers a time it wasn't free and has simply stopped trying.
3. Why do you think young people and idealists support Ron Paul? Because they are too young or too idealistic to not believe. They believe him when they say it's possible to have no IRS. They use the internet instead of the MSM for research and know that our government is disobeying its contract with us. Most voters aren't young nor are they idealists. The beauty of Ron Paul's campaign is that these ideas are hard to kill and are "plants of rapid growth." With these ideas and the continued, increasing power of the internet, by the time the next election rolls around, the majority of Americans may prove the Libertarian Party right in its claims that most Americans are Libertarians, they just don't know it yet. I just want a President THIS time who can be elected and then be trusted to cut the government down to its proper size. Ron Paul is that man. In four years there is no reason to believe that our FairTax rate couldn't be 10% or less with a responsible president and Congress. But unless we are willing to "compromise" and get an issue in our camp around which many, many voters can rally, we may end up with a FairTax but no responsibility in Washington.
4. The American voter is (by media design) not well informed. If they were, none of this would have happened to begin with. We are fighting decades of ignorance here. I would love for the government to return to sound money, make good (Constitutional) decisions, and I believe Ron Paul would do that, but he has to get elected first. My hope is that if he doesn't get on board with this issue, he has enough time between now and November to really do some more enlightening of the people because he has to be elected first. This would be the easiest way to do it.
Posted By: Raymond Paul Moats
Date: 2008-01-04 07:00:00
The Much Hated & Misunderstood
Income Tax. . . ?
A subject of debate and cause for discord among the people is the Federal Income Tax administered by the IRS under the President of the United States. Many questions and speculations remain unanswered about it's application.
One must first set some rules in the following material.
It's not the 16th Amendment, or belief, but of duty, of having knowledge of the facts read in law. The law is black and white, not open for personal feelings. It can not hang on a proposed "fair tax scam" emotional issue for keeping the engorged IRS employed in a differet venue nor the 821 argument, or a "patriot scheme", or tax protesters, though one might look at the "Boston Tea Party", . . . that was a Tax Protest! Authority needs to be questioned about the proposed venue, duty and authority to act. It is our right to question and it is the duty of the "authorities" to answer fully in context and in truth under penalty of Law.
It is a duty under law that is not addressed in the context of the subject matter under which state and Federal Income Taxes apply. Instead, law and duty is obviscated by ignorance by the ones who signs the pay check of the accusers and the mongers of false belief using and hiding under the cloak of "authority".
The question is, . . . can one honestly rely on the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 that reads, Section 7701(a)(14): "Taxpayer: The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax."?
Courts have stated, . . . "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws." United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972)
Who Are The Nontaxpayers?
People who are not subject to tax law and having no duty are known as nontaxpayers.
Are you one of the millions of people who are ignorant of their nontaxpayer status?
It is "'beleved' that by being proper and following examples given by 'many', EVERYBODY is subject to internal revenue taxes!
It is important to note that a majority of people speculate incorrectly. It seems, . . . in the law we desire for clarity, Title 26, “Income” which appears to be the subject of the tax, has a meaning confined to the monetary proceeds. Gain, from the exercise of Federal and State privileged activities, the holding or administering a government office, or working or receiving gain or other remuneration derived from federal largess of which the "income" tax applies. The people working at common natural rights, (private sector) occupations, are NOT privileged activities.
Rights are NOT taxable; and no language to the contrary should be found in the law excusing intrusions on unenumerated unalienable rights by government authorities which are Constitionally restricted. An aside to the Common, Unalienable Rights issue are property and other taxes and licenses and fees that are placed on us in our daily needs, homes and occupations.
“Wages” and "self-employment income", as used in connection with any tax statute, form, document, regulation, IRS instruction or publication, etc., are narrow terms, meaning remuneration for privileged-based activity, chiefly government employment, and explicitly NOT the proceeds, wages or remuneration from common occupations, which are NOT taxable and are explicitly excluded from the law and regulations. Constitional restrictions are against usurpations of a free man's rights, property and liberty.
“Employment”, “employee”, and "trade or business", insofar as those words or phrases are used in connection with any tax statute, form, document, regulation, IRS instruction or publication, etc., are narrow terms, referring to government work and workers, elected and appointed and explicitly NOT to private work and workers who have no vexus to the U.S. government.
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes." - Thomas Paine
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Adam Smith, in “The Wealth of Nations” (acknowledged by the Founders as the pre-eminent authority regarding economics and taxation), Article IV: “The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes,”… “Capitation taxes, if it is attempted to proportion them to the fortune or revenue of each contributor, become altogether arbitrary. The state of a man's fortune varies from day to day, and without an inquisition more intolerable than any tax, and renewed at least once every year, can only be guessed at.”…” Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes.”
The "income" tax is an indirect excise tax on activity associated with the optional exercise of privilege, measured by its proceeds.
How would one be required to file a 1040? Are you not in a privledged position or in U.S. employ. How many people have asked this question?
The attempt to tax non-privilege-based labor/money is a direct tax on property. One can not persuaded to declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of one's knowledge and belief it was received through an exercise of privilege . . .", is that that an incident of peonage, slavery?
Is Title 26 of the United States Code written to read what its beneficiaries want us to believe what it means?" Or, . . . is it to obscure the true subjects and objects of the law?
Is withholding to be applied only to receipts of a particular kind, which kind is spelled out in 3401(a), and FICA deductions only apply to receipts of a particular kind, which kind is spelled out in 3121(a)?
Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 24, Sec. 3402 provides for withholding by employers from the wages of their employees. In the definitions of the terms used in that law, found in Chapter 24, Subchapter C, Sec. 3401 of Subtitle C, one finds that "wages" are defined as remuneration for services performed by an "employee" (3401(a)), and an "employee" is defined thusly : "For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation" (3401(c). That, is a United States Government owned corporation, not a non-governamet entity in the private sector!
If you are a federal or U.S. possessions government worker, or the officer of a U.S. government corporation being remunerated for "services" performed as such (" ...a corporate agency or instrumentality, is one (a) a majority of the stock of which is owned by or on behalf of the United States, or (b) the power to appoint or select a majority of the board of directors of which is exercisable by or on behalf of the United States,..."; the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939), your compensation for work is subject to mandatory withholding. If you are neither of these things, your compensatation it is not.
In the FICA portion of the law, Chapter 21 of Subtitle C, "wages" upon which the tax is based are defined in section 3121 as remuneration from "employment" (3121(a)). "Employment" is defined as services performed for an employer "within the United States" (3121(b)(A)(i)), or performed outside the "United States" [outside the "United States" could be a building, in the field, insular possesion or enclave within the 50 states of the union, Russia, or anywhere in the world a U.S. person, is functioning lawfully] if by a citizen or resident of the "United States" and if for an "American employer, as defined in subsection (h)" (3121(b)(B)).
Who is the U.S. person, U.S. citizen, resident of the "United States" that the law refers too? They are Federal officers, workers, employees, elected and appointed political officals. In subsection (h), "American employers" are confined to persons who are residents of "the United States", corporations organized under the laws of "the United States" or a "State", as well as the United States government itself (3121(h)). The State, . . . "For purposes of this chapter . . . The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa" 3121(e)(1)) (Those whose businesses are incorporated under the laws of a union State will note that this definition does not include you. To the best information available, there are no laws of the United States-- as that term is commonly used-- under which a private business can be incorporated.) "The United States" is defined thusly: . . . "For purposes of this chapter-... The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense [Editor's Note: as in "within" or "resident of", etc.] includes the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and Guam" (3121(e)). Period.
If you work for the federal government, and it's organizations; in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, or a federal (a military installation, property ceded to the U.S. by one of the 50 states for example) enclave; the pay you receive for work is "income" and is also subject to FICA income taxes. If you and or people working for you don't meet these criteria, "employment" taxes (FICA, FUTA, etc.) don't apply to you.
Here is the rub in what happens in our daily lives.
Businesses are told that if they have "employees", pay "wages" or are engaged in a "trade or business" then they must do various things, such as demand W-4's and withhold; deduct and/or pay FICA and FUTA taxes; and issue W-2s and 1099's. They are not told about the quote marks around these terms. The object of W-2's, W-4's, W-9's and 1099's is to create documentary evidence that you are a beneficiary of taxable privilege such as a government or territorial worker (or contractor). For an employee to withhold or demand W-4's and other governmental forms be filled out, that employee must have a "withholding authorization" which only a Federal employer can have. American private employers, contractors and workers have no buisness filling out the forms. They are "nontaxpayers", " . . . they are neither the subject or the object of the revenue laws."
It is the "wages" of a federal or U.S. possessions government "employee" who are subject to mandatory withholding and the associated filing of a W-4 (and are taxable in the state where they reside, see Title 4 USC); private-sector compensation is not. However, if who you work for has such a form on file, even without any other document or presumption coming into play, and even if you were 'coerced or tricked' into its execution, it will be presumed that you are-- or, at least, have chosen to declare yourself-- a recipient of taxable, public-sector ( U.S. Property) money (or have requested voluntary withholding per Subsection (p)(3) of Section 3402).
The Self-Employed, 1099's, W-9's etc. Those who are self-employed will want to note that the definition of self-employment 'income', found at Section 1402(b) of Chapter 2, Subtitle A, is: "...the net earnings from self-employment derived by an individual...". "Net earnings from self-employment", found at Section 1402(a) of that same chapter, is: "the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business...", and "trade or business" is defined in Section 7701(26), Chapter 79 of Subtitle F as follows:"The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office". A form 1099 Misc. asks a payer to list all payments made in the course of their "trade or business", pursuant to Section 6041A of Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part III, Subpart B. Such a form, if sent in by a payer and not challenged and rebutted by the payee, will leave the impression (and legal presumption) that the payee received 'income' connected with the performance of the functions of a public office. Go figure!
A Form W-9 is frequently presented to the self-employed, but inappropriately. It is intended to provide an identifying number to a payer who is required under the code to file an information return (Form 1099, etc.) with respect to payments made in the course of their "trade or business" Thus, a W-9 should only be completed by one who is receiving such government payments. Even if you are a not a federal government or U.S. territorial worker, you will be presumed to have voluntarily requested withholding by executing a W-4 unless you rebut such a presumption; and you will be considered to be (or have been) a government or U.S. territorial worker to the extent that your employer or client claims to have paid you "wages" or payments in the course of their "trade or business" on a W-2 or 1099 that stands unrebutted. An executed document which declares or implies a particular legal status of either its signer or its subject seems to be a fraud on the innocent which could and does establish a fraud to enforce obligations and infirmities.
I belive it falls to you and I to actively show that the IRC need not to be replaced. It is Constitutional in it's proper application on the subject and sorce it addresses.
The President ought to know what the law is and what the law is not!
The President has an obligation to create an Executive Order directing his Executive agency, the Treasury and it's IRS collection agency to cease enforcement against Americans who are not "Privleged" and annul any activity or actions that can and have destroyed so many who have questioned the context of the Income Tax Laws.
No law need be written or fought over. Just do what the law reads in the context of the Constitution for the several states of the union.
If we do not act, the unlawfull bondage imposed on the people by today's IRS Executive impositions will continue to distroy our Life, Liberty and Happiness. There is no liberty in bondage!
Much of our problems are solvable if we just took the time to read the Constitution, and understand we are doing things with government that is outside of it's proper strictures. We spend to much and want everthing.
Dr Rond Paul does supply excellent answere to the problems we have allowed to overtake us.
We need to "Proclaim Liberty In The Land". Consider the opportunity and moral power that is ours by your efforts and the Presidents stroke of the pen? No violence, arguments or destroyed futures, only blessings.
Asa Singleton
Posted By: Kevin Andrews
Date: 2008-01-04 16:39:12
Raymond.... I really tried to keep up but my eyes went blurry about line #40.
If your point is, reading the US Tax Code is impossible... well made.
From a pedestrian point of view, I'll take the FairTax simply because I can understand it. I believe law makers fear it because they wouldn't be able to create similar byzantine verbiage designed to confuse.
Posted By: Daniel Miller
Date: 2008-01-05 07:32:43
I'm going to say absolutely NO! The Fair Tax, FairTax, whatever they want to call it is not nearly as good an idea as the one our man Dr. Paul is already pushing for.
"End the income tax and replace it with nothing."
This has been the stance of many libertarian-minded people for quite some time. I believe Harry Browne, former Libertarian Party presienetial candidate, was the first to popularize the idea.
Proponents of the Fair Tax talk of the simplicity of it. Never mind that the retail corporations would now have the added headache of trying to implement the tax into other surcharges that they have to already, like state and local sales taxes. Or the fact that for people of a certain income level would have to use "prebates" which is not exactly "fair". Where are the preabates for the middle class or wealthy? Seems as if the "Fair Tax" is anything but. It still taxes the wealthy more than the poor. The government would still have to ensure that the right people are getting the "prebates". There would have to be a fairly substantial tax code to deem what is and isn't charged taxes under the "Fair Tax".
The "Fair Tax" is far from simple, or for that matter, fair.
So, again, Ron Paul's current stand on the issue is the correct one, in my opinion. The simplest and the fairest.
Firstly, I would like to thank Susana for the gift of her perspective, and of course John for sparking such an interesting discussion.
I think I may have been a propionate of the Fair Tax if I hadn't run across Dr. Paul first. As others have said, I'd prefer to have 0% taxes. Or, put anther way, if my options are, "Cake or death", I'll choose cake.
Presidential politics aside, Americans have become too accepting of their government. We complain that the congress or the media offers, "blank checks" to this or that administration. When in reality, "We the People" have disengaged from the decision making process. As you stated earlier John, I have a problem with a government who thinks they own the fruits of my labor.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
