The story that no one has reported on. This is the story of how the DOJ had to request that charges be dropped:
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.
They requested that the charges be dropped with prejudice, i.e., no reason given.
The reason is simple -- Form 1040 does not have a valid OMB identification which is in violation of the Paper Reduction Act (PRA). For all of the details read the story associated with the link.
What I find interesting is that this story was not covered in the MSM; not surprised though. So, I turned to 2 of my staples: The DrudgeReport and WorldNetDaily. I submitted the link and I felt confident that the story would be breaking in a day or two. Sadly, the story never came.
I wonder if the long-arm of the American Gestapo (IRS) and the compliant American SS (DOJ) reached to the old-media and the new-media. Not reporting this story is beyond bias ... it is COWARDICE!!!
If we sit by and do nothing, Our Government will keep chipping away at our rights.
*** UPDATE ***
Tom Cryer acquitted on charges of tax fraud.
Comments Policy
Wesley Snipes vs the American Gestapo (aka IRS)
January 14, 2008 - 12:35 ET by LionKingWesley Snipes apparently is going to battle the IRS. It will be interesting to see how far he pushes his point of view. He may be feeling confident especially in light of other recent defeats for the IRS.
Another loss by the IRS
January 7, 2008 - 13:27 ET by LionKing161 charges.. 0 (zero) convictions. Another IRS defeat.
Since it is Friday and I'm
January 4, 2008 - 17:25 ET by dscottSince it is Friday and I'm feeling peckish, I Love the IRS! Someone has to collect the money to fund government operations and I rather it not be me. Saying you want to abolish the IRS is like saying we need to close Guantanemo. The money still has to be collected just like the terrorists still have to rot in confinement. Change the name of the IRS to Ministry of Finance if you wish, the money still has to be collected, no one including me wants to pay them and every April 15th we all feel resentful that we had to write a check.
So what's the real issue here, it's not necessarily how you go about collecting the money, it's first the attitude of those collecting the money and paying it.
1. It's your civic duty to pay your fair share of the taxes and its the IRS agent's duty to treat people with respect and work out arrangements when people get in a pickle.
2. To whom does the money you earn from income belong? To me or the government? I say to me and therefore, no politician should be getting an attitude that they have a right to spend my money as they please or waste it for that matter.
3. The biggest issue is what size of government do we want, not how much the income tax is going to be or if it is collected as a sales tax or income tax. Does the government we want, supposed to be in the business of wealth re-distribution? I say heck no, so pass a law making it illegal for the government to redistribute wealth, thus ends all the entitlements of TANF, Food Stamps, EIC and Medicaid. Unless you are willing to spend political capital on eliminating these programs and any future versions of these programs like S-CHIP, it doesn't matter how much you tax, there won't be enough money to run the economy and we will be slaves of the politicians.
4. Earmark reform, pass a law that makes it illegal for a politician to be in office at the time the Earmark is disbursed. If a politician is so concerned for their district to do an earmark that benefits their district, then it should be from a sense of sacrifice on their part not mine. Since the budget is supposed to be in effect on October 1 of each year, then that politician needs to be out the door at the end of his/her term come that January, 3 months later. Because a new politician without the taint of money or crass vote buying must be elected that November one month after the budget goes into effect.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
The Constitution Party's approach to taxes
September 6, 2007 - 13:20 ET by LionKingThe Consistution Party is strongly in favor of eliminating the IRS (thank GOD).
This is an excerpt from their tax solution page. Makes a lot of sense to me.
Tom Cryer is now suing IRS agents
January 4, 2008 - 10:54 ET by LionKingTom Cryer is not just celebrating his acquittal from IRS charges, he is now suing the agents involved for disclosure of personal information as part of their smear-attack.
Also, check out his website, TruthAttack.
More GESTAPO tactics
January 10, 2008 - 18:19 ET by LionKingIf we do not right the course, GESTAPO tactics will start becoming more prevalent...another example.
Lion -- I hate taxes as much as
January 14, 2008 - 12:42 ET by Jack BauerLion -- I hate taxes as much as the next conservative... and I hate to snipe...
But didn't Wesley take his tax advice from a guy who currently resides in the Gray Bar Hotel for tax evasion?
Jack...regarding taxes
January 14, 2008 - 13:10 ET by LionKingI understand the need for taxes. I have an issue with the so-called "income tax". I find it economically counter-productive.
As far as Wesley Snipes advisor, I am not sure who it is or his status. If it raises awareness, it may force a change by whoever is elected next. I find it interesting that Huck wants to get rid of the IRS, yet his plan still invovles some sort of redistribution of tax liability...why not just keep it simple?
A winner-issue the Dems are
November 14, 2006 - 18:17 ET by sarcasmoA winner-issue the Dems are almost certain NOT to exploit...
JMR
Duh!
September 6, 2007 - 13:23 ET by Sergeant ROCKThanks for stating the obvious! Duh!
Easy on Sarc
September 9, 2007 - 02:25 ET by RESTLESS 1Can we be a little easier on Sarcasmo? He is basically on our side, he just beleives what we do in the extreme. In fact, I agree with him alot, (aside from Ron Paul, I see Paul as a potential Perot in this Presidential race).
Btw Sarc, I do see Ron stickers in more and more places. I went to a local taco stand and a Ron Paul sticker placed on the outdoor menu. There seems to be a militatnt fanaticism with this guy. Should he not get the nomination (highly likely), can he push these votes to the right?
Update: American Gestapo (aka IRS) given another setback
November 14, 2006 - 18:09 ET by LionKingCheck out the November 8th update regarding how the IRS Was Enjoined For Violating
US Court of Appeals Order.
Yet another step forward for The People, but all avenues of news reporting fail to cover this story.
Bias or Cowardice? Liberty or Oppression?
We need to take a stand for our Rights and the IRS is not for Our Rights.
There is no law that states t
November 20, 2006 - 14:54 ET by libertyordeathThere is no law that states that an income tax is mandatory. The 16th amendement does not authorize Congress to levy an income tax, and there are several Supreme Court cases where this has been ruled. The income taxes we pay only go towards the interest on the national debt.
The 16th Amendment
November 21, 2006 - 00:56 ET by UnsaneRead and weep.
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
That is the exact language of the 16th Amendment. The amendment was in fact designed to counter a Supreme Court case which ended a Civil War effort to levy taxes on income.
Oh, and 15% of federal outlays go to the interest on the debt. So much for that myth.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
16th Amendment is problematic
November 21, 2006 - 10:23 ET by LionKingWhile that is what the 16th amendment states, it is overly ambiguous.
First, they never adequately define income. Income used to signify an increase in wealth which typically would not include Wages and Salaries which are actually a trade for labor.
Secondly, this amendment only allows them to tax US Citizens, but as we all know, they tax anyone that earns wages...this includes foreigners here on work visas. This, of course, begs the question, where do their boundaries and limits to lay and collect taxes end?
On taxation
November 21, 2006 - 12:35 ET by UnsaneWhile that is what the 16th amendment states, it is overly ambiguous. Welcome to the Constitution of the United States.
First, they never adequately define income. Income used to signify an increase in wealth which typically would not include Wages and Salaries which are actually a trade for labor. Perhaps, but the 16th Amendment does state that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..." Wages and salaries (and tips) are defined as income, whereas everything else is a capital gain (by law, of course, but not here)...
This, of course, begs the question, where do their boundaries and limits to lay and collect taxes end? A dream, perhaps, but this is why I would like to see this amendment amended to state that the income tax rate on all Americans shall be no higher than 17% regardless of income, and that income shall be defined as wages, salaries and tips only, that capital gains are not to be taxed, and that this rate can be raised only by a 75% vote in both Houses of Congress. (Of course, use this new Amendment to replace the entire federal tax code...)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
F$ck the IRS
November 21, 2006 - 14:34 ET by LionKingScrew any tax on wages and salary. The IRS is the American Gestapo.
The only truly fair tax is a consumption tax. No one complains about excise taxes on gasoline and cigarettes. I believe a national sales tax of 2% (4% on luxury items) would be sufficient -- that would include taxing real estate transactions.
The War on C
November 21, 2006 - 15:09 ET by UnsaneIf you had a tax of 15-17% with NO exemptions whatsoever, you would need an IRS that consists of maybe a dozen people, and due to the sheer simplicity of such a law, no Gestapo tactics would be necessary.
A consumption tax is the most regressive tax there is. The people who advocate this the most are those who think "C" is too large a part of the equation C+I+G+X-M. Considering it is in fact the consumer that drives the economy, to attack the consumer via taxation is bad news. Not to mention the opportunities for abuse are just as large with a national consumption tax (for instance, a Congress filled with elitists who hate SUVs decide to punish consumers who buy them by taxing anyone who buys one as 25% instead of the 2% you advocate).
Most troubling of all, there will STILL be an IRS, and in fact they will be even more Gestapo like, to use your terminology. Have you seen what happens to a local business that doesn't turn over their proper amount of sales tax revenue to local sales tax collectors?
I say 17% income taxes with NO exemptions, thus making the tax code of the United States an easy to remember sentence. And by income, I mean the year's wages, salaries and tips ONLY (not what you made off of your stock sales, home sale, or other capital gains, because the income you produced to buy those things has already been taxed once). With such an arrangement, you'll still need an IRS: but it will be manned by a staff of maybe a dozen, as stated before.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Tax
November 21, 2006 - 15:39 ET by misterbillUnsane, Thanks, I jumped into the thread farther down and put in stuff you have already covered. . I have read various versions and what you posted above seems to be the fairest and most reasonable. But what the heck are we going to do with all those ex IRS bandits??? Any humorous response will be appreciated.
PS
November 21, 2006 - 15:41 ET by misterbillPS My wife likes the consumption tax but says consumables (food, drink) should be exempted to help lower income families.
The 16th amendment was never
November 21, 2006 - 15:21 ET by libertyordeathThe 16th amendment was never legally ratified. This is proven from documents from the library of congress. If you don't believe this, then you can try to earn yourself some spendin' cash. http://www.livefreenow.org/30K_challenge.cfm
Sure.Just ask Wesley Snipes
November 21, 2006 - 15:25 ET by Jack BauerSure.
Just ask Wesley Snipes how that all works out when he's in the Gray Bar hotel.
Too funny. Bought any Bridges in Brooklyn recently?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Jack, this conversation is fo
November 21, 2006 - 15:28 ET by libertyordeathJack, this conversation is for people with information to share and discuss. That excludes you, since you never possess any.
GFYA Proud member of the
November 21, 2006 - 15:30 ET by Jack BauerGFYA
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Proposed, ratified, now weep
November 21, 2006 - 19:22 ET by UnsaneAccording to the 2007 World Almanac and Book of Facts:
"Proposed by Congress, July 12, 1909; ratified Feb. 3, 1913."
Any more myths and urban legends you intend to throw my way? It is truly amazing. I have never seen anyone so eager and intent on believing in every single myth, urban legend, and conspiracy that comes down the pike!
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
do not be quick to judge
November 21, 2006 - 19:31 ET by LionKingYou may wish to consider rival sources before you attribute everything as an Urban Legend. I believe you are too trusting of politicians and our government. It is our responsibility to question the government before we become enslaved to it.
I do not know about you, but at times I feel like the government has too much control in my life.
Nah. I trust reality. I c
November 21, 2006 - 20:02 ET by UnsaneNah. I trust reality. I can cross-check the World Almanac with others.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
reality ???
November 22, 2006 - 10:00 ET by LionKingSome people used to believe the earth was flat.
Some people used to believe the earth was the center of the universe.
Some people used to believe the Apollo missions were actually simulations in Arizona.
Some people still believe Marilyn Monroe committed suicide.
Some people still believe that Oswald assassinated JFK.
Some people still believe that macro-evolution is more than a theory.
Sometimes it is healthy to question the spoon-fed reality and consider other possibilities.
On blind faith
November 23, 2006 - 02:56 ET by Unsane...and some people just accept the reality that the 16th Amendment was proposed and ratified. Too bad, so sad. And some of us learn not to trust everything said on the Internet. Just because it says so there doesn't mean it is unquestionably true. Some people refuse to accept this simple fact.
If I had more books on hand from my library, I would do a thorough cross check on the 16th Amendment, but I will be sure to do that once the library comes back into my grubby little hands.
It is much like the Internet rumor of some years back that there was an evil plot to disenfranchise African Americans via a repealing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What those who bought into that myth forgot was a little something called the 15th Amendment.
Some of us see that what is referred to so disdainfully as spoon-fed reality is reality, nothing more and nothing less, and that hoping and wishing some ballyhooed conspiracy is at the root of all evil is a waste of time and effort, and that other more productive avenues must be taken.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
LionKing, I have had the docu
November 21, 2006 - 15:26 ET by libertyordeathLionKing, I have had the document you are talking about for several months now. It's called "1040 Checkmate", right?
Consumption tax advantage
November 21, 2006 - 15:34 ET by misterbillLK
Consumption tax advantage- another p;us re: this atx is even illegals have to pay it. Your estimate of 2% is way low though. I think it was Steve Forbes who said it would have to be about 17%. I don't think it included SS either. Anyone know????
PS the IRS is the sheriff of nottingham. Robin needs to come to our rescue.
The Free Exercise of the Cons
November 21, 2006 - 15:39 ET by libertyordeathThe Free Exercise of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to lawfully acquire property (earnings and other compensation) by lawfully contracting one's own Labour to engage in lawful, innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation cannot be (and therefore has not been) taxed for Revenue Purposes, and therefore, an individual who is only engaged in lawful, innocent any harmless activities is NOT subject to any "Income Tax" or any other Revenue Tax, and therefore is NOT a "taxpayer" as defined by law, and can therefore be properly and accurately described as a Non Taxpayer!
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238 (1922).
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collections. 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 [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they [nontaxpayers] are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws."
Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972).
Maybe you can explain how eit
November 23, 2006 - 02:58 ET by UnsaneMaybe you can explain how either of these court cases overturn the 16th Amendment, or how the Supreme Court can possibly overturn a Constitutional Amendment to begin with (especially an Amendment specifically designed to overturn a Supreme Court ruling).
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
2% (4%) would be adequate
November 21, 2006 - 16:05 ET by LionKingAgain...this would be adequate if real estate transactions are also taxed.
Also, by eliminating "income tax", people will have more disposable income which means they can consume more. i.e, pay more sales tax.
Additionally, since businesses will no longer be taxed, they can reduce the costs that consumers must pay. People will now be able to afford more of the things they want.
Finally, we can tax imports to generate revenue. American businesses can now be price competitive between imports being taxed and the reduced tax burden. Employment and wages will increase and again, consumerism will increase thus generating even more sales tax revenue.
By the way, I agree that necessary food and beverages shold be exempt from tax.
Somebody please shut-up about sales tax being regressive. Every excise tax on gasoline, cigarettes, and alcohol is more regressive. The whole concept of regressive and progressive tax rates is based on the redistribution of wealth principle -- socialist crap. (Shoot-- the social security tax is regressive.)
Also, by eliminating "in
November 21, 2006 - 19:37 ET by UnsaneAlso, by eliminating "income tax", people will have more disposable income which means they can consume more. i.e, pay more sales tax. They CAN; the question is, WILL they? Again, the biggest proponents of this scheme want to attack "C" since they say that "C" is too big and "I" is too small.
Additionally, since businesses will no longer be taxed, they can reduce the costs that consumers must pay. People will now be able to afford more of the things they want. Conveniently forgetting that businesses need to spend money to make money on whatever they produce. Meaning that they themselves will have to buy products. Meaning that they will have to pay the consumption tax, and pass the expenses onto the consumer, thus further reducing their ability to spend.
Finally, we can tax imports to generate revenue. American businesses can now be price competitive between imports being taxed and the reduced tax burden. And American businesses will raise prices, as always happens due to protectionism, further harming the consumer. Employment and wages will increase and again, consumerism will increase thus generating even more sales tax revenue. With the rising costs of business passing on costs to the consumer, businesses raising prices due to new protectionist policies, and the attack on "C" that began all of this, the consumers shut their wallets.
Somebody please shut-up about sales tax being regressive. Every excise tax on gasoline, cigarettes, and alcohol is more regressive. The whole concept of regressive and progressive tax rates is based on the redistribution of wealth principle -- socialist crap. (Shoot-- the social security tax is regressive.) I will say it again. The sales tax is REGRESSIVE. And yes, so is Social Security, but it sure would be nice if the government would be so kind as to let me plunge my Social Security taxes in my IRA. I like a straight progressive tax: someone making $10K, $100K or $10 million ALL paying 17% of their incomes in taxes. Seems fair to me, and surely much more fair than forcing the top 40% of wage earners to pay 99.94% of all federal income taxes, they way the current system does. And not redistributive at all: if everyone is paying 17%, everyone can be said to be paying their fair share. What's the problem?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Conveniently forgetting tha
November 21, 2006 - 19:43 ET by LionKingConveniently forgetting that businesses need to spend money to make
money on whatever they produce. Meaning that they themselves will have
to buy products. Meaning that they will have to pay the consumption
tax, and pass the expenses onto the consumer, thus further reducing
their ability to spend.
If a business is buying something to resell, they do not pay sales tax. Again, I talking about 2% sales tax versus 40% corporate income tax.
So do you propose business ar
November 21, 2006 - 20:04 ET by UnsaneSo do you propose business are exempted from this national sales tax? They simply are going to buy SOMETHING that will get them to pay the sales tax. (Equipment, office supplies, etc.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
it is no different than now
November 21, 2006 - 20:08 ET by LionKingIf a mechanic replaces your alternator, they charge you sales tax for the part. They mechanic does not pay a sales tax on the part that he is going to resell.
The paper he buys to print his invoice on he will pay a sales tax on because he is not reslling the paper.
The mechanic HAS to buy the p
November 21, 2006 - 20:21 ET by UnsaneThe mechanic HAS to buy the part from someplace, unless he can manufacture it himself on site. And he will not eat the charge out of the kindness of his heart.
He will pay a sales tax to acquire the paper he is using for the invoice, unless he also owns a paper mill in his yard and can manufacture it himself. And again, he will not eat the charge out of the kindness of his heart.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
unsane ... you had better get some facts
November 21, 2006 - 20:31 ET by LionKingIf a business has a sales tax number, they do not pay a sales tax on items they resell. Yes, the mechanic will buy the part from a parts distributor, but he will not pay a sales tax. He will charge his customer the sales tax for the part since he will probably mark it up.
In other words, businesses AR
November 21, 2006 - 21:26 ET by UnsaneIn other words, businesses ARE exempt in this vision. For it to be a true sales tax, even that transaction would be taxed, for a parts distributor is SELLING a part to a customer, in that case a mechanic.
And as for "marking it up", you make it sound like it is just being done just because. Unfortunately, the charge for shipping the part MUST be passed on, if the mechanic wishes to stay in business...if he wishes to make a profit.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
unsane ... get a clue
April 12, 2007 - 14:13 ET by LionKingThis is how it works now. Businesses are exempt from sales tax on things they buy in order to resell ... this avoids double taxation. This is not new, this is how it is NOW!
au contraire
April 12, 2007 - 23:34 ET by Unsane...not from what I have seen, and I have worked in small businesses in the past.
When doing landscaping work, we paid taxes to fill up the lawn mower and to buy new equipment. We didn't walk up to the cashier and say "Oh, we're a business", to hear them say "Oh, OK, we don't charge you sales taxes."
Nor have I seen that done anywhere else.
Property taxes are very much embedded in the costs of the things you buy, whether you want to believe that or not. I don't own a home, but I am paying property taxes: it's factored into the rent.
To claim that businesses aren't charged taxes to avoid double taxation is to be slightly divorced from reality. That includes ALL taxes: sales, corporate income taxes, property, gas taxes, etc etc etc...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Hi Unsane,LionKing is correct
June 12, 2007 - 08:21 ET by KarmaHi Unsane,
LionKing is correct. At least here in Ohio, a business does not pay State sales tax on items they re-sell or on items that become part of something they re-sell. They do pay State sales tax on everything else they need to operate the business. As a side note, farmers here do not pay State tax on the fuel delivered in bulk to their farms that is used to operate their equipment. This fuel has a colorant added so an inspector could verify that the farmer is not using it in his or her personal vehicle.
How can that be differentiate
June 13, 2007 - 08:24 ET by UnsaneHow can that be differentiated from items that are ordinarily consumed?
If I am a small business, I am going to buy quite a bit of my office supplies from stores that sell such items. How does the cashier know the difference? What, do I walk around with a card that says "I am a business, do not tax me?" (That also sounds like a nice, fat loophole through the sales tax if you ask me.) That's very hard to believe, me having worked in small businesses and seeing how they function.
FIFTEEN DOWN, ONE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
A good example would be Sam's
June 13, 2007 - 16:37 ET by KarmaA good example would be Sam's Club since they are considered a wholesaler and not a retailer like Office Max. Say, if I had a business that sells paper, I buy 50 reams of that paper from Sam's Club. I plan on re-selling 48 reams and using 2 reams for my own business. I will be charged State Sales Tax on only the 2 reams I will use myself. I will not be charged tax on the other 48 reams. To do this, I supply them with the necessary documentation as in my State Vendor's License. Dishonest business owners can, and some probably do, claim that all 50 reams are for re-sell. However, I think most of us sleep well at night and don't fear an audit by the State. I'm not very good at explaining things sometimes, but I hope this helps.
Imagine that. People using
June 17, 2007 - 02:22 ET by UnsaneImagine that. People using such a scheme for dishonest purposes. Now, admittedly, the operation I worked in was quite small, and I never saw such a thing in our shop, so when we bought everything, such as the necessary pens, paper, and other items for our business, we were hit with a 7.75% (at the time) sales tax. And this was passed on to the customers.
MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!! THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!
LK taxes
November 21, 2006 - 19:43 ET by misterbillLion I did a quick look one day at a consumption tax based on our (wife and I) income. I assumed we would spend all that we earned (which is fairly true) and I used our combined gross income. At 17% we would pay about $1800 more per year than we did with the regular taxation. However we had a bad investment deduction on the 1040. I removed that and we would pay about $1000 a year more. Ballpark about $90 a month. I hate to lose it, but I think after the tax settled in , we would not have to raise it. (Happy dreamer that I am>)
MB: not 17% ...2% (4% luxury)
November 21, 2006 - 19:47 ET by LionKingmisterbill, perform calculations at 2% and 4% for luxury items.
lk 2% 4%
November 21, 2006 - 19:53 ET by misterbillLK will recalc. obviously I will love the numbers. I am pretty sure Forbes was hitting around 17% and I don't know if that included Social Security. If it did, then no one would be able to duck SS deductions. BUUUT I thought partial privatization of SS was a very good idea.
SS is a different story
November 21, 2006 - 19:59 ET by LionKingSS is totally different. I would rather be able to roll my SS into an IRA. Again, the libs fear that this influx of cash in the stock market will cause a temporary boon and then falter. Again, if money is consistently fed into the market, it will grow.
Also, I believe more American companies would come to life and require investing. No nation has ever been taxed into prosperity.
It is amazing to me that states can function on only a sales tax. Texas has no income tax and even has a surplus of tax revenues.
TX taxation
November 21, 2006 - 20:08 ET by UnsaneDo you live in TX? I do. TX gets huge money from property taxes AND sales taxes.
Under your plan I would be spending 10.125% to 12.125% taxes on things that I buy. At taxation like that, we may as well be in Canada.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
unsane ... how much would you save in income taxes
November 21, 2006 - 20:15 ET by LionKinghow much would you save in income taxes? If businesses passed along their savings, how much more could you buy if corporations reduced prices by 20% ... at least half of corporate sales tax?
Just think...now you have a choice whether to pay taxes or not. Spend or do not spend. That's fair.
Maybe the government would have to learn to be more fiscally responsible.
Also, if you charged a sales tax on real estate ..say 4% for anything over $200,000 ... a $10 million dollar home would result in $400,000 in sales tax. I think that is fair...if you are rich and want to buy a luxury item, you need to pay extra.
Maybe the government would ha
November 21, 2006 - 20:30 ET by UnsaneMaybe the government would have to learn to be more fiscally responsible. HA! NOW who has too much trust in government? I will believe that the day a balanced budget amendment is found in the Constitution, and not ONE DAY before, no matter how they get their revenue.
Also, if you charged a sales tax on real estate ..say 4% for anything over $200,000 ... a $10 million dollar home would result in $400,000 in sales tax. I think that is fair...if you are rich and want to buy a luxury item, you need to pay extra Why is that fair? Why not exterminate every Hyper Evil Rich Leech who CAN afford that?
If you are going to punish people for being more successful than you are, go full board!
Besides, this luxury business has been tried before. As a part of the 1990 "budget deal" in which Bush the Elder raised taxes, contrary to his 1988 pledge, taxes were raised on certain luxury goods. This caused a deep recession in the yacht-building industry in the northeast, because the rich got tired of being punished for having the money to spend on luxury items...so they decided to not spend their money on them. That bright idea cost a lot of people their jobs. Government in action.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
unsane ... get a clue (part II)
April 12, 2007 - 14:24 ET by LionKingIf you think $400,000 is bad...try this. When one of your liberal darlings makes $10 million for one of their motion pictures, they are compelled to pay $4 million in income tax. They have no choice. At least they have a choice to spend their $10 million on a house and pay the $400,000 sales tax ... big difference. Under my plan, the successful are penalized less and they still have a choice.
Try thinking it through before making snap judgements.
No snap judgments here. I h
April 12, 2007 - 23:38 ET by UnsaneNo snap judgments here. I have thought this through, whether you wish to believe it or not.
I would much rather see everyone in America hit with a 15-17% income tax rate, with no loopholes, no exemptions, no breaks, no penalties. Just 15-17% across the board for everybody. Of course, if that is paired with a balanced budget amendment, even better. But I have no desire to see a scheme put into law that attacks the heart of the economy: "C" of C+I+G+X-M.
Um...MY "liberal darlings"? Now I am a Leftist because I want to see the income tax radically changed, instead of pushing forth the most regressive form of taxation there is?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
unsane ... get a clue (part III)
April 14, 2007 - 10:55 ET by LionKingTo hell with the Constitution and a direct tax.
Did you read the questions PDF I posted?
(Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid and follow the Socialist Party line)
I sure would love to hear how
April 14, 2007 - 22:23 ET by UnsaneI sure would love to hear how having a 15-17% flat income tax, leaving capital gains alone, and pairing that with a Balanced Budget Amendment, is Socialist. If anything, the national sales tax you propose is more in line with what Socialist nations like Canada (with the federal GST on top of PSTs) and Germany have.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
unsane ... get a clue (part IV)
April 15, 2007 - 09:08 ET by LionKingPlease...if you are going to debate, try using facts. Canada has a sales tax as well as an income tax...as does Germany.
I believe you said you were from Texas...does the Great State of Texas have an income tax? No...yet econoically, Texas has one of the strongest economies among the states. I believe if you bother to do some research that you will find that the majority of states which have no income tax also have a thriving economy.
By the way, please explain how a sales tax is regressive.
Texas has a thriving economy
April 15, 2007 - 13:57 ET by UnsaneTexas has a thriving economy for a whole host of reasons...the biggest one being diversification. Texas learned its lesson from the oil bust of 1982, and learned to branch out into different areas.
I would also argue that you will need to look carefully at the Texas Constitution of 1876. The state government here is so decentralized that it really can't exhibit too much of a chokehold on the economy. For instance, the governorship here is rather weak when compared to other states in the Union. Not to mention the fact that the Legislature meets only once every two years. State government interference is thus minimized here. In Houston, government interference is minimized still further - there isn't even a zoning board for developers to face here, and Houston voters have shot down zoning three times.
I actually wouldn't mind seeing a state income tax in TX, but the conditions I have for its introduction are so stringent that politicians would balk at them at every turn (for instance, an income tax would be permissible ONLY if paired with equivalent property tax relief. Yeah, a politician would go for that, right???). Hence I remain opposed unless someone is brave enough to come up with one with conditions I approve of.
As for the facts...it is readily apparent that you are ignoring the ones I pose. I am the one who pointed out that the 16th Amendment is still there, and that if you pass a national sales tax, you will HAVE to repeal that Amendment in order to eliminate income taxes. Even Dr. Walter Williams agrees with me on that one.
The sales tax is regressive because the burden disproportionately falls upon those with the least ability to pay, even if you exempted items such as food, as many states do.
Oh, and I am still waiting to hear how my proposal (very similar to Steve Forbes' proposal from his 1996 Presidential run) is Socialistic. If anything, your proposal to use your sales tax to steal extra money from those who buy items YOU deem to be "luxuries" is very Socialistic.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
unsane ... get a clue (part V)
April 15, 2007 - 16:01 ET by LionKingFirst...no one is compelled to be a consumer, thus they have a choice whether to pay taxes or not. Necessities are not taxed anywhere in the US. So, your argument about the sales tax being disproportionate upon those that can least afford it does not work. They do not pay sales tax on the basic necessities. (Texas even has a weekend every year before school where even clothes are tax free.) As far as taxing luxuries, again, they have the choice to purchase a luxury car or a regular car. If the wealthy are not being robbed by the "progressive" income tax, they can certainly afford an extra 2% on the yachts and mansions. I cannot say this enough...it is still a choice...they do not get taxed year after year for their mansion or yacht (aside from property taxes).
Please explain how the FLAT TAX is non-regressive. Do the poor get exemptions? How is the flat tax not a violation of the constitution which prohibits direct taxation?
As for the 16th Amendment, try reading the PDF link that I attached. See if your World Almanac has the same extensive reasearch and facts as outlined in my document. Be careful...this document actually cites Court cases and specific statutes as well documenting exactly why the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
The 16th Amendment is very vague and does not define income. Furthermore, it does not define who Congress can tax or what limits there are to their taxing.
Actually, the flat tax is ver
April 15, 2007 - 20:51 ET by UnsaneActually, the flat tax is very Constitutional. I, being a realist, just accept that the 16th Amendment is what it is. I find it quite fascinating that people ONLY gripe about that one's legitimacy, and not about, say, the 21st's, or the 3rd's, or whatever. The fact is that you are simply going to have to accept the fact that it is sitting right there, instead of trying to wish it away, and accept that you MUST have the 16th Amendment repealed if your dream of strangling the American consumer via a national sales tax is to become reality.
Crying about the 16th Amendment being "vague" likewise gets you nowhere, because in truth, much of the Constitution is vague. That is one major reason it has lasted so long.
Under Forbes's vision, the taxation did not begin until $36,000 of income was earned. So, under his vision, it did bail out the poorest among us. I, seeing that being poor is a choice (for most, not all), I say, hit everybody at between 15-17% of income.
By the way, since you seem to be the final authority on what are necessities and what are luxuries, what about the other 363 days of the year when I DO in fact pay plenty of sales taxes for my clothing? And why do you so hate people who make a dime more than you and wish to spend it on whatever they want? (Maybe instead of whining about how I don't pay attention to the facts, you ought to read about what happened to America's yachting industry when the government decided to steal from and pillage the successful, because "they can afford it".) Who are YOU to decide what people can and cannot afford, Socialist? Why do you so badly want to steal from the successful just because "they can afford it"? Mighty Socialistic of you there.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
unsane.. LOL.. well you've
April 14, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Jack Bauerunsane.. LOL.. well you've never struck me as a liberal, darlin'!
dear jocko:
April 15, 2007 - 16:06 ET by tumbler_2007Cry-kie! Every time I see your new tagline I wanta DIE laughing !
please do!
April 15, 2007 - 16:09 ET by misterbillWhere ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
Questions for unsane
April 15, 2007 - 16:10 ET by LionKingWhy do we need an income tax at all?
How was the government funded prior to the 16th Amendment? Why can't we go back to that?
Do you even know why the 16th Amendment was created? When you answer that question...why is the 16th Amendment still around?
Protectionist, much?
April 15, 2007 - 20:55 ET by UnsaneSo you are a protectionist as well? The main source of income for the federal government for years before the 16th Amendment was tariffs and duties on imported goods.
Seems to me that not only do you wish to steal from the successful,but you want to punish companies from abroad who make a superior product (and thus empower worthless American unions who encourage their members to keep churning out crap no one wants to buy).
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
unsane ... get a clue
April 15, 2007 - 23:25 ET by LionKingWay to answer all of the questions.
I guess your attitude is "TO HELL WITH THE CONSTITUTION". I bet you are a member of the ACLU as they only care about select parts of the Constitution as it fits their needs...and like you, they never let the facts get in their way.
As for me being a protectionist, you could not be more wrong. I am a huge fan of Milton Friedmann and his book "Free to Choose". As for foreign companies producing superior products cheaper...i guess it helps to use child and slave labor...or to use stolen technology and patents...or to subsidize your business with drug money or counterfeit US money. Our competitors use these tactics as part of their rade process and you are worried about tariffs...give me a break.
Get your head out of the sand and face reality. If you choose not to it is your choice to be enslaved to your government. Remember that the government is supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around.
You can choose to educate yourself or you can remain ignorant (and blissful).
Hey LionKing,Long time, no se
April 15, 2007 - 23:29 ET by BlondeHey LionKing,
Long time, no see.
I didn't read through this whole thread....but I have to tell you, Milton & Rose Friedman's "Free to Choose" was THE book that shaped both my political and social attitudes. Years and years ago, but it sticks with me to this day.
Good to see you here, again, friend.
No, LionKing, you are the one
April 16, 2007 - 18:33 ET by UnsaneNo, LionKing, you are the one ignoring the Constitution (and going through extreme contortions in doing so), or reading the parts of it you WANT to read. Incidentally, I have taken an oath to support and defend that document...three times.
That second paragraph shows me that your view of the world beyond the borders of the United States is severely warped. Do such things like child labor and drug money exist? Sure. Are they bad? Absolutely. Do I wish to throw out every developing economy in the world just because of those issues? No. In many cases, the truth is that these nations are churning out better mousetraps than are we.
But you are only revealing your true stripes with each and every post. Who brought up tariffs? YOU did, by whining about how we got most of our money before. I answered the question (you just don't like the response). And your previous postings reveal your inclination towards protectionism. Not to mention that protectionism is one reason why those who like the national sales tax back one.
I find it hard to believe you are a Friedman disciple, especially after your Socialistic diatribes (like your suggestion that i