Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/22/2001 9:57:45 AM EST
Found this on World Net Daily. Saw the activist interviewed on the O'Riled Up Factor awhile back and thought he would be buried before he got any response from the Feds. What do ya'll think? Flat Tax or something else? [url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24154[/url]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 10:15:05 AM EST
They gotta be kidding! I agree with all they say and it don't mean crap. The only way the Feds will admit the 16th Amend was not properly ratified will be at the point of all of our collective guns. And maybe not even then.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 10:15:51 AM EST
flat tax by the way i like this qoute i found in that article "… We're confiscating property now. … That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him," lamented T. Coleman Andrews, the Democratic commissioner of the IRS during the first 33 months of the Republican administration of President Dwight Eisenhower.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 10:39:46 AM EST
I really do not like the idea of a flat tax. It seems to be more of a burden on those with lower incomes than those with higher. For example, a 10% flat tax on an individual with 20,000 worth of income would give them 18,000. That 2000 most likely will be felt by them. Whereas someone earning 100,000 could get by quite nicely on 90,000. I personally would like to have a gradated tax code, that was solid and without loopholes. I feel that the tax code, as standing current, tends to support an industry of accountants, tax attorneys, and tax courts that cost far too much. I wonder if anyone did a study on how much estimated money is spent on supporting a tax code that is far too complex for the average individual to understand.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 11:18:30 AM EST
yes but the person with the 100k is paying more as he has more money thats getting taxed
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 2:04:10 PM EST
No income tax or any other kind of personal tax - go back to tariffs like the Founding Fathers intended. Tax the hell out of foreign businesses operating here (car companies, etc) and, most importantly, [b]trim the fat from the federal gov't[/b]. Just imagine if every agency whose sole job wasn't stopping one of the 3 federal crimes as outlined by the Constitution (treason, counterfeiting, piracy) or performed a function authorized by the Constitution (USPS, customs, etc) was disbanded - what kind of savings would we be looking at?
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 3:26:30 PM EST
Post from WMMitty -
I really do not like the idea of a flat tax. It seems to be more of a burden on those with lower incomes than those with higher.
View Quote
The 'flat tax' plan proposed by Dick Armey (R-TX), the only one with which I am familiar, had an exemption for the first $36,000.00 earned by a family of four, meaning that the 17% flat tax didn't apply on the first $36K. The 16th Amendment would NEVER have passed the Congress and the States' legislatures, except that its promoters urged it's ratification by telling them (correctly) at the time, that the poor and middle class would never have to pay income taxes, it was just a tax on the wealthy! Class envy rears its ugly head for the first time in America's history! Eric The(IFavorNational[u]Sales[/u]Tax!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:14:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2001 4:11:14 PM EST by Grundsau]
We are self-employed so we get the privilege of paying all of our taxes. I can guarantee you that if employers didn't babysit their employees by withholding their taxes, things would change PDQ! Just to have one employee I am penalized above and beyond what their withholding would be. That's bogus and an outright crime. In Pa we have a 6% sales tax. I often cringe at how much I have to add on to our charges. A consumption tax would have to be low. It may actually hurt businesses. Who knows. A flat tax seems more sterile in that it would be taken off income. Not everytime a person opens their wallet. That may be a psychological barrier to folks spending their bucks. If some one makes 100K and only pays 10%, good for them. It's the people with money that drive our economy by employing others. They take risks that I never would because I don't make near enough to what they have to use. This isn't an exact quote, but something like 10% of the people pay 70% of the taxes. I could care less if a rich person gets a tax break. I'm concerned with what I earn and get to keep. The more taxes I pay, the less I'll spend in the economy, unless it's for a new gun, [:D]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:25:17 PM EST
What I like most about a sales tax is that it will cover EVERYONE, the drug dealer, the pimp, the prostitute, the thief, the embezzler, the burglar, his fence, in other words anyone who is obtaining some sort of income and [u]spending[/u] it, would pay the sales tax. If you don't pay taxes now, 'cause you're one of those folks mentioned in the preceding paragraph, you won't pay taxes under a flat tax, or reduced tax rate plans, either. The sales tax is the only way to go after unreported income! Eric The([u]Then[/u]WeCanReduceRates)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:36:00 PM EST
Clearly, the sales tax is the answer. Aperson of modest income is going to be purchasing foodstuffs, clothing, and a few odds and ends. The tax will be very little for these folks. The folks purchasing a new car every year, a $400,000 house and lots of "toys" will pay their fair share. I, unfortunately, believe that this will never happen because it's too good - too simple of an idea. The feds would never go for it. Tate
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:52:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:53:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2001 4:53:13 PM EST by Grundsau]
Ok, I'm picking up what you're laying down about the sales tax and unreported income. Any purchase gets hit with a tax so nobody slips thru the cracks. Not sure if a criminal or person of illegitimate means would buy something legally anyways and pay the tax. There's always gonna be a blackmarket. I have no figures to back this up but that may be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the taxable base. Being in sales (sort of), we own/operate a photo studio. Understanding a bit about the psychology of a buyer, I can't help but believe it will hurt business (at least initially) rather than help. Unfortunately, there is probably no easy answer. Wait, maybe there is. It may take awhile but folks might adjust to it and then start shelling out the bucks. [:D]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:57:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By NH2112: No income tax or any other kind of personal tax - go back to tariffs like the Founding Fathers intended. Tax the hell out of foreign businesses operating here (car companies, etc) and, most importantly, [b]trim the fat from the federal gov't[/b]. Just imagine if every agency whose sole job wasn't stopping one of the 3 federal crimes as outlined by the Constitution (treason, counterfeiting, piracy) or performed a function authorized by the Constitution (USPS, customs, etc) was disbanded - what kind of savings would we be looking at?
View Quote
I agree totally. But we have better chances of science proving the existence of Leprechauns than that happening. Taxes are the reason we broke off from England. END THEM!
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 5:18:58 PM EST
Post from Grundsau -
Not sure if a criminal or person of illegitimate means would buy something legally anyways and pay the tax.
View Quote
But the point would be that SOMEONE has to buy the...e.g. Mercedes sedan...at some point and the sales taxes will be paid by that someone and added to the price charged the criminal! In effect he is paying the tax by proxy! So the tax gets paid and the criminal is the one paying the tax. How more fair can you get? And if the criminal simply refuses to make large ticket purchases in order to avoid the tax, his loot will either be under the bed, or deposited in a bank to provide capital for others! All but four states already have sales taxes in place, the states can collect the 'national sales tax' through their ordinary channels, keep a small commission and remit the rest to DC. No fuss, no muss. Tarriffs are the most horrible feature of the Constitution because, unwittingly, the Founding Fathers sowed the seeds of an enormous calamity! The tarriffs favored the industrial areas of the country and disfavored the agriculatural areas of the country. While there was no need to place tarriffs on agricultural products - (why would England ship the US dairy items, when all the dairy items the US needed were being made locally?) there was a push to protect the fledgling manufacturing industry in New England and the Northeast. By the time the War Between The States began, the South was paying approximately 90% of all federal tarriffs! And just where were the monies collected by these tarriffs being spent? On national canals and roads in the industrialized North, and not on roads and bridges in the agricultural South. Hence, Southern dissatisfaction with the Union for yet another reason. Let this Country approve such tarriffs and see where the next civil war starts! Eric The(Unforgetful)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 5:33:49 PM EST
Eric, Business owners would probably pay the ST directly to their regional IRS center. Ours is in Philly. We have coupons for our state ST and the system seems to work well..., for a tax. What percent do you think it should be set at? Am wondering about gasoline. From what I have heard we spend over 1/2 the cost per gallon in taxes. One thing that has to be changed is the confiscation of private property by the IRS. I'm talking about the little guy. Gotta hit the sack. Thanks for the discussion, this one seems to have some meat in it. [:D]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 5:46:15 PM EST
The problem is is that any taxation scheme is such a bitch to phase out because of the money hungry parasites in DC. Remember the "Federal Excise Tax?" That was to pay off the debt from the Spanish American War and we JUST got rid of it. Any tax change will be quickly followed by a modest return to what we had before. This will be in addition to the new scheme. Expect NO REAL tax relief EVER, just a slow erosion of your financial freedom at the hand of a government that thinks they know better than you on how to spend it.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 6:13:49 PM EST
Think about all the money the IRS doesn't recover. For instance look at all these small businesses that deal in cash. A Pizzeria owner puts himself on the books for $500 a week and pockets $1k-$2k off. This is pervasive throughout this country in all successful cash businesses. So the rest of us end up paying more. Where's the fairness? There has to be a better way of taxation. [i]Reminder..I don't like paying taxes anymore than the next guy.[/i]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 6:57:48 PM EST
It would appear there are TWO distinct issues here. 1. How much should the government collect and spend? 2. What is best way to collect whatever is needed? These two issues need to be considered seperately! When politicians hide behind one to justify the other we all lose! The amount issue is judged by virtue of what each person thinks THEY get out of it. If YOU get more handouts, you want more spending. If YOU can have lower taxes by cutting spending, then you are in favor. The fairness issue is easily explained by determining whether YOU would pay more or less. If it is less, you like it. If more, you don't! Point is, we are all greedy and self serving. Maybe not as bad as the criminals in congress, but we are a lot less constitutional government minded than we are selfish.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 7:24:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2001 7:26:53 PM EST by jgage]
I don't like to get involved in these sort of posts. However, You pay a flat sales tax, your property taxes are flat (guess depending on area,) and I really think income tax would be fair and equal. These days, we (America) have kinda lost sight of the "equal." I have friends who make MUCH more than me and friends who make much less than me... I tend to think we should all pay the same percent. I also tend to think the gov't shouldn't waste our money and I think this is more important than the tax arguement. But, what do I know... I like what Grundsau had to say... Most people have their taxes held by the company... Try writing a check for you taxes come April, it ain't funny.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 7:26:05 PM EST
I think my biggest complaint about an income tax is it's basically a penalty for being more productive (that is, if you earn more money for doing more work.) I know that when I get 10-12 hours overtime in a week by working my ass off so my company has more machinery to rent to customers, thereby making more money because of my labor, my federal income taxes go through the roof (no state income tax in NH.) A flat tax seems more fair on the surface, but is there really a fair way to force someone to give up some of their money? For example, let's take Dick Armey's $36K exemption and couple it with a 10% flat tax rate. A household making $40K would pay $400 in taxes, right? But, a household making $50K would pay $1400, or over 3 times as much for just $10K more of taxable income. I understand that the tax is based on the amount of income above the exemption, and is perfectly proportionate when you look at it that way, but what will really happen is family #1 will say: "$40K annual income=$400 in taxes," (or 1% of income) and family #2 will say: "$50K annual income=$1400 in taxes." (2.8% of income) "Hey, that's not fair! I'm making 25% more than they are, but my taxes are 350% higher!" Now, if there has to be a federal "personal" tax, I'd prefer it to be a sales tax, since that's based on how much you consume, not how much you produce - and everyone pays the same tax, regardless of income or tax lawyers on retainer. Although, consumption is merely the other side of the economic coin - you need both production and consumption in a capitalist/free market economy. But, I think that most people would "prefer" to fork over an extra 1% or so when they buy something, than to see money taken out of the paycheck they busted their asses for - and if you don't want to pay as much in taxes in a sales tax system, you just don't buy as much stuff. EricTheHun, I believe that the tariffs you were referring to were those that punished the south for sending cotton (for example) to European mills to be woven, instead of to American mills whose buyers didn't pay as much for the cotton. Now, if I'm wrong please let me know, but I should have specified that import tariffs on foreign goods are what I was referring to. In other words, anyone buying foreign goods over domestic goods should pay a premium for choosing to send their money to Japan (for example) instead of boosting the economy in America by keeping the money here. Now, I realize that it's not quite as simple as that, with foreign-owned corporations employing a good number of Americans - money spent on those corporations' products does go into the US economy, at least initially. But, when you buy a Nissan or Toyota car made in the USA, your money is ultimately paying for a Japanese fighter plane's engine overhaul, food for a Japanese infantry unit out in the field, new tracks for a Japanese tank, or full bunkers in a Japanese destroyer. I'd rather see Americans' money stay in America, but those who prefer to send it overseas (which is their right) should have to pay for the harm they do to our economy.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 7:50:11 PM EST
[center][b]WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D. Attorney at Law[/b][/center] May 5, 2000 Mr. William J. Benson Constitutional Scholar 1128 East 160th Place South Holland, IL 60473 Dear Mr. Benson: You may address me simply as Warren and I'll call you Bill. My first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of work you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of factual data-over 17,000 pages of certified government documents from each of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, which includes your two books, is truly monumental. In case you wish to know a little about my background, let me give you a brief overview. I was honored to serve my nation in World War II as a Naval Aviator. Since my college career at the University of Rochester had been interrupted by the war, I went back to the U. of R. and obtained my A.B. degree in history. That was followed by a B.S. in accounting. By then I was married and we moved to the Washington, D.C. area so that my wife could continue her college work while I attended law school. Upon receiving my law degree, I was honored to be chosen for the first class of Honor Law Graduates at the Justice Department. (This program was started in 1953 while Eisenhower was president.) Because of my law and accounting background, I moved to the legal department at the General Accounting Office. After 5 years as a government attorney, I left for the private sector, where I have been ever since. Two years of that time was spent in a law firm and the rest has been working in the lobbying profession. Before going to the subject of your books - the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was not properly ratified-I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the United States Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company (158 U.S. 601). Since our forefathers who established our form of government (a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the federal power into three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and administrative), it was clearly within the Court's discretion to render their verdict in the Pollock case.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 7:51:15 PM EST
The Supreme Court's decision in that case can only be changed by one of two methods: The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could reverse the Pollock case; or, An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct income tax could be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of State has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and the Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or rejected. The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the second alternative. In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had been properly ratified. When only four states of the required 38 ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view of the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution? Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court, what is the legal framework upon which the current income tax law is based? Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not a constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Furthermore, I believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last question is a real tough one because of the politics involved. Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you even visualize the reaction of the Members of Congress? Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual data about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step and suggest what should be done now. Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to your country. Sincerely, /S/ Warren S. Richardson P.S. Since a personal letter cannot be distributed, or even shown, to anyone other than the recipient without permission of the author, I hereby authorize you to show it (not publish it) to other people at your discretion. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 5th day of May, 2000 /S/ (Mary M. Challstrom, Notary Public)
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 7:54:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2001 7:53:18 PM EST by PROTEUS_X3]
[center][b]The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto[/b][/center] [b][red]2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.[/b][/red] Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share". [url]http://www.givemeliberty.org/[/url]
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 8:06:33 PM EST
Whoa their cowboys, some of the economic nationalists on this board need to retake free market economics 101. After taking it you'll realize the benefits of a country with no tariffs, export taxes, and import taxes. Trying to protect unprofitable industries in the US inevitably hurts the US, its consumers, and all of the other industries here. The solution is to gradually phase them out allowing the investment in the country to shift gradually, minimizing disruption to the workers of unprofitable businesses. Oh and I disagree with the big sales tax idea too. Sales taxes are the most regressive tax possible. Meaning that those who can least afford to pay taxes are most heavily hit by them. alpha
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 6:24:05 AM EST
Top Top