The Fair Tax

[Morton Thomson Jr.]

The Fair Tax

And what’s wrong with it!

Here are the main problems I have with the proposed Fair Tax.

1. Those in favor of passing this legislation claim that it first requires that we repeal the 16^th Amendment. This is a false notion fueled by ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court said in Stanton Vs. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), that the 16^th Amendment does not change Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and “confers no new power of taxation.” Therefore repealing the amendment will change nothing and will not, in and of itself, eliminate the IRS. Therefore, even if one could successfully repeal the 16^th Amendment, the proposal is doomed from the onset. Other Supreme Court case law as in Brushaber Vs. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 US 1 (1916),  is being used as the legal backdrop for the authority to continue the fraud known as the Income Tax, so repealing the 16^th Amendment will not be enough.
2. The proposed sales tax claims to be “revenue neutral”. This means that it will do nothing to change the amount of money going into the coffers of the federal government. This does absolutely nothing to make the feds more fiscally responsible, which is what they claim to be trying to do with the Fair Tax proposal.
3. Because this is a sales tax and is “revenue neutral”, it’s too easy for everyone to lose track of how and where they are taxed, thus allowing the government and the public at large to easily forget that there is a tax being levied in the first place, and;
4. This makes it too easy for the tax to be increased by fiat, any time they feel like it. And don’t tell me that it will have to be voted on, because when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. In other words, those constituents who benefit from government giveaways will always vote in favor of increased taxes. Eliminating giveaway programs is first and foremost at the heart of the problem, not eliminating the IRS. And:
5. Wasteful spending by the fed will not change just because the money comes from a different place. Reform needs to be based in correcting the problems that we know exist now, not in changing the source of revenue.
6. In addition, there must be serious reform of the corrupt cycle known as lobbying. When a politician can be persuaded to vote in favor of passing a law for a particular corporation to receive money based on the amount of begging and influence peddling they engage in, this is a problem. The Fair Tax will not change this.
7. Also, the government is in the habit of ignoring the will of the people in the first place, so what will stop them from simply printing more fiat money any time they feel like it? The answer is NOTHING. And:
8. Last but not least is the fact that taxes, like the economy, trickle down to the bottom. When corporations are taxed, industry wide, they do not actually pay the taxes directly. They either move the operation to a tax free environment, thereby eliminating American jobs, or they simply increase the cost of the end product to cover the increased taxes and the CONSUMER pays a higher price at the end of the line. So poor people end up paying the increased taxes levied against the “evil rich and competition will not keep corporations from raising the price of their products, due to the fact that the regulation or tax that increases those costs for a product are levied against an entire industry all at once, in order to make it “fair”. Some perfect examples are cigarettes, alcohol, beef, milk, etc. You name it, the fed has found a way to tax or regulate it, INDUSTRY WIDE. They don’t just tax or regulate one company, they tax them ALL, and the CONSUMER PAYS THE BILL. The Fair Tax WILL NOT CHANGE THAT. That’s trickle down economics 101. If you need proof, check the latest tax returns filed by Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc. You’ll see that not only were they able to differ an income tax liability of TWO BILLION DOLLARS by shipping jobs over-seas, they actually qualified for a TAX CREDIT of over ONE BILLION DOLLARS MORE, on top of that! We must eliminate the IRS AND STOP THE PAYMENTS. Not change the way they get the wealth.

In conclusion,

It is safe to say that the Fair Tax will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change what’s wrong with our federal government in terms of how they borrow and spend and print new FRN’s (Quantitative Easing), anytime the Fed says it’s the right thing to do. Not to mention the Fair Tax does nothing to address the fact that they routinely ignore requests now for freedom of information and Redress of Grievances in regard to taxes and other issues. The fed will not change their attitude until “We The People” force them to.

Stop the "voluntary compliance" with the misapplication of the current Internal Re-Venue Codes. This would immediately cripple the fed and wake them up. The Fair Tax WILL NOT! Instead, it will bury the issue of an overblown and corrupt government and put it on the back burner of the American conscience. People will continue to fund a corrupt, wasteful, SOCIALIST government. That’s why I don’t like the Fair Tax.

Comments?

[John Gaver]

The game certainly is rigged by the major players. However…

1) An amendment is much preferable to a revolution.

2) With the FairTax, as that 7 year deadline approaches, the voters will start demanding that the 16th Amendment be repealed. In fact, I would be somewhat surprised if such an amendment was not what is termed an "Aggressive Repeal", meaning that it would include a provision specifically prohibiting any kind of an income tax.

It's not a matter of slipping one by the political movers and shakers. Once people begin to see and benefit from the many FairTax advantages, slipping that amendment by the powers that be, will be rhetorical equivalent of slipping the D-Day Invasion by Hitler.

-----
BTW, today is a great day to celebrate the many heroes of WWI, being the anniversary of both the beginning of D-Day and the end of the Battle of Midway. Each of those battles signaled the turning point in each of the theaters of operation.

[Wayne Bachmann]

And "Theater" is a proper term for it. It would be accurately termed a "Theater of the Bankers" or The Banker's Theater. 

John,

You say an amendment would be much preferable to a revolution. That is from our perspective.

The Chinese and others have said they want 1/3 to 1/2 of us killed, the rest of us to be used as their slaves. Ted Turner and his cronies have said they want 95% of us killed off, and others have said they want 85% of us killed off, so I say let the killing begin - with them being the first ones to die! Let the wicked destroy the wicked, and leave the rest of us alone who want to live in peace.

Are you aware of the FEMA prison camps and rail cars? I just got back from a trip to visit Hartford. On my way there, about 30 miles north of Kennewick, Washington, I found myself traveling next to a train with about 30 FEMA prison rail cars. Some had BNSF on the side of them, some had two other labels I did not recognize, and some were not yet labeled. I have articles of these " prison rail cars" that have guillotines mounted on the first floors of each of the cars, with pictures of them. I am no longer speaking from a position of "hearsay". I have now actually seen them. I took pictures of them and wanted to download them, but apparently I need new batteries after the trip, so it will have to wait.

[Wayne Bachmann]

Marty,

The pics are ready for you.

[Wayne Bachmann]

Marty,

Go to page 7 & 8 of this post. They are there for you to look at now. I also posted a separate post on the FEMA Prison Rail Cars and the link where you can download the Army manual for the cars and Prison Camps.

[Wayne Bachmann]

If you want to give me your email address I can send them directly to you. If you forward this to others it might be a way of promoting this site.

[Wayne Bachmann]

I didn't think to mention that the govt. has contracted to have 102,000 of these cars made. They are being built by Gunderson MFG. in Portland, Oregon, and Halliburton. They are being stored on unused rails in Montana and Wyoming, from what I have been informed. Google up FEMA Prison Rail Cars.

[Jim Robinett]

Fair Tax will not change the ways that your rights are being removed.  An amendment will not change.  Change is one thing that most people are afraid of and do not wish to be involved with.

[Wayne Bachmann]

Well said, and with good reason, Jim.

[John Gaver]

I agree that most people are afraid of change. But more and more people are embracing it. There has been a 1700% increase in formal renunciations of U.S. citizenship since Obama took office. I travel abroad a lot and I have met many expats, more than a few of whom had formally renounced. I always question those people about what motivated them. 20 years ago, most told me that their move had been planned for some years. But recently, most are telling me that until a few years ago, they would have never imagined that they would ever voluntarily give up their U.S. citizenship and all the benefits that went with it. Unlike the small trickle of expats of the past, who were looking for adventure, most of the flood of today's expats describe their expatriation as a last resort that they were not entirely comfortable with, till they had been offshore for a year or two.

The lesson here is that more and more people are feeling so uncomfortable with Obama's "change" that they are becoming will to accept more radical changes.

Today, the TEA Party and the LP combined, have not yet achieved that critical mass. But remember that the American Revolution involved less than 10% of the colonists at the time. Those who avoid too radical a change, but who can afford to leave, are accepting the change of leaving, over Obama's "change". Likewise, I believe that those who avoid change, but who cannot afford to leave are, like their wealthier counterparts, becoming more willing to accept changes that they would not have considered just a few years ago. Both are willing to accept those changes because they don't like the changes that are being forced on them.

When talking to expats, I always ask one question. "What one single event or policy ultimately pushed you over the edge and made you decide to leave?" I always ask them to narrow it down to just that one final straw. Here are the most common answers to that question over the last three years.

1. IRS abuses.
2. Moving to a less litigious nation (avoiding frivolous lawsuits).
3. Retirement where their assets will remain safe. This was barely on the radar until a few years ago, since most retirees want to remain close to grandchildren. So it's extremely significant that so many are willing to take this step now.
4. They expect the dollar to crash and want to be far away when it happens, where the impact of a default will be significantly less than in the USA.
5. Personal and financial privacy. Depending on whose study you believe, either 17 to 39 (Privacy Intl.) other nations have better privacy laws than the USA. But that's for people who actually LIVE in the USA. For traveling internationally, a U.S. passport is now considered to be the absolute worst for travel privacy.
6. Property Rights (largely, but not exclusively EPA-related).
7. Common Core (i.e. control of their child's education). In many countries, you can live cheaper than in the USA, even after paying for your child to go to the "expat school," where he will receive a far superior education.
8. (And here's a new one in just the last few years) "My attorney advised it." These people couldn't cite one single trigger event, but said that they were motivated by their attorney's advice to divest offshore and move offshore if possible. Now that's scary.

I should also point out that when the expat cited IRS abuses or just the IRS in general, I always baited them with a leading followup question, intended to elicit just the opposite response, if such was the case. That question was, "Oh, you mean taxes?" But in all my years of traveling abroad and asking those questions, every person who cited the IRS as their trigger for leaving, has responded to that question with a decisive, "No. The IRS itself." In fact, I have never heard income taxes or tax rates in general mentioned as the primary motivating factor in an expat's decision to move offshore. When queried, most will admit that tax rates or something related to taxes played a part in their decision, but taxes were always way down the list. The IRS has always been by far the most common reason cited for expatriation.

Certainly, this is far from a scientific survey. It's a survey of expats that John ran into in his travels. OK. "Ran into" isn't exactly right, either, since I always search out expats. But you get the point.

What it all boils down to is that I feel very strongly that we're approaching that tipping point, where many citizens who would otherwise be opposed to any real change, will be willing to accept the right kind of change. That's where we can make a difference. More and more people are getting fed up and we need to be able to show them a plan that will solve some of our issues, without entailing anything too radical. Move them forward one step at a time; not all at once. After all, we don't want them to balk at too radical a change.

[Wayne Bachmann]

I am strongly embracing change, but I guarantee it is not the kind of change Bill Clinton and Obama have spoken of, with their forked tongues.

[Jim Robinett]

Their idea of change is to screw as many people as they can while they make as much money and gain as much power as they can.  That is NOT my idea of change, not now , not ever!

[Wayne Bachmann]

We are not as gullible as the sheeple that get shown on TV.