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]

We need to start with one basic truism. Revenue and spending are two entirely different, though related issues. If a person earns $50,000 per year, but spends $60,000 per year, he will eventually go bankrupt. Liberals will tell us that he was not earning enough, while conservatives will say he was spending too much. On the other hand, if he earns $50,000 per year, but spends only $40,000 per year, he will eventually become what we call “rich”. Conservatives will say he was frugal, while liberals will say that he was earning too much. But all this shows is that revenue and spending are separate issues and need to be addressed as such.

The author of this piece is not only wrong, but so wrong on every point that the more you read of his misconceptions, the more painfully obvious it becomes that he has not the foggiest idea of how the FairTax works and has not read either “HR-25,” “The FairTax Book,” or “The Rich Don’t Pay Tax! …Or Do They?”, which each address the structure and function of the FairTax in increasingly easy to understand terms. I’ll address the author's errors in order.

1. The 16th Amendment argument is a straw-man argument that was first posited and is most often used by the “Tax and Spend” crowd (just the opposite of who the author appears to be). But this argument has also been adopted, on occasion, by Libertarians who are not familiar with either the FairTax nor the actual wording of those SCOTUS rulings. In fact, as the author suggests, the 16th Amendment did confer “no NEW powers,.” But what it did do was to change the way in which those powers could be used, by allowing direct taxation and collection without apportionment. Therefore, repealing the 16th Amendment would re-impose the previous limitations. Personally, I would prefer a repeal amendment that would actually specify that taxation of income would be prohibited. But simply repealing the 16th would be a very good start. 
2. The author’s complaint about revenue neutrality is another straw man argument, since that argument is strictly about spending and NOT a tax issue. Sure, we have a serious spending problem in Congress. But even cutting revenue in half wouldn’t affect spending in the least. They would just incur more debt or have the Fed print more money. Therefore this argument does not apply to taxation in any way. The FairTax was designed to be revenue neutral, because if it were not, then not a single congressman would vote for it.
3. The author again shows that he has spent way to much time listening to sound bites and not reading the books that explain it, when he talks about it being too easy to raise taxes. In fact, exactly the opposite of the author’s assertion is true. Just ask any of the former state legislators who lost their seats all across the country, because they voted to raise a sales tax by as little as half a percent. Lawmakers have learned that raising a sales tax rate is paramount to announcing your resignation. Since, under sec. 509 of HR-25, the sales tax is “separately stated” on every receipt, be it from a grocery store, a utility company or a car dealership, The FairTax is the only in-your-face tax that the government can’t hide from. The voters are reminded of exactly how much tax they are paying, every time they buy lunch, go to the grocery store, or pay their electric bill.
4. Once again the author’s assumption that the FairTax rate could be raised by fiat is exactly opposite of the way the FairTax works. You see, sine the FairTax rate is specified in HR-25, it would require further legislation in order to raise the tax rate. Then refer to number 3 (above) and remember that since any increase in the tax rate will show up on the receipts and invoices of every taxpayer in their district or state, members of Congress will fear the consequence. But the FairTax is even better, in this regard, since the Peter, who the author suggests will be robbed tends to be the same people who currently understand that a corporate income tax is ultimately a tax on individuals and the Paul, who is being paid tends to be the same people who never could grasp that truism. Therefore, the Pauls will see any tax increase that shows up on their receipts only as a tax and not relate it to spending. In this respect, they would be right. The FairTax removes the ability of Congress to fool the entitlement crowd and make them think that raising taxes on the rich and on businesses doesn't affect them.
5. Yet again, we see that the author can’t seem to distinguish between revenue and spending. See numbers 2 and 4, above. We have a spending problem. But whether we keep the current tax system, tweak the current tax system or go to an entirely different tax system will not affect spending in the least. Either Congress will create more debt or the Fed will print more money. That’s certainly an issue that needs to be addressed, but it has nothing to do with ending the abuses of the IRS and solving the other problems with how our taxes are collected. Furthermore, if you were to try to add such disconnected spending legislation to tax legislation it would not only needlessly complicate the tax legislation, but it would be a sure way to turn both sides against the legislation and end up achieving nothing. It would be what they call in Congress, a “Poison Pill”.
6. How wrong can one person get? Once again, the author not only gets it wrong, but is exactly 180 degrees off. In fact, 80% of all lobbyists in DC are tax lobbyists. They lobby for tax breaks for “Green” companies, agriculture companies, energy companies, medical research companies and on and on and on… Eliminate the ability to play favorites with tax breaks and 80% of lobbyists vanish into a cloud of irrelevance.
7. The author is getting monotonous in his continuous mixing of revenue and spending. So I’ll just refer you to numbers 2, 4, and 5 (above) and point out that since there is no balanced budget requirement in place for Congress, revenue issues and spending issues are separate and distinct and will remain so until such time as a balanced budget amendment is passed… and that’s a different issue, too.
8. But if the author had not already shown that he has no concept of how the FairTax works, this last point demonstrates it very clearly. In fact, the FairTax does exactly the opposite of what this confusing paragraph suggests.
   1. The author talks about trickle down and how businesses will either raise prices or move production offshore. But that applies only to an income tax. Addressing the jobs portion of that statement, the FairTax is just the opposite of what he suggests. To begin with, the FairTax completely un-taxes the figment that is corporations. But those corporations that employ people offshore will continue to pay income taxes to those foreign nations on earnings incurred in those foreign nations. Note that there are NO tax-free environments where there is also enough manpower to come anywhere close to handling the workload of even one of our companies that have taken jobs offshore. In fact the nations with the lowest salaries tax companies at rates competitive with the USA. It's the low wages that attract them. Zero out their U.S. corporate income tax and suddenly, it becomes more cost efficient to employ a lot of those people here, where they can also add the label, "Made in USA."
   2. But the author’s preposterous claim that corporations would raise prices to cover increased taxes, under the FairTax, clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding of the FairTax. It’s one of the most significant parts of the FairTax that there is NO CORPORATE TAX on income, so using the author’s logic, prices would actually come down, not go up.
   3. As he has done so many times before, the author mixes up disparate issues that must be addressed separately, when he talks about industry-wide taxation and over-regulation. I can only assume that he is trying to mitigate his previous false statement about corporate taxes. But as with spending, that kind of abuse (taxing whole industries) has been going on since before this nation even became a nation. In fact, it’s what sparked the American Revolution (the Tea Tax). But the FairTax is about the collection of general revenue. Sure, those other taxes are problematic. But those problems have been with us since before we were a nation, they are with us today and they will be with us whether we continue our current progressive income tax or go to a flat income tax, a value added tax, 9-9-9, or the FairTax. Regardless of how we collect the general revenue, those taxes won’t change. Even if the government were to decide to stop all general revenue collections, those problems would still be with us, which makes them a decidedly separate and disconnected issue. It's a straw man issue.
   4. Once last time, the author shows that he has not read HR-25 or even the easier to understand, FairTax Book. In fact, this is the single point that shows that he has not done his homework on this issue. He ends this section by saying that “We must eliminate the IRS…”, as though the FairTax does not do that. FACT: The FairTax, among all the types of tax plans on the table, is the ONLY type of tax that DOES or even CAN eliminate the IRS. Under the FairTax, businesses collect the tax at the point of sale of new retail products or services. The collected taxes are remitted to STATE tax agencies. Those STATE agencies may audit as many of the individual businesses as they see fit. The states then take out their portion and remit the remaining taxes to the Treasury Department. The US Treasury Department is then responsible for auditing the states. Instead of around 150,000 IRS agents auditing a pool of around 146 million personal and business taxpayers, a few hundred auditors could audit all 50 states and our territories. Actually one auditor per state would be over-kill. But it is, after all, the government. So what it boils down to is that the feds audit the states, the states audit the retail businesses and nobody audits individuals or non-retail businesses. *** NO IRS.*** By contrast, any time you tax income, you will have to have an agency like the IRS, even if by another name, to make sure that people and businesses are reporting the right amount of income and remitting the right amount of taxes. ONLY the FairTax eliminates the IRS or even offers a structure that allows that to happen.

In his conclusion, the author finally reveals that he wasn't really talking about taxes at all. He is just using his misunderstanding of the FairTax as a vehicle for advocating for issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with taxation or revenue. In fact, in his last paragraph, it appears that he is advocating the tax protester (TP) position, in that he appears to be saying that we should just all stop paying taxes. That, unfortunately, has already been tried numerous times and all that it has achieved is to put a lot of good advocates for better tax and/or spending policy behind bars, where they can no longer help to achieve that better policy.

The FairTax is about REVENUE and cleaning up the many problems surrounding our tax collection system, including abolishing the IRS. It’s about bringing jobs back from offshore and about ending the power or lobbyists. It’s about transparency in taxation and accountability.

The FairTax meets every reasonable goal for tax reform and more. Furthermore, it’s the only plan that does. Read: “A ‘Goals-Based’ analysis of tax reform proposals” http://therichdontpaytax.com/blog/?p=284

[Bob Podolsky]

How can we discuss the merits of various systems of taxation without addressing the legitimacy of taxation as a means to specific ends? If we've not dealt properly with the morality of taxation, what's the point of discussing the mechanisms by which taxation is to be achieved?

Does everyone on this thread buy into the "Roads and Bridges" argument that poses the question, "without taxes how would we have roads and bridges"? In the 1850s the current version of this question was, "if we didn't have slaves, who would pick the cotton?" - or the notion that there wouldn't be animals without farms.
These perspectives presume the morality of taxation based on the supposition that our communal needs can only be met by applying violence, or the threat of violence to those who do not wish to cooperate. As I've indicated in my previous comments below, this presumption is demonstrably FALSE.

For a better understanding of the issues relevant to this thread, I suggest the website titanians.org.

There you will find:

• The Comforting Lies
• Ethical Means and Ethical Ends
• Ethics Law & Government 
• Why Taxation is Slavery

Buckminster Fuller pointed out that the answer to a corrupt system isn't to try to fix it - but to invent a better system, making the old system obsolete. In this spirit, the content of these four articles offers an ethical alternative to government and other hierarchies.

[John Gaver]

This still doesn't address the FairTax, as is the subject of this thread.

If you prefer anarchy and the elimination of all taxes, then the whole of the above thesis can be boiled down to, "The FairTax is a tax and taxes are wrong. End of thesis." But that's not how the thesis was presented.

The title of this thread is targeted specifically at the FairTax, which presupposes that there must be some form of taxation that is acceptable. Furthermore, the author didn't dismiss the FairTax simply because it was a tax, but instead, went into a long dissertation of myths and misrepresentations about the FairTax, in specific. My response was therefore based upon the author's implied assumption that there is some form of taxation that is acceptable. Of the various forms of taxation that are on the table, the FairTax offers by far the most advantages to the nation, with by far the least pain and intrusion into the lives of the people.

If you want to have a discussion about the validity of all taxes, then a thread about the FairTax is not the place to do that. Start a thread titled, "All taxes are bad" or "Should all taxes be repealed?" or something like that. Just tell people to what they're expected to respond.

Personally, though I don't like taxes, I like the security that some limited government gives me, which requires some taxes. When the government spends more money than we give them in taxes, that's not a problem with taxes, whether it's an income tax, a VAT, a sales tax, or some permutation of taxes. It's a problem with spending and with the people we elected. Having evaluated all of the forms of tax that have any possibility of becoming law, it is my opinion that the FairTax is the best and hurts the least.

[Morton Thomson Jr.]

Well John,

As the author, I thank you tremendously for your cogent response. If in fact however you think my article to be on the wrong track, I would most vehemently disagree. You see, if I write something that is provocative and controversial, I have done my job.

IMHO, my job is to bring up issues of an important nature and get others to respond with their own ideas, opinions and facts of the subject matter; which you have quite extensively done, with very few typos. You see, you have proven with the length and depth of your reply that I have in fact done my job quite well. My article may be incorrect or off track in a few ways, which I don't necessarily agree with you on, but I do appreciate the fact that:

1. You were willing to pen such a long response and:
2. You were also willing to express finally in the end exactly how you feel about taxes in general.

I don't agree that one must separate taxes from spending as two entirely different issues. In fact, I believe that was my whole point, which you seem to have somehow missed. You even agreed with me on several points, not the least of which is that repealing the 16th Amendment will not eliminate the IRS in and of itself. In addition when you said "It's a problem with spending and with the people we elected." You made my point for me. You hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly my problem with introducing a new form of taxing the people. If you actually look again at the very first sentence in my conclusion you will see the true point of the article. And I qoute:

"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."

So although you are mostly correct about the facts or the relationship of taxes to spending, you actually agreed with me on the real problem so accurately described in the conclusion above; that we have a problem that the Fair Tax WILL NOT ADDRESS. 

That is the point of this article. Maybe your right, I shouldn't pick on the fair tax just because of that fact and I actually agree with you; that of all the forms it is the best and hurts the least.

Again, Thank You for such a well thought out and intelligent reply.

As for the Sixteenth Amendment issue, I have also written articles on that issue as well. One of which was http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/taxes-on-incomes?id=6... 

And here's another http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/the-35th-amendment

[John Gaver]

Morton, I am a student of history and as such, I see that there are three things that keep taxes and spending separated and it goes far beyond whom we elect. I’ll get to those three points in a moment. But in general, it goes to the LAWS that keep the people we elect in check.

I’m from Texas. I remember a time when Kay Bailey Hutchison was a good solid conservative, who respected constitutional limitations… OK. That was a long time ago. But I’m an old guy, so I remember it. That lasted for most of her first term. I remember when John Cornyn was a conservative. That lasted about three years. Also, although I’m not from Arizona, I have researched John McCain. He ran as a conservative in his first run for the Senate. But his first really liberal vote came just four months into his first term.

We can pi$$ and moan all we want about electing the wrong people. But if the laws aren’t there to keep the people we elect in check, the vast majority of good people that we elect will be corrupted by the DC establishment within their first term. Sure, we can vote them out in two or six years. But they will do tremendous damage in the mean time. Furthermore, the chances are that the person who replaces the failed congresscritter will be corrupted, too.

Sure, a few congresscritters have remained true to their initial convictions. But they have been very few and we don’t know which ones they will be, even after their first term. Let’s say that we get someone who makes it through their first term and remains true to his or her promises. That doesn’t mean that the individual will remain true to those promises throughout the next term. I give you Kay Bailey Hutchison. QED.

I’m a huge fan of Ted Cruz and to a somewhat lesser degree, Rand Paul. But as a student of history, while I hope that they both remain true to their current convictions for their entire career in Congress, I am not fool enough to expect it. This brings us to the three points that I mentioned that will keep taxes and spending separate issues.

Taxes and spending, though rhetorically related, will never be able to be tied together in Congress, until these three issues are resolved.

1) The FED - As long as we have it, they will just print more money at will.

2) A Balanced Budget Amendment - Till we have this, there is nothing preventing those we elect from being sucked into the DC establishment and coaxed into spending more than the government takes in.

3) A Term Limits Amendment - Even with the first two problems resolved, history shows us that the the longer a person stays in office, the more likely he is to figure out a way to bypass the Constitution on his pet issues, be they conservative, liberal, libertarian, or anarchist.

On the other hand, since the FairTax will put 80% of lobbyists out of work, it goes a long way toward addressing the root problem, which is the DC culture. It’s transparency (100% of your general tax bite shows up on every receipt) will encourage more people to demand lower taxes. Sure, that won’t cut spending. But at least, it will get people talking about spending.

But best of all, the FairTax will eliminate the IRS, which has become the most feared government agency in history (a 2005 or 2006 study showed that the IRS was more feared than the Gestapo or KGB ever was, though I find that a little over the top.). The point is that if the FairTax did nothing more than eliminate the IRS and destroy all of their private records on taxpayers, it would be more than enough to get my support. The FairTax is a solid step in the right direction.

I live in the real world. Washington, DC is corrupt to its core. We aren’t going to wave a wand, in the form of some bill or handful of elected representatives that’s going to fix that over night. People like Hitler, Marx and Alinsky taught liberals that you have to take it a step at a time. It took them from the mid 60s to 2008 to establish themselves. But their model paid off and we have a Socialist in the White House.

The first step to making a come-back is to cripple the DC establishment, so the rest of our positions will stand a chance. By eliminating the tax lobbyists (80% of DC lobbyists) the FairTax takes a serious bite out of the back side of the DC establishment. It means that the voice of the voters will suddenly be a lot more important to our elected representatives. Without tax lobbyists sitting in their office all day, they’ll actually have time to take some of our calls and read some of our emails. Sure, there will still be the green lobby, the medical industry lobby and the like. But they are small potatoes, when compared to the tax lobby.

Also, by taking tax breaks off the plate for congressmen, The FairTax will mean that PACs that advocate for certain tax breaks will go away. That means that congressmen will become less dependent upon campaign donations from PACs and more from voters. If you want to undermine the DC Establishment, so as to give the voters more voice, then the FairTax is the one bill of any kind (not just tax bills) in Congress that will do that. It’s not a cure-all. But by getting rid of tax lobbyists, the FairTax will go a long way toward giving the voters their voice back.

You can advocate for spending cuts all you want. But right now, regardless of how loud you shout, your voice isn’t being heard over the cacophony of tax lobbyists. So it’s doing no good. The FairTax will significantly reduce the din of lobbyists that are drowning out your voice and mine, along with the voices of millions of other voters on a thousand other issues.

[Wayne Bachmann]

I think you are being extremely naive to think they will get rid if all of your records, not to mention doing anything else they say they will do.

I agree with "clean the barn, and install fresh bales of hay, then have a close monitoring system from then on, which has to report regularly to the public, with a stern disciplinary system.

[John Gaver]

Would they destroy all their current records, as HR-25 requires? I don't know. But now we're down to people not obeying a law and that's a different issue. But if we have such a law in place, we have leverage on our side.

I tend to believe that they will destroy either all or most of their current private data, since the cost to keep it would be prohibitive, if there was not income coming in to pay for it. There are tens of billions of zettabytes of data currently held by the IRS. We're talking about buildings and buildings full of disk drives. But even more is on old style reel to reel magnetic tape.

Just attempting to keep that much data would be sure to raise red flags all over the place and would be certain to be exposed by some whistle-blower. But without keeping all of that data, it's probably useless to try to keep just some of it. It's too complex, too costly and involves way too much risk. I just don't see them trying to keep it.

But then, I admit that I could be wrong. That actually happened once. 8^)

[John Gaver]

By the way, Morton, though it's a little off-topic, you might want to read my latest article that goes into detail about one of the most damaging parts of our tax system.

In particular, 1001 wealthy U.S. citizens renounced their U.S. citizenship between January 1 and March 31. A lot of that was probably because of FATCA.

Here's the link:

Obama policies lead to an ominous record for renunciations of U.S. ...

This article is also available on Examiner.com, but without the great graphics at this link:

Obama policies lead to an ominous record for renunciations of U.S. ...

I hope you find the article interesting. At the very least, you will find it disturbing.

[Bob Podolsky]

John:

The title of this thread is targeted specifically at the FairTax, which presupposes that there must be some form of taxation that is acceptable. Furthermore, the author didn't dismiss the FairTax simply because it was a tax, but instead, went into a long dissertation of myths and misrepresentations about the FairTax, in specific. My response was therefore based upon the author's implied assumption that there is some form of taxation that is acceptable.

Bob:

It is precisely these assumptions that I choose to challenge.

John: 

Of the various forms of taxation that are on the table, the Fair Tax offers by far the most advantages to the nation, with by far the least pain and intrusion into the lives of the people.

Bob:

I agree it offers the least "intrusion". That makes it the most dangerous. One can refuse to pay an income tax and still rent, eat, drive, etc. But with a sales tax we won't be able to do these things without paying the tax. So the "Fair Tax" is life threatening  to anyone wishing to resist taxation. How is this an advantage?

John:

If you want to have a discussion about the validity of all taxes, then a thread about the Fair Tax is not the place to do that. 

Bob:
i disagree! Discussions about the relative merits of differing systems of taxation is the MOST IMPORTANT venue in which to address the ethics of taxation. Lacking the ethical perspective, the discussion is virtually meaningless. Would you discuss the merits of differing forms of slavery without addressing the unethical nature of slavery itself? Taxation IS a form of slavery. If you doubt this FACT, read the preceding link.

John:

Personally, though I don't like taxes, 

Bob:

Bravo!

John:

I like the security that some limited government gives me, which requires some taxes.

Bob:

The assertion of this requirement is a factual error. There is nothing provided by government that cannot be provided without it. And every dime spent by government is a dime EXTORTED from someone. At least the Mafia doesn't pretend it exists for the sake of its victims. For a practical alternative to government, read Ethics, Law, & Government that presents a new concept: ORGANIZED ANARCHY.

John:

When the government spends more money than we give them in taxes...

Bob:

Give them? Don't you mean more than they extort from us?

John:

that's not a problem with taxes, whether it's an income tax, a VAT, a sales tax, or some permutation of taxes. It's a problem with spending and with the people we elected.

Bob:
YES! The problem is other people spending OUR money - and the fact that the people we elect believe they are entitled to do so. i DON'T CONSENT! I didn't elect the thieving politicians! They in no way represent me. And when you pay their tribute, you are paying for your own enslavement, and simultaneously agreeing that they are entitled to take from you (or me) whatever they want.

Had you lived in medieval times, you'd be supporting the divine right of kings. You seem not to understand that elections (and crowns) confer neither rights nor authorities. The whole concept of "authority" is a fiction invented at least 8,000 years ago to convince "commoners" that "nobles" have the right to rule them. The same exact dynamic applies today - only the names have changed.

John:

The title of this thread is targeted specifically at the FairTax, which presupposes that there must be some form of taxation that is acceptable. Furthermore, the author didn't dismiss the FairTax simply because it was a tax, but instead, went into a long dissertation of myths and misrepresentations about the FairTax, in specific. My response was therefore based upon the author's implied assumption that there is some form of taxation that is acceptable.

Bob:

It is precisely these assumptions that I choose to challenge.

John: 

Of the various forms of taxation that are on the table, the Fair Tax offers by far the most advantages to the nation, with by far the least pain and intrusion into the lives of the people.

Bob:

I agree it offers the least "intrusion". That makes it the most dangerous. One can refuse to pay an income tax and still rent, eat, drive, etc. But with a sales tax we won't be able to do these things without paying the tax. So the "Fair Tax" is life threatening  to anyone wishing to resist taxation. How is this an advantage?

John:

If you want to have a discussion about the validity of all taxes, then a thread about the Fair Tax is not the place to do that. 

Bob:
i disagree! Discussions about the relative merits of differing systems of taxation is the MOST IMPORTANT venue in which to address the ethics of taxation. Lacking the ethical perspective, the discussion is virtually meaningless. Would you discuss the merits of differing forms of slavery without addressing the unethical nature of slavery itself? Taxation IS a form of slavery. If you doubt this FACT, read the preceding link.

John:

Personally, though I don't like taxes, 

Bob:

Bravo!

John:

I like the security that some limited government gives me, which requires some taxes.

Bob:

The assertion of this requirement is a factual error. There is nothing provided by government that cannot be provided without it. And every dime spent by government is a dime EXTORTED from someone. At least the Mafia doesn't pretend it exists for the sake of its victims. For a practical alternative to government, read Ethics, Law, & Government that presents a new concept: ORGANIZED ANARCHY.

John:

When the government spends more money than we give them in taxes...

Bob:

Give them? Don't you mean more than they extort from us?

John:

that's not a problem with taxes, whether it's an income tax, a VAT, a sales tax, or some permutation of taxes. It's a problem with spending and with the people we elected.

Bob:
YES! The problem is other people spending OUR money - and the fact that the people we elect believe they are entitled to do so. i DON'T CONSENT! I didn't elect the thieving politicians! They in no way represent me. And when you pay their tribute, you are paying for your own enslavement, and simultaneously agreeing that they are entitled to take from you (or me) whatever they want.

Had you lived in medieval times, you'd be supporting the divine right of kings. You seem not to understand that elections (and crowns) confer neither rights nor authorities. The whole concept of "authority" is a fiction invented at least 8,000 years ago to convince "commoners" that "nobles" have the right to rule them. The same exact dynamic applies today - only the names have changed.

[Rene Stover]

Thank you Bob, you have covered it thoroughly, and accurately, I commend you!!

[Bob Podolsky]

Thank you, Rene. If you liked that, you're going to love these:

Website

Titanians.org

Ethics, Law, & Government

Why Ethical Ends Require Ethical Means

Why Taxation is Slavery

Videos

Effective Activism

“Organized Anarchy” - Libertopia 2013

The Titania Project – Libertopia 2013

Phasing Out Coercive Government – Libertopia 2013

Foster Gamble at Libertopia 2013

FLOURISH! (The Book)

Why Read Flourish!

Get Flourish! Now

[Osceola Renegade]

Fair Tax:

Elements of Unfair Tax:

Criminal Minded President who commits treason at will; and tells the American Tax payer to go get effed - he is King.

Criminal Minded X-President(s) who support putting this ArseSupreme in the Office to begin with.  (Read and research the GHWB, GWB, JB, BBJClinton, appointments, and usurpation of the Constitution and laws of the US).  Don't forget to go back to at least Roosevelt and his 1933 giveaway of your sole and bodies but kept you in bondage as Tax payers.

All coming to life right before our eyes with the Treason of the past few days by our EXEC.

Bottom line, take a look at your Birth Certificate.  If it has a 7 or more digit number and a letter code, you can trace the letter code to a bank and from that determine which BANK owns your ass.

I was one of the lucky ones.  No BC filled out on birth, borne on a farm in a wilderness, and am truly a Soverign Person under the Original Constitution.  However, my son (1971) has the markings of the beast on his Birth Certificate.

Fair TAX -