Friday, October 2, 2009

Interesting Comments on The Fair Tax Article

I found these comments HERE and HERE so interesting that I wanted to post them so everyone could read and join in the debate.

First is the comment from About Me. Lets see who About Me is.


About Me
My name is Jeff Morrison. I am currently an Urban Graduate Research Fellow and Doctoral student in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Georgia State University. Before entering the world of academia I was a classroom teacher for 12 years. I am State certified in Middle Grades Science Education, Secondary Education- History, Economics, Behavioral Science, and Government, Gifted Education, and Educational Leadership. Throughout my years as a graduate student and professional educator I have researched and used open source technology extensively in my studies and lessons.



Now his comment.


About me said...
Do you have any idea what the dialectic of historical materialism means? or have you read anything written by Marx himself... your ignorance of political theory is only outdone by your complete lack of understanding of our nation's tax codes...the fact that 99% of Americans believe Marx was a socialist only reinforces the ignorance of our country to the world.

Sad....



Daar Fisher is one of the promoters of the Michigan Fair Tax and had this to say.


Daar said...
Right and Left can agree that the FairTax will do away with the tyranny instituted by the Political / Banking elite, laying claim to 40% of everyone's wages, and 35% of corporations' income (really, higher prices to consumers).

Since all income tax goes to the Fed as interest payments (see Russo), enactment of a national FairTax will additionally do away with the Fed's "enforcement arm," the IRS.

Why do we permit ourselves to be taxed in a manner that places us - mostly average, wage-earning American families - at risk of audit, interest, penalties, liens, levies, even criminal prosecution? ARE WE NUTS?!

Mike Gravel states it clearly: "We're screwed already, and we don't even know it!"



Then Susan made a comment.


Susan said...
Rose, I think you have explained why we DON"T want a "FAIR TAX" quite well.

Daar, do you really think that the rest of us are that ignorant? Why would we want to give the government the RIGHT to tax us? YOU ARE NUTS!


The whole thing revolves around the Undeniable Unalienable Rights.


Unalienable said...
Daar,

Jefferson said 'those who think that they can be ignorant and free, imagine something which cannot be.'

I cannot under any circumstances condone an overflow of passion in exchange for the destruction of UNALIENABLE.

Alternative Tax = Alternative Rape

THE PEOPLE understand now.

You do not seem to understand what UNALIENABLE is and that UNALIANABLE cannot be taxed (McCullough v. Maryland [U.S.Ct.])

Could Grandpa Rogers be asked to explain this to you?



When you really understand what our Founders did when they set in stone those Unalienable Rights in the Declaration Of Independence and our Bill Of Rights as well as the INDIVIDUAL State Constitutions and Bill Of Rights, and fully understand the word "Unalienable", Live Unalienable Rights, Breathe Unalienable Rights, then we will be FREE.

41 comments:

Daar said...

Rose, I like what Ian posted last June:

Hmmm... now, let's see... Income Tax (IT) vs FairTax (FT):

IT: Confiscates wages, MI takes theirs first every working hour.
FT: Ends wage withholding.

IT: "We work for the pol's every working hour." They create a deficit in family pay, which the family may make up for by using CREDIT CARDS (and paying another "hidden tax" CC interest - OH, THE BANKERS LOVE IT).
FT: Because MI gov't would be put on the SPENDING SIDE of the family ledger, the gov't benefits ONLY AS OUR FAMILY BENEFITS thru purchases.

IT: Want to lessen your tax burden? Don't work.
FT: Want to lessen your tax burden? Make your own clothes. Grow your own food. BUY USED. (You can still plan for wealth, because you are FREE TO WORK ALL YOU WANT WITHOUT PENALTY.)

IT: Taxes business income & payrolls.
FT: Ends this. Makes true tax cost to consumers, visible.

IT: Biz taxes not removable from (higher) prices (paid by consumers) and accompanies goods shipped to export markets (lessening competitiveness).
FT: Ends this self-wound-inflicting trade policy.

IT: Biz taxes = hidden taxes.
FT: Visible.

IT: Penalizes productivity: Hire an employee? Hit with more taxes.
FT: ENDS this.

IT: Deprives families of the "fruits of labor."
FT: ENDS this. Rightfully restores the "bread" to those who make the "dough."

IT: Has a TAX CODE with which politicians and lobbyists love to play footsie.
FT: ENDS tax favors to the few at cost to the many - because the TAX CODE (favoring the power elite) is replaced with a simple PREBATE that UN-taxes all poverty level spending for the family. BRILLIANT! NO TAX CODE NEEDED.

IT: Taxes us multiple times.
FT: Taxes NEW goods and services AT RETAIL only ONCE! (And NO TAX on business-to-business sales, which replicates hiding taxes in prices consumers pay.)

IT: Every working person is a candidate for COLLECTION (read: interest, penalties, audits).
FT: Only those who own retail businesses will be required to COLLECT the tax ("at the cash register"). Reduces "points of collection" by 90%!

IT: Requires income tax return, only after complicated calculation - IN ARREARS - of "taxable income."
FT: ENDS INCOME TAX RETURNS. Sales & Use tax returns (already operational in MI), much easier to fill out - not 60,000 pages of Income Tax Code to follow. Precise amount of tax easily known, based on sales - remitted monthly.

IT: Every working person is a candidate for a "tax deficiency."
FT: PAID IN FULL (at the cash register).

IT: Taxes income, regardless if from sales of new, or used, goods.
FT: USED GOODS NOT TAXED.

IT: Look it up, Rose - it was a heavily progressive INCOME TAX - that was a tenet of Marxism.
FT: Anti-thetical to Marxism, because control of the family purse is in the hands of the family.

IT: Annualized basis, NOT UNIFORMLY APPLIED. The wealthier one is, the greater access to tax professionals. And, the tax code is ONLY TO HAPPY to provide shelters to the super-rich.
FT: Non-annualized basis. UNIFORMLY APPLIED without special treatment for the wealthy. The more you spend, the higher the FT rate you pay. Using a family of four, MI FT rate of 9.75% (BEFORE APPLYING THE REBATE) and spending shown (over 12 monthly periods) result in the EFFECTIVE (post-REBATE APPLIED) rate for that family:

Spending of $21,200 = NO TAX(Prebates rec'd covered all taxes.)
Of $ 42,400 = 4.88% (effective MI FairTax %, after prebate applied)
Of $ 50,000 = 5.62%
Of $100,000 = 7.68%
Of $200,000 = 8.72%
Of $800,000 = 9.49%

Please, SOMEBODY, TELL ME THAT THE MICHIGAN FAIRTAX IS NOT FAIR???! (and I'll tell you to get your head examined).

Generally, you have interesting and informative stuff posted. But, on the subject of FairTax, YOU'RE ALL SCREWED UP.

Rose said...

Daar,

I love you dearly but like Ian, you just don't get it. It isn't Income Tax v. Fair Tax.

It's Unalienable Rights that cannot be taxed. As you said, see Aaron Russo's movie, Freedom to Fascism.

You and Ian want a replacement tax Daar, we are taking our Unalienable Rights back.

We don't disagree Daar, we want totally different things you and I.

But, I suppose you and Ian get well paid to sell your snake oil. You can call it medicine but it's still snake oil in that bottle.

R. George Dunn said...

NO one wants to be taxed. The current tax system has placed the attitude of our government to be centered on the allowed bribery made by Lobbyists who benefit by the Tax Structure we have as well as a campaign finance law that allows for corporate control of the elections.

Get rid of the theft of our earnings before we see them and allow for We the People to control our tax burden, thus leveling taxation of imports with domestic production and our personal wealth.

Change campaign financing to only voters may donate to a candidate and make congress attitude hold the People of more value then a lobbyist. Make a lobbyist be of good will by eliminating the constant good ole boy amendment hiding corporations from taxes for giving the most into campaign coffers.

FairTax will set this Nation free to liberate itself of the facsism of Nationalism. The Feds should be happy at three percent of the GDP to cover Constitutional resonsibilities.

Daar said...

Rose, dearest (truly),

And just who do you think it is who pays corporations' taxes (excise, property, or otherwise)? (Hint: Consumers, either through direct purchases or through indirect consumption, e.g., if local governments purchase contractor services for public improvements, we pay the bill though local taxes - but the size of that payment, currently, includes the payroll / income tax costs every contractor has in their successful bids.)

Why, it is not the purpose of corporations to pay tax, but rather to make a profit in order to reward risk. Those who share in that risk, are entitled to a ROI (return on investment). And while price is market-driven, currently foreign goods come into our market from lands where VATs (value-added taxes) are the law of the land - in many cases IN ADDITION to their INCOME taxes! (yuck). But they can jettison VATs prior to export to our markets, where we cannot do likewise into their markets because of embedded income and payroll tax costs. (What is it that keeps that profit reasonable? Market competition, of course. It is the only mechanism that can efficiently and equitably do so. It is at the heart of free-enterprise system. See something out there you can do less expensively? or improve upon? Therein lies opportunity.)

Today, corporations are merely tax COLLECTORS, in effect receiving the costs of taxes assessed against them in their sales receipts. And, they - ONLY - would continue to be so under FairTax. And it will be THEY to whom the tax man looks, for receipt of taxes collected - NOT to ordinary, wage-earning (non-business-owing) American families.

At the same time, politicians, lobbyists, and the banksters will have their "thumbs" removed from pressing down upon us. For, you see, they will now be placed on the "expense side of the family ledger." No more confiscation. Families will amass wealth, tax free. And no more tax attorneys, planners to aid the rich - because the shelters they enjoy will then be gone.

I like the way Mike Gravel (D) 2008 presidential candidate puts it in his YouTube video - simply, yet very eloquently.

Unalienable said...

What is wrong with this idea of Daar's?

"Returning ownership of paychecks......."


Sounds like John McCain saying the Republican Party "will let you keep more of your paycheck...."

Hm...

When did Congress get control of Paychecks, except through unconstitutional statues and unconstitutional use of force, and unconstitutional use of government agents (similar to those complained of in the Declaration of Independence 1776) against UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Before the Revolution, the King's agents found themselves tarred feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

So it has already begun, Police shooting Fire Chiefs in Open Court over traffic tickets, where there is no damaged party to cause a chargable infraction as statutes cannot be harmed.

Daar aparently thinks that his abundance of words will somehow override the natural law of UNALIENABLE and that America can or will be free if it remains ignorant and THE PEOPLE remain enslaved in their minds.

Me-est thinkist that Darr needs to be run out of town on a rail after a good flogging, because he says 'Oh do not tax the poor corporations who exist at the will of the state as artificial entities who protect the owners from liability for their bad acts!' and 'Let the Corporate Welfare state continue unabated, so that they can amass hoards of capital to contiune the corrupting Lobbying efforts to sway Legislatures duties against the Rights ofindividual entreprenuers and sole proprietors who have always been the economic backbone of America.'

Those are the words of War. War against most of the Families of America.

Once upon a time Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet, and Pontiac were sole proprietorships. I bet the quality was pretty good with all of the competition.

The tax structure on those original Mom and Pop outfits was originally ZERO since they were exercised as a matter of Right and not artificial incorporation status.

Gerald Celente a Trends Researcher has well explained that America will return to the small operations that are sustainable outside of Government Corporate Welfare/Ownership (Fascism).

Darr is fighting against the winds of RETURN to what makes America great.

Those who follow him will find that they bet on a jockey who has no horse, just as we are discovering with every economic report and empty claim of all is well ans the recession is over.

America has already bet on Daar's idea for over 100 years. A 14 Trillion dollar loss is the result.

Mac said...

Lets see..
We are going to take Michigans income tax which is piggy backed on the federal income tax which mose of us do not owe.. If we can eliminate the Federal problem, there is no michigan problem.. And replace this with a ligitamate tax, that everyone is going to pay, thus continuing the feeding of the pigs via the "general fund" which is their feeding trouff. Sounds like a bigger problem, not a solution to me.

Many people are discoverign the fraud of the IRS and are stopping their payments to the IRS for the non liablity of income tax. Michigans own law says that if you are exempt from federal income tax, you are exempt from State income tax except for specific business income. Since most of us are hourly or salaried workers, and are not busineses, we do not owe any income tax what so ever. So why replace something, when instead we should demand proper enforcment of the existing law?!

If they imposed the existing law as it is written, most of us would not pay a dime in income tax.

All the Fair tax does is change the way governmen extorts money from you.

Daar said...

Rose, Unalienable, and Mac - CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY TAX;PEOPLE PAY TAXES. CORPORATIONS PASS THEIR COSTS THRU IN PRICES, OR IN DECREASED OPERATIONS. THEY MUST MAKE A PROFIT, OR OUT THEY CEASE TO EXIST - AND THE JOBS THEY PROVIDE CEASE ALSO. TAX THEM ENOUGH, AND THEY GO AWAY - AND SO DO JOBS. GET IT?!

You're stuck on the "big, bad evil" corporation myth. The problem is the Federal Reserve, and the income tax enforcement of which - at the extreme (after they build up penalties and interest) - limits our opportunities to exercise a basic, unalienable, God-given, right to work (they'll conspire with the employer to deprive us even of wages - not even a gain to us, just a trade to subsist!)

To listen to you, you'd think that Corporations have a money source separate from We, the People!

WAKE UP, and GET ON BOARD! Help FOLLOW THE MONEY, and wrestle control of your paycheck BACK from the ROGUES!. This internecine warfare only makes the Rothschilds of the world smile.

wizard1 said...

Good day, I like 2 see people get there mojo on,if you want 2 make a change in how the FED is spending your hard earn money, Go into work on monday if u have a job & on your w-4 form state-fed there is a little box, check excempt no taxs with be taken out, Do this 4 6mo,if we could get of the people 2 do this in the usa that would be change.

Mac said...

First of All wizard, I have been down that exempt road. One company refused it. Another got the IRS letter and withheld maximum. The exempt statuts does not work unless you have a court order to back you up.

Second, Daar, I am aware that consumers pay all taxes. Which is the way our government was supposed to be run. That way we the people control the purse strings by what we buy. I am pro corporation as they provide jobs. I am anti-taxation because that is why so many companies have left michigan - Granholm has taxed them into oblivian and they can no longer make profit which pays the workers pay.

The simple fact is, our government has taken too big a slice of our american pie. And it wants more. The flat tax is not a solution - it is a continuation of the problem of overspending and wastefull spending.

Rose said...

I noticed Daar, that you side stepped the issue as usual. You keep arguing taxing method as if we agree with one or the other. We don't.

What you don't ever address are the issues such as what Unalienable brought up or comment on the case LAW that I've cited, like...

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen."
(italics, the Court's; bold emphasis added)

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) (Justice Field Concurring, joined by JJ. Bradley, Harlan, and Woods)

OR

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added)

Daar said...

Rose,

Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. How many times do you have to hear this before the light goes on, dear?

We don't want the government in our income. Those enterprising enough to go into business, and willing to assume the risks and responsibilities, will collect a sales tax (uniformly applied, without benefit to one socio-economic group above another).

No more, will average working Americans be placed under threat of audit, interest and penalty, permiting government to build up big tax bills (which benefit the "tax remediation" industry - HR Blocks, TaxMasters, attornies, etc).

We don't want the gov't making special treatment "tax deals" with certain businesses or sectors (or size!) above others. Therefore, cut the payroll/income tax code the gaming of which adds costs of lobbyists, and business lobbying organization fees to the cost off doing business, and thus to prices.

C'mon, let's quit "arguing on the tracks" - the train comes by, on schedule, every April 15th, running over multitudes like clockwork.

Rose said...

So Daar, your saying that the Declaration of Independence and Bill Of Rights are no longer in effect and this case has no bearing on the discussion.

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen."
(italics, the Court's; bold emphasis added)
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) (Justice Field Concurring, joined by JJ. Bradley, Harlan, and Woods)

Rose said...

Daar, that would make this ruling moot as well, right?

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added)
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)

R. George Dunn said...

Daar is right, that a tax on business is paid by the consumer. The difference between a onsumption tax and the business or corporate tax is corporate tax is hidden from view whereas consumption is at point of purchase, visable and open to choice of paying it or not.

Another difference is with the corporate tax, you are adding to the purchase price of the product, whereas imports come in tax free. With FairTax, all product domestic and import are taxed equally, thus giving back to America the competative edge in manufacturing making for opportunity to persuing happiness.

The fact that our Nation's leaders have ignored the Constitution and that it is at an openly defiant abuse, i.e. campaign finance empowering big money and big government.

Rose said...

And you still miss the point R. George just like Daar.

It is Big Money and Big Government who is behind the Fair Tax. It is just a continuation of what was started way back in 1909 when the Corporate Excise Tax was passed reducing the Tariffs and Taxing Corporations with the promise of passing the 16th amendment to tax incomes. Yet everyone ignores the fact that the courts consistently ruled that the 16th amendment did not and could not expand new taxing powers to Congress and did not tax any new subjects than was taxed under the Corporate Tax Act.

What you and Daar are pushing for is to relieve Wall Street and Tax Main Street. That's what the Fair Tax is all about. But first, you need to get enough States to pass it in order to get it passed on the Federal level.

The Fair Tax is an Unconstitutional Tax and not in keeping with the Founders Intent and I will not now or ever support it.

You would do better to campaign to repeal the 16th Amendment, The Corporate Tax Act, and impost Tariff on all imports. That will bring manufacturing back to this country and protect American Workers once again. Constitutionally Speaking of course.

Susan said...

Currently the IRS is the TAX collector. Under the FAIR TAX the BANK will become the new tax collector. We have a small, (still in the infancy stages) service oriented business. One that sees significant slowdowns during certain times of the year. Because our service is not a necessity, the downturn in the economy has hit us in a hard way. Because our business is still relatively new, we still find it necessary to inject our own money into the business. This means that, with the FAIR TAX, everytime we put our OWN money into our business account, it will be perceived as INCOME from which the BANK will automatically EXTRACT the government's share. How many other small businesses will be in this same boat?

Daar said...

Susan, Did you hear yourself say that your business is NOT a necessity? It would be nice if any of us who wanted to be in business for ourselves could be on the basis of our "wants." However, unless your business IS a necessity, your loaning it more money (not a taxable event) is probably not well-advised.

Rose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rose said...

Very clever comment Daar. Attack someone who is trying to get a new business started and ignore the fact that your Fair Tax will sabotage those attempts. Just like you ignore this:

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen."
(italics, the Court's; bold emphasis added)
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) (Justice Field Concurring, joined by JJ. Bradley, Harlan, and Woods)

and this:


“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added)
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)
Rose Lear

Susan said...

Darr,
By necessity, I meant it is not something necessary to personal survival. Do you enjoy entertainment? There are those that do, but, because of the economy they don't have the disposable income that would allow them to hire us.

Now, having gotten YOUR BS smokescreen out of the way, you seem to have neglected to comment on the issue of the banks taking over as Tax collectors. I just want anyone who is thinking about starting a small home or part-time business to understand what WILL happen to the money they will be putting into their business until it becomes self-sufficient and profitable.

djakel said...

Rose & Unalienable, the fact is your arguments against income taxes have not changed the controlling law. Keep trying. We will pay income taxes until the 16th Amendment is repealed. Given that fact, the choice is to continue the status quo or pass the fair tax and repeal the 16th Amendment. For all the reasons Daar stated and more (CRIMINALS CURRENTLY ESCAPE TAXATION), I prefer the fair tax. Once the fair tax is in place, the rate can be reduced as government spending is reduced.

The more important fight is to reduce the size of the federal government. We should advocate passing a Constitutional Amendment to remove the "commerce clause" and the "general welfare clause" which, as currently interpreted (wrongly), allows spending on anything. This would leave the 17 enumerated powers as the only spending allowed.

R. George Dunn said...

A consumption tax is an indirect tax as the founders thought good. It allows for we the people to not pay it if we so choose. That is easier said for those who live in the country side. As to eliminating the 16th Amendment, in the Federal FairTax Senate Bill 25, the repealing of the sixteenth Amendment is a must. Who in their right mind would want a VAT tax where the Government taxes both production and sales.

As to a new business or any business , the FairTax plan removes all tax on business, allowing for capitalism to render down the cost of product. To say we are not taxing business like the stockmarket, why would we separate big business from small business? Liberty to prosper is what made this Nation great and the taxing of it is what is destroying our Nation today. If we eliminate business tax, we eliminate political control by business.

There is no tax for your business capital. Your investments for business are tax free and thus cheaper to own. YOur consumers will have more earnings to save and to spend. More jobs will be available to grow your consumers.

Rose said...

Djakel, please show me where the Fair Tax REPEALS the 16th Amendment.

I read the National Fair Tax bill and it does NOT, please let me repeat that for you, IT DOES NOT, repeal the 16th Amendment. It only promises that IF after 7 years it isn't repealed the Fair Tax will expire.

Better get your facts straight if you want to debate issues here.

When you bottle snake oil and sell it as a cure all medicine, sooner or later, people realize that it's just SNAKE OIL packaged up nice and PRETTY.

Rose said...

George, George, when's the last time the media told the truth?

Are we turning Michigan into the next Hollywood? Is that what we want influencing our children? I don't think so.

Uncontrolled spending of the Government is the issue George.

END THF FED and you get RID OF THE IRS. Get it George?

Rose said...

George, when did the Founders impose a Consumption Tax?

Mac said...

Fact is the 16th did not authorize an income tax. All it did was settle a legal argument - that the income tax, is an excise tax, never subject to apportionment, as it is not a direct tax.

Congress has been taxing incomes since the civil war. Only since WWII have they imposed the tax on the avarage american citizen.

The tax power is Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, not the 16th amendment.

And the Government will continue to take your property from your paycheck untill we all demand the Congress explain how we are liable for an excise tax, and how they can compell us to take an oath as a condition to being in compliance with a law (when you sign your name under penalties of perjury).
This is compelled performance, without comphesnation in direct violation of the 13th, 4th and 5th amendments. Wake up people.

Mac said...

R George Dunn, you say the new tax takes more from our wages. Do you have any idea what the legal term wages means? HINT: According to Michigan compiled laws, the term wages is the same wages as defined at chapter 24, at §3401. This is one of 3 different definitions of wages found in the Internal revenue code. Each defintion applies ONLY to the chapter it is found in. Chapter 24 is the public salaries tax act, codified. Are you a public employee? No? Then why is the company reporting you got paid wages under chapter 24?!! Do you see the fraud there? Guess what? The company did not report you got paid wages under chapter 24. They reported you got paid wages under chapter 21, social security, and transmitted that information to the Secreatry of Social Security, via a w-3 form. It is the IRS who converts that to a w2, chapter 24 liablity. And then Michigan picks up on it. Do you see the domino effect here? Why replace a tax that you do not owe, with one everyone will have to pay, and that does not decrease the size of government?

What is wrong with people? Why can't we just stand up and demand congress hold the IRS accountable for once?!!! is that so hard a thing to do?

Rose said...

At David's request, I'm posting his comment for him.

Since the disagreement seems to be to replace the income tax with a "fair" consumption tax...I'd like to comment:

Back in ...I believe it was 1983 or there about, Ronald Regan ordered Peter Grace to investigate what percentage of money collected in federal income tax actually went toward government services. The Grace Commission reported (backed by hard evidence) that all the money collected went to pay interest owed to the Federal Reserve and other debts, and that "not one nickel" was available for government services".

Shortly after that report was publicized, President Regan almost met his maker. After that incident, Vice President George Bush senior took the reins of the administration.

My point is that, the argument that "government needs money to fund public services" may not be valid. Just maybe... the money we pay in taxes (whether claimed to be "FAIR" or otherwise) does not serve those who pay, no matter by what method it is taken from us.

Just some food for thought.

David Lonier

djakel said...

Rose, I am fully aware of the 7 year allowance. I never said the 16th amendment would be repealed immediately. That is obviously impossible because 3/4 of the states must ratify, which will take years. More importantly, the FT act does repeal income, payroll, estate & gift taxes simultaneously with the implementation of the sales tax.

You call FT snake oil while offering no facts supporting such a claim. Daar gave you dozens of reasons why FT is better than the status quo. Tell us why the status quo is better than the FT.

Your stated desire to eliminate all taxes without replacement is a nonstarter.

Rose said...

djakel, here's what you said.

Given that fact, the choice is to continue the status quo or pass the fair tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.

Now your saying:

Rose, I am fully aware of the 7 year allowance. I never said the 16th amendment would be repealed immediately

That's the problem isn't it DJ? You guys keep saying it will repeal the 16 Amendment but you forget to tell everyone that it won't be right away. In fact, you never mention anything about the 7 year rule in the Fair Tax language.

Next, you said:

"You call FT snake oil while offering no facts supporting such a claim"

Well, I just did above and I have over and over below. It's just that Daar refuses to address the issue of the court cases I cited and the fact that our RIGHTS are no taxable.

All you have with the Fair Tax is a bunch of promises but no documentation of any facts that companies will come to Michigan or that they will reduce the cost of goods and services if they do.

We've had enough promises followed by excuses why it didn't work out the way you promised. That's why we are now holding TEA PARTIES! Get It?

Susan said...

http://www.juntosociety.com/inaugural/tjefferson2nd.html

Maybe those of you who think this so-called "FAIR TAX" is the only answer, should read Thomas Jefferson's 2nd Inaugural Address.

djakel said...

Rose, I have no more time to spare on this thread. By the way, I put in 20+ volunteer hours every week as Treasurer of Tea Party of W MI, and MI Rep for Independence Caucus, so don't ask me if I get it.

Rose said...

Posting at the request of Ruth.

Good work, Rose!

It is as though these Fair Taxers do not speak the same language as the Founders (or even the same as the rest of us)!

Thank you for nailing my friend Don Jakel on his willing participation in a deception! It's hard to believe the levels to which some folks go to defend a bad idea once they become "hooked on it." [Re: the NON-REPEAL of the 16th Amendment for seven years during which we are also hit with the "Fair" Tax!]

Imagine being saddled with both the IRS and the heavy new sales tax they are promoting! It is a horror beyond imagination, like the holocaust, the Gulag Archipelago, the Chinese prison nightmare, or, of course, the new American prison state with the highest per capita prison population in the world: How do we conceive of such things?

Thanks, again, and Cheerio! --
Ruth Harper
American Opinion Library & Book Store
1369 Plainfield Ave. NE
Grand Rapids

Unalienable said...

Daar,

You keep missing the subject.

Me-est Thinketh that ye are trying to sell false benefits too greatly, as we have noticed that your material and website display no corporations who are ready to reduce their fees for their products and services when your new unconstitutional law passes. (Where is Wal-Mart when you need them?)

You are showing your true colors in that your arguments appear to be the same as used in the U.S. Congress in 1909 (100 years ago) as two sides postured as to who is on the side of THE PEOPLE.

I cannot and will not ever be able to back down and negotiate away the UNALIENABLE Rights of THE PEOPLE.

I do not care if people pay taxes by doing busines with Corporations as opposed to their Free Neighbors and local proprietorships.

You apparently have no comprehension of the terms of the debate which is the limitation of the authority that you mistakenly think THE PEOPLE can expand, despite the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that UNALIENABLE Rights can never be subject to any vote, EVEN A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.(West Virginiga Board of Education)

That is Right America, you have been duped by the government and the Courts. You have been duped in your education, and Daar is a perfect example of highly successful indoctrination into lies and things that are impossible where UNALIENABLE lives.

It is time to free your mind America. UNALIEANBLE awaits you to rub the sleep from your eyes, and see who you are, the one who holds your chains.

Only you (other readers) can decide if UNALIENALE lives in America or dies due to lack of interest.

Enjoy your chains Daar.

Federalistvisions said...

Let's get this straight. Rose doesn't want any government, as government runs from tax monies and she wants no tax monies? Daar wants to make the taxes take to be based upon a persons 'personal' choice of lifestyle? i.e. If you make your own shoes, or buy used ones you pay no taxes.

I think that in both cases you miss the point. The Constitution does in fact give Government, both State and Federal the right to tax.

All taxes are by design regressive. So, we seek the least regressive tax possible if we are smart.

So, what is the least regressive tax possible? That would be a tax paid by the choice of the people. The bill of rights does not preclude taxation and that is not what the courts ruled. Nor does the Constitution require taxes to be collected. What is required is a system whereby the States and Federal Government can be funded in the most 'fair' method.

I think that method has escaped us over the last 100 years as we stepped into the boundry waters of Federal vs. State Rights and the intermingling of funds. The income tax is the most regressive of all taxes. The sales tax is the least regressive of all taxes. Thus, a sales tax is the most 'fair' amoung a list of very unfair taxation sytems. Make it simple, a flat tax would be better, and let the people decide what they will buy and what they will make or grow.

Unalienable said...

Part I

Mr. Federalistvisions, please do not purport to know what Rose wants. It discredits you from the beginning.

I write now to take contention with your false belief that the Federal and State Governemnts can tax.

You obviously use this generality to make people believe that the State and Federal Government have the authority to tax income and thus anything and everything is within its domain.

Have a gander at this:

Affiant is not in possession of any evidence to the contrary, that from November 2, 1972 to April 9, 2005 that he was employed, in exercise of his Common Law unalienable Right:

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen."
(italics, the Court's; bold emphasis added)
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) Justice Field Concurring, joined by JJ. Bradley, Harlan, and Woods

with the company operated by the Recipients, known as EDITED.

Affiant is not in possession of any evidence to the contrary, that he being a Sovereign Elector of Michigan and of the United States of America has always possessed the antecedent, in perpetuum, unalienable Right to practice his Religion in every way in his life, including but not limited to his business and legal life, free from interference from the actions and Acts of the United States Congress, as it is forever barred from enacting ay legislation that would interfere with Affiant’s living his Faith in every place in his life:
Bill of Rights (1789)
“Article I
“Congress shall make no law…of religion…prohibiting the free exercise there of…”

“ARTICLE IX

“The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons v. United States, 390 US 377, 394 (1968)


Affiant is not in possession of any evidence to the contrary, that as a Sovereign Elector of Michigan and the United States of America, that his unalienable Right to work to provide for his existence, being the essence and nature of his Sovereignty that then created the Federal Government, cannot ever be subject to any form of tax by the government that he created, and cannot have ever created him to claim sovereignty over him:

“It is obvious, that it [the power to tax] is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-extensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.
"The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission."
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

“It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the … tax imposed … is, in substance, just that."
* * *
"the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108 & 112, 63 S.Ct. 870 (1943)

Unalienable said...

Continued...

Affiant is not in possession of any evidence to the contrary, that as a Sovereign Elector of Michigan and the United States of America, that the powers of Congress are unable to reach him and the exercise of all of his Rights of existence, in keeping with West Virginia (supra) which states that all unalienable Rights have forever remained outside of the reach of votes of the Congress and even amendments are barred from trespass, the powers of the Federal Government even under guise of powers of taxation by amendment is impossible:

“Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects …, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word "tax" would be
…to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty …."
(emphasis added)
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 37 (1922)

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113." (emphasis added)
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-3 (1918)

". . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, . . ." (emphasis added)
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-3 (1916)


Mr. Alexander Hamilton was a staunch Federalist, he also suggested that Washington make himself King, and got what he deserved being shot by Arron Burr.

Futher UNALIENABLE saith not.

Mac said...

The problem we have today is that no one truly understands the whole tax situation. The income tax, which is an excise tax, is being imposed improperly and the congress knows it. The problem we have is lack of congressional oversight to hold the IRS accountable, and the power of the IRS to presume its records are correct. This leaves it up to the citizens to correct the IRS's records, which the average citizen has no idea how to access, nor read properly because these records are coded.

More over, the lack of proper established procedures for doing so are not made public, nor are they made available for the people.

Most of us do not owe a tax simply because we work for a living. There is no law that requires us to have a Social security number as a condition to being hired by any American company.

One person has stood up to the IRS's convoluted records keeping, and his name is Pete Hendrickson. The US government is now suing him and in one of his filings to the court Pete said, "Governments usually calculate and asses taxes. Property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, customs duties are all calculated and assessed by the taxing authority. Only in the case of of the income tax, does the government depend on the individual to be taxed to calculate the amount owed and require that individual to calculate the amount owed in such a way that the IRS is satisfied with that amount. The the tax laws do not allow the IRS to itself determine the amount of tax an individual owes, and the statutory scheme allows an individual to contradict the information on a w-2 form, thru the use of a form 4852." Pete is trying to correct their wrong records. Yet they are suing him for doing so.

The solution to our problem is not a fair tax, or a flat tax, but proper oversight by the US congress. Something we are now seeing is something they have failed to do not only on the IRS, but on the home mortgage banks, on the US dept of education (student loans), and more just to name a few.

We do not need more or different tax laws. What we need is proper enforcement of existing laws. If the IRS cannot identify the liability statute, then there must not be any liability for that person.

R. George Dunn said...

The current tax xtructure was developed under closed border to trade placing most tax on production. By converting to the FairTax,we will move the tax burden to equal agression on all product foreign and domestic. This will bring back manufacturing to the USA along with many other jobs. Such demand for employment will bring the inflation factor to be imposed by wages, thus putting the American Family in financial wellbeing.

As to the Burden of Taxes by Congress, if they were to follow the Constitution, it would solve all the illness we have. For the benefit of Social programing at a National Level, change to a State Voluntary System administered by the Board of Governors.

An example of the IRS Character is in how a Father who is avoiding paying child support and does not file income tax returns, knowing that it will all go to the Support order, leaves their taxes overpaid as uncliamed and the IRS knowingly keeps the funds. Eliminate any need for the Gov. to sit in control over our money, including lobby control by this treachery of bought politicians to the same way of consumption through worth. Eliminate the IRS and corporate campaign funding, including no-profits.

Angry Citizen said...

Do you want to see why the fair tax is for DING BATS?!!

Go to my blog and read the entry there..
www.leaderlessamerica.blogspot.com/2009/10/fair-tax-is-for-dingbats.html

This explains it in detail, which I cannot leave in the limited space allowed in this comment section.

R. George Dunn said...

Angry Citizen, being such by degration creates hostility. Speak true is the need.

Read your Blogg and left a comment Suffice it to say you have missed the mark on how our Business is impacted by no tax ion import goods, while the entire burden of this monster the Feds we have is on domestic production. Not much free about free trade in America. We have given up enough of our wealth. It is time to turn the trade to equal taxation on all goods.