# Tax Day



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

[Excerpt from "The FairTax Saying Goodbye to the IRS and the Federal Income Tax", soon to be published by Regan Books.]

Now here's where things get really depressing. After the idea of an income tax was declared to be unconstitutional the politicians in Washington chose sides and drew their battle lines. On the one side we had Democrats who were eager to spend the money that would come from an income tax. The Democrats included a platform calling for such a constitutional amendment permitting the income tax in both their 1896 and 1908 platforms. Republicans were opposed.

Those who favored the income tax scheme met with considerable success in capturing public sentiment with promises that the tax would "soak the rich" and would leave the vast majority of Americans alone. Wealth envy was every bit as alive and well in the early 1900s as it is in the early 2000s.

The history timeline now brings us to Texas Senator Joseph Bailey, a conservative Democrat, who cooked up a scheme to humiliate congressional Republicans. Bailey introduced a bill calling for an income tax. Even though Bailey himself was opposed to an income tax, he thought that the Republicans would rush in to kill this legislation. This would further the image that Democrats were trying to cultivate of Republicans as hostile to the poor and concerned only about protecting the wealthy. Wouldn't you know it; things didn't turn out as Bailey had planned. Liberal Republicans, backed by Teddy Roosevelt, came out in support of the bill. Passage seemed all but certain.

Conservative Republicans needed a way to derail the Bailey Bill and the growing threat of an income tax. In one of the worst examples of legislative play-calling in the history of our Republic, Republicans came up with the brilliant idea of announcing that they would support the idea of an income tax, but only if that income tax came about as the result of an amendment to our constitution. This group of conservative Republicans felt that while there might be some chance the proposed amendment would actually make it through the House and the Senate, there was just no way in the world that the legislatures of three-fourths of the states would vote for ratification and make it a part of our Constitution.

Oops.

Sail through the House and the Senate the amendment did. The vote in the Senate was 77-0 and the House approved it by 318-14. It was off to the states for ratification. Conservative Republicans were certain that the effort was doomed. They were wrong.

Democrats launched a massive effort to convince the people that any income tax would only be directed at the wealthy, and that ordinary Americans would be left unscathed. Conservative legislatures in the West and the South convinced their constituents that the adoption of the income tax would have little effect on them, since incomes high enough to be taxed were rare in these areas. The people, thus anesthetized, raised little objection and the 16th Amendment was ratified on February 12, 1913 . This date should be added to December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 as dates in American history that shall forever live in infamy.

The FairTax (c) 2005 John Linder & Neal Boortz

*TODAY'S THE DAY* :eyeroll:

Twenty-seven hours. That's the revised figure on just how long the average person in this country spends filling out their tax return this year. That's three working days. What do you make a day? Two hundred bucks? So, if your time is worth about $200 a day that would mean that you can add $600 to your tax bill ... $600 being just part of your cost of compliance with the Internal Revenue Code. Add to that any other expenses you incur for record keeping and tax management during the year ... and it adds up. What's the total nationwide cost? Try $500 billion, and that estimate might be low. But that's money. You can't really get a grip on $500 billion ... so let's try to put it in terms of people. It takes people to do the bookkeeping, maintain the records, and fill out the forms that are necessary for tax compliance on both the personal and business level. How many people? You'll be shocked to learn that tax compliance in the U.S. takes the combined work effort of about 2,700,000 people working eight-hour days five days a week just to make sure that individuals and corporations comply with out tax laws. *What a hideous and unforgivable waste of human potential.*
There is a way to spend zero hours a year preparing your federal income taxes. *It's called the FairTax*. You would pay taxes only when you spent money and never have a dime withheld from your paycheck. The rate would be 23% and would be reduced to 15.6% after your rebate for necessities.

Just imagine...no IRS, no forms to fill out and no tax day. April 15th would just be like any other Spring day. :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

There is good news for the idea of replacing our income tax with a consumption tax. A letter signed by more that 75 economists has been delivered to the House, Senate, Treasury tax reform panel and to President Bush. Copies of the letter have also been sent to virtually every tax policy maker on Capitol Hill. The letter praises the FairTax plan. Click to read a copy of the letter [pdf]

http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter_President.pdf

... complete with the name of every economist including one Nobel Prize winner, who signed on. The FairTax plan is viable, my friends, and it can become law. If the people of this country get behind the plan it can become law. Reforming our tax system is nothing compared with what a small number of Americans did over 250 years ago.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Consumption tax Eh! Sounds great but I can see two problems right off the bat! One we are a consumer driven economy and this will make people feel like they are being penalized for consumtion,and in turn will consume less. Two If you have all the money you have earned in your hand instead of automatic deductions from your paycheck you will see how bad you are really being screwed and consume less!! Think about it. Also all dem tax people would be outta a job!! Over


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

He makes a good point. I went to the site and the first thing on my mind was "Well I would just have to buy less".

Lets keep our tax structure the same but watch that the government doesn't spend as much on unnecissary things so we don't have to pay as much in taxes. I'm pretty tired of these conservatives who are afraid of taxes but still want to spend outlandish amounts of money running the show.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Humorous how people see things differently. I too worry about people not buying during a economic slump. However, as far as being penalized for consuming, they should know they are being penalized now for earning. Same thing.

The automatic deduction is so you don't know how bad your being screwed. Everyone should be cognizant of their finances to the point they know how bad they are being screwed. This is a good point in the consumer based tax. It makes even the idiots sit up and notice.

The first thing I thought was, wow I can buy more. With more spendable income you can spend more right. Correct me if I have been wrong on this for over 50 years. Think of it this way MT, the more you spend the more help you give those poor people you worry about. Also, if you spend as much as possible you might fund medical research that will save some poor fellow six heartbeats from he!!. Spending is goooooood.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The first thing I thought was, wow I can buy more. With more spendable income you can spend more right. Correct me if I have been wrong on this for over 50 years. Think of it this way MT, the more you spend the more help you give those poor people you worry about. Also, if you spend as much as possible you might fund medical research that will save some poor fellow six heartbeats from he!!. Spending is goooooood.


Cute, but thats not how the world works. The more you charge, the less people will buy. That is economics 101 for you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You can charge more because people have all their pay check. Do you really think people are to stupid to figure out (hey I have 400 dollars more each month to spend). So corn flakes cost another thirty cents, so what? If you noticed Bobm's post it is economists who thought this was a great idea. Let me see now 75 economists, some Nobel Prize Winners vs. a 16 year old high school kid. I wonder who would be right. Hmmmmmm I wonder. I would guess they know a heck of a lot more about it thane me too.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

If this idea was quite as stunning as you propose it would have been implimented already. Somehow I suspect that there are just a few others arguing to keep the current system. Frankly 400 dollars isin't going to look like much compared to the higher prices that they will have to pay.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I'm all for the fair tax, I give it 5 years and I'll bet we have it in place, by that time C. Rice will be in office and WE BE JAMMIN. Would be interesting to know the political preferences of the 75 economists.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Dear God let us all pray that Condi Rice is never even put up to run for office. It is amazing just how far people with no experience can get by drinking the koolaid, but that is a different thread entirely.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Didn't know you prayed MT, that's a good thing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> If this idea was quite as stunning as you propose it would have been implimented already. Somehow I suspect that there are just a few others arguing to keep the current system. Frankly 400 dollars isin't going to look like much compared to the higher prices that they will have to pay.


I would guess that eventually it will be implemented just like the Bush social security plan. If he doesn't get it done Condi will finish the job.

I don't know how far $400 would go it was just a number I threw out. 
Oh, if Bobm and the site are right 23 percent is what they will pay. So if you were a family of four spending $400 on food monthly you would now have to pay $492. That leaves you $308 to pay taxes on anything else you want to buy. Not bad. Oh, and you get your money back up to what? Can't remember but a family of four could live on it, and do here in North Dakota.

I know many people who would save over $2000 a month. That's a lot of corn flakes.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Prices *will not *go up they will be the same as they are now. Read the site and it will explain why.....I've done it and apparently failed. When prices are the same as now and you get you whole check I don't see why consumption would go down??


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I see, so they plan to raise the sales tax almost four fold and yet the prices will not go up? Somehow that just doesn't add up.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thats right and it does add up read the site and you will understand why

www.Fairtax.org


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I've already flipped through that page and it seems to me that the tax would require a 23% tax on all products purchased, yet you claim that the prices will not go up. You seem to understand this quite well, why don't you explain it?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Disclaimer: not aimed at anyone in particular so don't blow a gasket.

No one is this stupid Bobm, they simply choose not to understand. They are of the mentality my side against your side. This plan could be absolutely brilliant and there are people who will not like it. Why? Because it didn't come from the side for abortion, for gay marriage, for total disarmament, etc etc. We should get rid of all our nuclear weapons, tanks, bombers, etc, and wear flowers in our hair that match our silk panties.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Starter homes in eastern Massachusetts start at around 320,000. Add 23% to that and tell me how this is fair to someone who is trying to better their life. Yeh it may be ok when we are talking cans of soup etc etc. Incentive for large ticket items would be crushed. They call this a Fair Tax Fair for who!! :evil:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Starter homes in eastern Massachusetts start at around 320,000. Add 23% to that and tell me how this is fair to someone who is trying to better their life.


Massachusetts has a sales tax on homes?


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

I was refering to the proposed consumtion tax and how that will effect things.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I was refering to the proposed consumtion tax and how that will effect things.


Oh! ok,......... just curious. Like you I'm not for the fairtax but if that thing ever gets through and there is no exemption for homes .............. well, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out what the result will be.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Disclaimer: not aimed at anyone in particular so don't blow a gasket.
> 
> No one is this stupid Bobm, they simply choose not to understand. They are of the mentality my side against your side. This plan could be absolutely brilliant and there are people who will not like it. Why? Because it didn't come from the side for abortion, for gay marriage, for total disarmament, etc etc. We should get rid of all our nuclear weapons, tanks, bombers, etc, and wear flowers in our hair that match our silk panties.


Good to see your true colors shine thru Plainsman, let everyone see just how radical you really are.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

It does effect homes and the price will go down. These comments indicate that the fair tax is not understood. Read it thouroughly. he people in the letter in the post above are some of the most distinguished economists in our country they should at least make you please read it with an open mind. Nothing will be more expensive as a result of the tax change just the opposite will occur.

Please read it, thanks


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Bobm you get an "a" for effort in pushing your bible the fairtax. How does it effect people in manufacturing since the tax would be on new goods. I can buy all the used stuff I want tax free, that I like!

TC


----------

