Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
FAIRTAX is NOT 23+23...it's 23% PERIOD.Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
Why not support the following which is real tax reform?
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
I wonder how the public would respond this coming election if our "conservatives" in Congress, instead of constantly giving lip service to "tax reform", would actually introduced such a resolution and make it part of their 2014 campaign. And how would our "conservatives" in the media respond? Would such a proposal to return to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our founders intended it to operate, smoke out those in the media who pretend they are "conservatives"?
JWK
..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
FAIRTAX is NOT 23+23...it's 23% PERIOD.Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
Why not support the following which is real tax reform?
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
I wonder how the public would respond this coming election if our "conservatives" in Congress, instead of constantly giving lip service to "tax reform", would actually introduced such a resolution and make it part of their 2014 campaign. And how would our "conservatives" in the media respond? Would such a proposal to return to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our founders intended it to operate, smoke out those in the media who pretend they are "conservatives"?
JWK
..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
You just blew your own credibility out of the water since you demonstrated you have no real understanding of the Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax would replace all federal income and payroll taxes. And it is not two new taxes. It is one.
