DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Neal Boortz supports the socialist friendly Fair Tax?

**xquFzpNw** · 01-22-2006, 03:14 AM

Try Luxury consumption tax.

BINGO!

Our founding fathers thinking in regard to taxing consumption is in harmony with your response, and they never intended such a tax to be laid upon the tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct America’s businesses nor the necessities of life!

See Federalist #21:

"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. " "It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue." Now, what is Hamilton talking about? How may the amounts to be contributed by the rich and poor to be determined by one’s own option? And, how is private oppression of taxes on articles of consumption to be avoided?

Surprise! The answer is to be found in that part of the quote which says, “by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions” which is not the kind of tax H.R. 25 is and would tax necessities.

An across the board NRST [national retail sales tax or the so-called Fair Tax], in addition to being oppressive upon America’s businesses, is a plan to tax the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon the necessities of life!

The words of Hamilton obviously indicate certain articles of consumption ought to be excluded from the list of taxable items___ the necessities of life, tools of production and supplies necessary to conduct American businesses___ thereby removing the oppressive nature of such a tax and making the tax a more voluntarily paid type of tax, which is exactly what our founding fathers practiced.

A consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in THE FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT FOR OUR COUNTRY! NOTE: those interested may use the PREV IMAGE and NEXT IMAGE buttons at the above link to study the bill___it is refreshing to study statesmen creating a revenue raising bill beneficial for America’s businesses, industries and labor force, as opposed to politicians acting in their own self interest and on behalf of internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation [the NAFTA - CAFTA CROWD] !

Limiting the tax to articles of luxury, and requiring each article to be individually selected and having Congress place a specific amount of tax upon each article chosen, as our founding fathers intended, creates a self regulating check and balance upon Congress, just as Hamilton indicates!

If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation’s labor force impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury and thereby defeat an extension of the revenue, just as Hamilton explains above!

For a recent example of how effective the founder's method of taxing consumption works to control the amount of tax on a specific article chosen by Congress see: Fed luxury tax 1990 in which Congress attempted to lay an outrageous 10 percent tax on boats. And then see: 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats

Had the tax been one or two percent rather than the outrageous 10 percent, it probably would have been paid without much resistance and not adversely affect the industries involved which caused Congress to immediately repeal the tax!

It must also be noted that any shortfall in revenue which may occur from imposts, duties and excise taxes needed to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government, and Congress borrows to meet such expenses, triggers the laying of the apportioned general tax [explained in POST 10].

This tax not only provides an emergency means to meet Congress exigencies, but it also creates an important moment of accountability in which each States’ Congressional Delegation would have to return to their own state with a bill for their States’ apportioned share of the general tax to extinguish a deficit created by Congress___ leaving the various State Legislatures and Governors with the responsibility of raising that revenue, but having to send it off to Washington, D.C. because Congress was better at spending revenue than raising it!

Unlike the establishment proposed NRST, [H.R. 25] our founder's plan grants almost unlimited power [imposts, duties and excise taxes and the direct apportioned tax to meet shortfalls] to raise essential revenue, but also provides various checks and balances to control the actions of Congress, and contains a method to balance the budget, which none of the establishment tax reforms proposals provides.

Bottom line…the Founder’s Plan worked so well that by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

Regards,

JWK

P.S. Sorry for not getting back sooner.

01-22-2006, 03:14 AM	#14
xquFzpNw Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 501 Senior Member	Try Luxury consumption tax. BINGO! Our founding fathers thinking in regard to taxing consumption is in harmony with your response, and they never intended such a tax to be laid upon the tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct America’s businesses nor the necessities of life! See Federalist #21: "Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. " "It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue." Now, what is Hamilton talking about? How may the amounts to be contributed by the rich and poor to be determined by one’s own option? And, how is private oppression of taxes on articles of consumption to be avoided? Surprise! The answer is to be found in that part of the quote which says, “by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions” which is not the kind of tax H.R. 25 is and would tax necessities. An across the board NRST [national retail sales tax or the so-called Fair Tax], in addition to being oppressive upon America’s businesses, is a plan to tax the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon the necessities of life! The words of Hamilton obviously indicate certain articles of consumption ought to be excluded from the list of taxable items___ the necessities of life, tools of production and supplies necessary to conduct American businesses___ thereby removing the oppressive nature of such a tax and making the tax a more voluntarily paid type of tax, which is exactly what our founding fathers practiced. A consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in THE FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT FOR OUR COUNTRY! NOTE: those interested may use the PREV IMAGE and NEXT IMAGE buttons at the above link to study the bill___it is refreshing to study statesmen creating a revenue raising bill beneficial for America’s businesses, industries and labor force, as opposed to politicians acting in their own self interest and on behalf of internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation [the NAFTA - CAFTA CROWD] ! Limiting the tax to articles of luxury, and requiring each article to be individually selected and having Congress place a specific amount of tax upon each article chosen, as our founding fathers intended, creates a self regulating check and balance upon Congress, just as Hamilton indicates! If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation’s labor force impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury and thereby defeat an extension of the revenue, just as Hamilton explains above! For a recent example of how effective the founder's method of taxing consumption works to control the amount of tax on a specific article chosen by Congress see: Fed luxury tax 1990 in which Congress attempted to lay an outrageous 10 percent tax on boats. And then see: 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats Had the tax been one or two percent rather than the outrageous 10 percent, it probably would have been paid without much resistance and not adversely affect the industries involved which caused Congress to immediately repeal the tax! It must also be noted that any shortfall in revenue which may occur from imposts, duties and excise taxes needed to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government, and Congress borrows to meet such expenses, triggers the laying of the apportioned general tax [explained in POST 10]. This tax not only provides an emergency means to meet Congress exigencies, but it also creates an important moment of accountability in which each States’ Congressional Delegation would have to return to their own state with a bill for their States’ apportioned share of the general tax to extinguish a deficit created by Congress___ leaving the various State Legislatures and Governors with the responsibility of raising that revenue, but having to send it off to Washington, D.C. because Congress was better at spending revenue than raising it! Unlike the establishment proposed NRST, [H.R. 25] our founder's plan grants almost unlimited power [imposts, duties and excise taxes and the direct apportioned tax to meet shortfalls] to raise essential revenue, but also provides various checks and balances to control the actions of Congress, and contains a method to balance the budget, which none of the establishment tax reforms proposals provides. Bottom line…the Founder’s Plan worked so well that by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Regards, JWK P.S. Sorry for not getting back sooner.
	Quote