A Fair Tax Rally is scheduled for tomorrow, July 29th, 2006 at Orlando City Hall and has been promoted by Neal Boortz, a talk radio host who has written a book promoting the alleged fair tax..

But I wonder when Neal Boortz, is going to address the fact that H.R. 25 is intended to subjugate our Constitution’s fair share formula [see Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3] for a general tax imposed among the states to fill the national treasury.

That formula requires each state to contribute in a general tax among the states a share based upon its number of votes in Congress, an idea boiling down to representation with proportional obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government fear with a passion.

To subjugate this rule with regard to taxing income without apportioning the tax among the states, socialists worked very hard during the early 1900’s to have the 16th Amendment adopted. Prior to adopting the 16th Amendment, the SCOTUS in POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) struck down the socialists attempt to tax income without apportioning the tax.

Now, under H.R. 25, the friends of a big socialist government are back and want to also be able to tax property, real and personal, without apportioning the tax among the states as our Constitution commands!

H.R. 25 states the following:



But such a tax, as the SCOTUS has repeatedly held, must abide by the rule of apportionment.

And what were some of the reasons for which our founding fathers adopted the rule of apportionment? Here are some highlights of what the SCOTUS has stated regarding an unapportioned tax among the states:






And, in rehearing the Case, the Court stated:


Neal Boortz, in his propaganda book has not addressed the question of H.R. 25 subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula by which the various states have agreed to contribute in a general tax among the states. We do know the socialists in America attempted to override the rule of apportionment as applied to taxing income with the 16th Amendment. Now they also want to tax property, real and personal, without abiding by the fair share formula in our Constitution. Just goes to show you how socialists and the friends of big government never sleep, always trying to steal the people’s wealth under the guise of taxation.

Regards,
JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

You really just dont have a clue. Sales tax is an indirect tax. Always has been. This might be a simple enough explanation for you to understand. MARK
http://www.rateempire.com/tax/taxation.html

It is irrelevant what you want to call the tax. What is relevant is the intentions of those who framed and ratified our Constitution with regard to a rule by which the states would contribute in a general tax among the states.

The most fundamental rule of Constitutional law is to carry out the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted.

As the historical record shows, whenever a general tax a laid among the states to fill the national treasury, the intention of the framers and ratifiers was to require the tax to be apportioned based upon each states number of votes in Congress.

In any event, contrary to what you suggest, the tax described in H.R. 25 is tax upon property, real and personal, and as pointed out repeatedly by the SCOTUS, such taxes are considered to be direct. So, you are wrong as stated by the SCOTUS, and wrong in view of the founders intention that when the states are called upon to fill the national treasury, the rule of apportionment is to apply. I suggest you read the Pollock decision which addresses you assertion.


Regards,

JWK

Let's see, H.R. 25 begins by trying to legislate tax rates for year 2005. Did that bill pass? When?

Since we're arguing constitutional federal taxation, do you agree that the 16th Amendment is valid? The income tax is legal?

Thanks.

Now why wouldn’t the 16th Amendment be constitutional? The SCOTUS in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) already decided, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax calculated from income without apportioning the tax among the states was constitutional!

The Court stated in very clear language:




And, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at page 112. (1916) the SCOTUS emphasized that:


Truth is, Congress always had power to impose excise taxes and calculate the amount of tax to be paid from profits, gains, salaries and other income realized under the subject matter the excise was imposed upon. The only question was, did such a tax have to be apportioned when laid ? The SCOTUS said no to this question in the FLINT CASE, and, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the SCOTUS said in FLINT.

But H.R. 25 proposes to not only lay a tax upon property, real and personal, a tax stated to be a direct tax by the SCOTUS, it would do so without apportioning the tax among the states, and thereby subjugate our Constitution’s fair share formula articulated in Article 1, Section, 2, Clause 3.


The friends of a big socialists government have already found a way to impose taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “income” without observing our Constitution’s fair share formula, but now they are attempting [under H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax] to impose taxes upon personal property, real and personal, without observing our Constitution’s fair share formula, thereby closing the circle of a socialist dream…from each state according to its ability!




Regards,

JWK

Okay, but it wasn't clear language. Thank you.

Well, you probably are right...I had to re-read some of the opinions several times.

BTW, here is someNews you can use!

A fairly taxing debate





Well, looks like the Fairy Tale Tax rally support is losing its steam! From 8 to 9 thousand down to 4 to 5 thousand! Now isn’t that a pleasant surprise for supporters of our Constitution’s fair share formula [Art.1, Sec.2, cl.3]?

As I said, the truth will rise to the top!

Regards,

JWK

I spent over 30,000 hours, in the USA, as a professional, working on federal taxation. Since I was only an employee and not a policy maker, I dreamed of the day I could pontificate and issue opinions and suggestions about how to reform the tax system.

Again, can you give me a URL for a practical method of tax reform? I don't care what Neal Boortz is doing, and I never attended any of the "Kill the Code" rallies by the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Bill Archer, who spent his career writing ever more confusing tax exemptions for his contributors.

Thanks. Awaiting your reply.

Please explain. In what way is using a sales tax bad? Please use your own language. I have always been under the impression that it was indirect taxes that the founding fathers frowned upon in favor of direct taxes. A sales tax is a direct tax.

I have a hard time believing that socialists want the Fair Tax when they are the ones decrying it. In fact, the Fair Tax is the exact opposite of socialism. Everyone pays the same percentage. There is no taking from the rich to give to the poor.

Socialists love the income tax. People like Neal Boortz are trying to get rid of the income tax. Seems odd to me if Neal is a socialist.

Pollock was about tax upon INCOME from property and had absolutely nothing to do with a sales tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Fa...Loan_&_Trust_Co.
Not to mention that the effect of Pollock was overturned by the 16th amendment.
But since you claim the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed this out Im sure you have another case you mistakenly interpreted as labeling a sales tax as a "Direct tax". I can point you to sources to clear up your confusion for those as well. MARK



Noooo it proposes a tax upon the SALE of "property, real and personal" MARK

My favorite time in auditing income taxes was when a taxpayer or his lawyer/CPA quoted a court case that proved MY point instead of his point.

It's way confusing, moreso than any field I know of. Bad boy, bad boy, whatcha gonna do? I'd do a straight income tax, one rate, no exclusions, no credits or exemptions, just one percentage rate on all income. But it'll never hapen, because everybody's too greedy and insists on their own exemptions.

One of the complaints that I heard from J W last time around was that H.R. 25 doesn't eliminate the income tax, and that he would support striking the 16th Amendment instead. He also said that people like Neal Boortz were lying to us because they didn't want to get rid of the IRS and the income tax.

I just listened to Neal on the radio yesterday, in fact. He said (paraphrased), "Yea, we are making a lot of progress, but there is still much to be done. We have to get H.R. 25 passed, and then we have to get rid of the 16th Amendment." This makes me distrust J W just a little. It could be an honest mistake in info, though.

Oh, and Fit, I agree with you. I'd rather see a flat rate; that is, if we must keep the income tax in the first place. Something like Russia where everyone pays 10% of their income, and that is it. I'd also like to do away with withholding. Think about how much interest could be earned on tax dollars every year in this country...what a waste.

A flat rate would be fine, so long as there are no deductions or exclusions or exemptions or credits or other such clauses.

Doing away with withholding is impractical and illogical. It was originally called "pay as you earn" because you earn the money all year long, so it makes sense to pay on it all year. However, I won't fight you on that one, because technically, it's an annual tax on the whole year's income.

The reason it's impractical is that people don't save it up. I had lunch yesterday with an expatriate friend who made $120,000 per year as an employee, for several years, and he paid as he went and filed every year. Then his cheapskate employer switched him over to self-employed independent contractor, and stopped withholding income tax or FICA. My friend never paid his income tax or SE Tax, never filed again. He owes lots of money, and the IRC 6020( folks down at the IRS have prepared him a tax return that gives him no deductions.

Okay, let's compromise. No withholding, but double the penalties for being underpaid on filing day.

No mistake on this end. There is a big difference between repealing the 16th Amendment, and, forbidding Congress to lay any tax calculated from “income”. Under Congress’ power to lay excise taxes, Congress may lay excise taxes on businesses, Corporations, certain occupations and individuals and that calculate the amount of tax to be paid from profits, gains, salaries and other “income” realized under the subject matter the excise tax has been laid upon. Repealing the 16th Amendment does not end calculating taxes from “income”.

And I know Neal Boortz says let’s adopt H.R. 25, a new tax in America, and then we will worry about getting rid of the 16th Amendment, a little tweety bird has told Boortz we can trust Congress.

We all know that Congress is the problem…Congress causes our present tax misery. H.R. 25 does not remove from Congress' hands the Constitutional authority to calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other income, which are the tools used by Congress to inflict our present misery.

H.R. 25 is a Fairy Tale tax proposal intentionally designed to fund existing big government and maintain Congress’ power to calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other “income”, and, establish a new tax to feed the beast in Washington. The new tax, in addition to taxes calculated from “income” is one never before known in America, a 23 percent tax upon property, real and personal, which mimics the socialist income tax in that it would violate our Constitution’s rule for apportioning a general tax among the states by basing each states share of a total sum needed upon its number of votes in Congress…representation with proportion obligation, our Constitution‘s fair share formula!


Our Constitution’s fair share formula [Art. 1, Sec 2., Cl., 3 may be mathematically represented as follows:


State’ No. of Representatives (votes in the House)
________________________________________ X TOTAL SUM TO BE RAISED BY CONGRESS
No. of House Members (435)


Funny how the arguments made in support of H.R. 25 by its ring leaders would in fact be accomplished by adding a mere 32 words to our Constitution, but the ring leaders supporting H.R. 25, like Neal Boortz, prefer to advocate a Fairy Tale plan which does not remove the tools of oppression from Congress hands.


The 32 words which would accomplish real tax reform, the remove of the tools of oppression are:


The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and 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


See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship, keep the tools of oppression alive and entrench our nation with more socialism and big government…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our Founder’s original plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!


Regards,

JWK___ a proud supporter of our founding father’s original tax plan.

Hmm. I can see your point. If we allow them to level a 23% sales tax, but then can't get the income tax eliminated we are screwed. Point taken.

How is a sales tax a tax on "profits, gains, salaries and other 'income'"? It's a sales tax...Perhaps I simply don't understand. The tax is based on the price of the good, not how much the seller gains from the sale.

Huh? I don’t believe I said a “sales tax” is a tax upon “profits, gains, salaries and other ‘income’.

H.R. 25 states the following:

SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.

`(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.

b.

Rate-
`(1) FOR 2005- In the calendar year 2005, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.


For documentation in which the SCOTUS strikes down the type of tax described in H.R. 25 see POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) regarding an excise tax attempted to be imposed upon property real and personal without apportionment!

The opinion is rather long, but very, very informative!

Regards,

JWK

The proposed plan would repeal the current tax code and abolish the IRS. This arguement against doing so because they might reinstate it is lame. The arguement could be applied to ANY legislation. MARK

Nonsense. Pollock was about an income tax. A tax that the Fair Tax would abolish. Income tax is a direct tax. A sales tax is an indirect tax which has never required apportionment.

" the company was liable, and that they intended to pay, to the United States, before July 1, 1895, a tax of 2 per centum on the net profits of said company for the year ending December 31, 1894, above actual operating and business expenses, "
"The bill charged that the provisions in respect of said alleged income tax incorporated in the act of congress were unconstututional, null, and void, in that the tax was a direct tax in respect of the real estate held and owned by the company "
MARK

Making things up, again, Mark? Please point to that section in the Constitution which allowed for an "income tax" during the Pollock case?

There was no "income tax" in our Constitution during the Pollock case. The tax, just like I said, was an excise tax laid upon property which was calculated from earnings derived from the property. The Court ruled that taxing the earnings derived from the property was a direct tax and required to follow our Constitution’s fair share formula if laid by Congress. That formula may be mathematically described as follows:

State’s No. of Reps(votes in the House)
_________________________________X SUM TO BE RAISED BY CONGRESS
No. of House Members (435)



Socialists, and the friends of big government, love the fair share formula when it guarantees them a number of votes in Congress, but when it comes to that part of the formula which determines the amount a tax to be paid based upon the number of votes exercise in Congress, the socialists and friends of big government run and hide from the financial obligation, pretend it does not exist, or make things up to avoid paying their constitutionally mandated fair share.

Your funny!

Regards,

JWK

H.R. 25 does not repeal or assert to repeal Congress' power to calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other income. The misery of calculating taxes from income is intended to remain alive under H.R. 25, properly dubbed the Neal Boortz Fairy Tale Tax Plan.

Stop making things up, Mark.

Regards,

JWK

Never said there was. Thus the enactment of the 16th amendment.



Actually you claimed it was " the type of tax described in H.R. 25 "
You are funny. You didnt disagree with anything in my post that you are responding to. Did you have a point or just a pathetically desparate need to respond. MARK








Aaaaaand again, you didnt disagree with anything Ive stated. MARK

Exactly! And why the SCOTUS struck it down because it did not follow our Constitutions fair share formula:

State’s No. of Reps(votes in the House)
_________________________________X SUM TO BE RAISED BY CONGRESS
No. of House Members (435)


H.R. 25 is the type of tax described in the Pollock Case ... a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury calculated from the value of property which was practiced under the Articles of Confederation and which our founding fathers provided a specific formula to be followed if such a tax was laid upon property under the new government they were creating.


NOTE:

Under the Articles of Confederation a general across-the- board tax to fill the national treasury was agreed upon. The amount to be contributed by each state was to be calculated from each state`s assessed land value, i.e., each state contributed in proportion to assessed wealth.

Article VIII. of the Articles of Confederation states:

``All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.``

In any event, in re-hearing the Pollock Case, the SCOTUS put it this way:



Neal Boortz, in his propaganda book has not addressed the question of H.R. 25 subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula by which the various states have agreed to contribute in a general tax among the states. We do know that socialists and the friends of big government just love the fair share formula when it guarantees them voting strength in Congress, but when it come to the financial burden tied to representation in Congress, socialists and the friends of big government run and hide, pretend it does not exists, or make things up about the beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to.

Regards,

JWK

Well, I THOUGHT the link I provided on "Direct" vs "Indirect" taxes was simple enough for even you to understand. Perhaps if I cut it down to just a few relevent sentences you MIGHT be able to grasp the concept that a sales tax, always has been an INDIRECT tax not requiring apportionment. Doubt it though.

In law however, the terms may have different meanings. In the U.S. constitutional law, for example, direct taxes refer to property and poll taxes, which are based on simple existence or ownership. Indirect taxes on the contrary, are imposed on rights, privileges, and activities. Therefore, a tax on the sale of property would be considered an indirect tax, whereas the tax on simply owning the property itself would be regarded a direct tax.
http://www.rateempire.com/tax/taxation.html

MARK

Sales tax? Indeed! Please point to that section of the federal Constitution granting power to Congress to lay and collect a 'sales tax`.

Mark, you miss the big picture by dwelling on direct and indirect taxation.

Congress does not have the power to lay an excise tax as was disputed in the Pollock case, which was laid on the earnings realized from property and not apportioned among the states. The Court struck the tax down, not because such a tax could not be laid, but because it was not being apportioned among the states as required by the legislative intent our Constitution’s fair share formula.

H.R. 25 proposes to lay a general tax among the states, a primary tax, a 23 percent tax upon the value of property, real and personal, to fill the national treasury. The clear intentions of the framers and ratifiers of our Constitution was to forbid Congress from laying a general tax among the states based upon the value of property [as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation and I documented above] without apportioning that tax among the states.

H.R. 25 attempts to subjugate the rule of apportionment in a tax among the states based upon the value of property as was rejected during the Convention of 1787.

If you have documentation to the contrary, please post your documentation showing a different intent for a general tax among the states. Your discussion between direct and indirect is irrelevant with regard to the clear intentions of the framers and ratifers who intentionally decided that when the states are called upon to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states, each state is to contribute a share based upon its number of votes in Congress PERIOD!


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

Regards,

JWK

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,



Since your entire arguement rest upon the basis that a sales tax is a direct tax, and since the Constitution CLEARLY states

Art 1 Sec 2
Representatives and DIRECT taxes shall be apportioned among the several states

If it is an indirect tax, you have no arguement.




Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

You really make a fool of yourself everytime you post on a topic you know NOTHING about. Since you only post about the fair tax....well.... you pretty much make a fool of yourself everytime you post. MARK

Mark,

I’m still waiting for you to quote that section of our federal Constitution which grants Congress power to lay and collect a “sales tax”.


You assert: “Since your entire arguement rest upon the basis that a sales tax is a direct tax, and since the Constitution CLEARLY states”

Well Mark, I see you are making things up….again. I never made an argument that a sales tax is a direct tax. But then again that’s your game…making things up.

I see you also quote me as saying “Congress does not have the power to lay an excise tax “, and then go on to write:



My full quote was:Congress does not have the power to lay an excise tax as was disputed in the Pollock case, which was laid on the earnings realized from property and not apportioned among the states. The Court struck the tax down, not because such a tax could not be laid, but because it was not being apportioned among the states as required by the legislative intent our Constitution’s fair share formula.

The SCOTUS struck down the tax and so, Congress does not have the power to lay an excise tax as was disputed in the Pollock case.

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem and also, love to make things up. Are you proud of your adolescent games?

I already have.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,...

Cant wait for your "sales taxes" are not "taxes" arguement.



You do realize your post's are recorded on the bearpit web site, dont you?





Pollock was about a tax on the income from real property held to be a DIRECT tax. Since the Fair Tax is a sales tax, an indirect tax, Pollock is irrelevent. MARK

Thanks for clearing this up for me dixon. Pollock was probably struck down precisely BECAUSE there was nothing in the constitution about income taxes, thus making an income tax unconstitutional. Anyway, I think I get it: direct taxes have to be apportioned among the states. That is fine. Since an indirect tax is NOT a direct tax (duh) it does not have to be apportioned.

My question to you, dixon, is this: If H.R. 25 is passed, does the language in the bill immediately eliminate the 16th Amendment (I don't think that's possible...)? Does the language simply repeal the current income tax, but, unless the 16th Amendment is appealed separately, it can be re-instated? If that is the case, I am firmly behind the Fair Tax, but would feel nervous if we couldn't get the 16th appealed.

It just repeals the tax code and eliminates the IRS.
And the same reasoning that makes you nervous would exist with ANY legislation. Do tax cuts make you nervous because Congress still has the power to raise them back up? MARK

edit

Gee Mark, you just can’t stop making things up and misrepresenting the facts, can you?

Section 8 identifies three types of taxes which may be laid, “Duties, Imposts and Excises” and goes on to state that such “Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” As to “direct taxes” the Constitution states they shall be apportioned among the several States.


The tax in POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) was an excise tax calculated from the income derived from property and as such, it was struck down as a direct tax upon property and required the Constitution’s Fair Share Formula to apply.

The formula may be represented as follows:


But in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) an excise tax calculated from income derive from the corporate privilege was upheld and the Court found such a tax was not required to be apportioned because such a tax is not upon property, but upon the privilege of being a corporation.

The Court stated:



Yes I “do realize” my “post's are recorded on the bearpit web site. Do you? My words were “Congress does not have the power to lay an excise tax as was disputed in the Pollock case”.


As to the tax described in H.R. 25, it imposes a tax calculated from the value of property, real and personal, and as such, as stated in the Pollock case, requires the rule of apportionment to apply. H.R. 25 does not apply the rule of apportionment. In addition, the tax described in H.R. 25 does not fall within the historical definition of an excise tax as the founding fathers used the term. H.R. 25 is an attempt to lay a general tax, a primary tax, among the states to fill the national treasury, as was attempted to be laid in Pollock and struck down because it was direct and not apportioned.

You wrote:



Well Mark, seems to me the SCOTUS disagrees with you again with regard to direct and indirect taxes:



A tax calculated from the income of property is a “direct tax’ regardless of what you want to call it Mark …. Just like the Court stated above!


Regards,

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

Repeals the tax code and eliminates the IRS? Not exactly! H.R. 25 makes no attempt to forbid Congress from laying a boatload of “excise” taxes upon businesses, corporations, individuals and certain occupations and then calculating the amount of tax to be paid from profits, gains, salaries and other “income” realized under the subject matter upon which the excise tax has been laid. Essentially, excise taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “income” carry with them the same misery we now suffer under income taxation and the IRS.

H.R. 25 is an attempt to establish a new tax, a 23 percent tax upon property, real and personal, while maintaining the power to calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other income.

The language in H.R. 25 is very, very clear !

Here is a link to H.R. 25

TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES


Section 104 clearly states that excise tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Act is not repealed as follows:

Section 104 (a) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating--
(A) subtitle D (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) as subtitle B

B subtitle E (relating to alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes) as subtitle C…
The existing “subtitle D” is the authority for all excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The existing “subtitle E” is the authority for all excise taxes administered and collected by BATF.

Other than changing the subtitles (due to a moratorium on personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, estate and gift taxes) nothing changes regarding Congress powers to lay excise taxes under the so-called “Fair Tax”. As a matter of fact, SEC. 302 would create the new "Excise Tax Bureau":

SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATION OF OTHER FEDERAL TAXES.

(a) In General- Section 7801 (relating to the authority of the Department of the Treasury) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(d) Excise Tax Bureau- There shall be in the Department of the Treasury an Excise Tax Bureau to administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.


Why are you misrepresenting H.R. 25 Mark? Why do you want people to believe the Neal Boortz Fairy Tale Version of H.R. 25, rather than what the actual legislation states in clear language?

And why Mark, instead of supporting H.R. 25, why don’t you support having the 32 words I suggest [The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and 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] added to our Constitution which would in fact accomplish the Neal Boortz Fairy Tale version of H.R. 25? Is it that you are really trying to trick people into supporting a tax plan which merely tightens the iron fist of government around their productivity and would establish a new tax never before known in America, a 23 percent tax upon their property, real and personal, which violates our Constitution‘s fair share formula for a general tax among the states? Tell us Mark, what are you trying to accomplish?

Regards,
JWK

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson

Stupid idiot! You dont even have the capeability to comprehend what I have represented here or the meaning of HR25. I never made any claim that it forbid Congress from doing anything in the future. In fact LEGISLATION cannot forbid congress from doing ANYTHING in the future, ...ya idiot! MARK

I see your back to making adolescent remarks!

Have a nice day pal.

Soooo what did I make up? Youve not contradicted anything Ive said here.



Well, those may be your words also but we were discussing other words of yours that I specifically quoted such as-



and like an idiot you turn right around and deny you had ever made the arguement






Good thing then that the fair tax is unrelated to income and is not "calculated from the income of property"
MARK

The Neal Boortz Fairy Tale FairTax


Just thought it would be interesting to establish the misleading and inaccurate information given by the ringleaders of H.R. 25 to gain the unsuspecting support of Mary and Joe Six-pack who were encourage to show up for two rallies promoting H.R. 25.


Under the Neal Boortz fairy tale version of H.R. 25, Mary and Joe Six-pack were told that the 23 percent tax calculated from the American people’s property, real and personal, will “replace…virtually all taxes with one national retail sales tax.” [see: Today's Nuze: October 18, 2004]


Under the grassfire.org’s fairy tale version of H.R. 25, Mary and Joe Six-pack were told that H.R. 25, a 23 percent tax calculated from the American people’s property, real and personal, “would eliminate the IRS and replace every current federal tax”[see: grassfire.org]


And, under the fairtax.org’s fairy tale version of H.R. 25, Mary and Joe Six-pack were told that H.R. 25, a 23 percent tax calculated from the American people’s property, real and personal, “replaces the income tax and all other federal taxes with a national consumption tax.” [see: fairtax.org]]

So, does H.R. 25 replace all federal taxes with one 23 percent tax calculated from the American People’s property, real and personal as Mary and Joe Six-pack were told by the ringleaders promoting H.R. 25?

Seems to me the ringleaders are telling Mary and Joe Six-pack a fairy tale because H.R. 25, by its very language under Sec. 302 creates a new federal agency, called the "Excise Tax Bureau"!

SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATION OF OTHER FEDERAL TAXES.

(d) Excise Tax Bureau- There shall be in the Department of the Treasury an Excise Tax Bureau to administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.


So, does the language of H.R. 25 replace “ the income tax and all other federal taxes with a national consumption tax.” as Neal Boortz and others have told us?

Let’s get to the facts and truth and stop creating a fairy tale version of H.R. 25 like Neal Boortz and other ringleaders of the proposal are doing.

Fact is, the proposed 23 percent tax to be calculated from the American people’s property is a tax proposed which will be in addition to any and all excise taxes which Congress may decide to lay upon businesses, corporations, occupations and individuals which may be calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “income” derived under the subject matter an excise tax may be laid, and, this is in addition to existing excise taxes which are now collected by the BATF.

Be cautious of the Fairy Tale version of H.R. 25 which Neal Boortz and others are feeding you.



Regards,

JWK

Calculated from the American people's property, real and personal, that they decide to sell or purchase. If it was calculated as you allege it would be a direct tax. MARK