Fair Tax ping!

Maybe we should keep in mind that the tax rate the Founders rebelled against was a whopping three percent, and return our government to within its Constitutional bounds before worrying so much about how the money will be collected.

The debt from the Revolution and the Louisiana Purchase were paid without an income tax, and without a sales tax because there was no Dept of HHS, no Dept. of Education, etc...

If as much energy was focused on limiting the size of the pond we had to fill rather than the type of bucket we’re hauling the water in, we’d all be better off.

Happy Independence Day!

YES...it was 3%, on incomes over a MILLION, I believe, in current 2008 dollars!

Excellent post. Excellent!

Maybe we should keep in mind that the tax rate the Founders rebelled against was a whopping three percent, and return our government to within its Constitutional bounds before worrying so much about how the money will be collected.

Interesting you refer to Constitutional bounds. That's the concept founding father and first Secretary of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton used in his Federalist Paper #21 when he was concerned about how the money would be collected and the advantage of a consumption tax giving the people power to keep Congress in check. To quote:

"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. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.".

If as much energy was focused on limiting the size of the pond we had to fill rather than the type of bucket we’re hauling the water in, we’d all be better off.

The Fair Tax will reduce the size of that pond from 67,000+ pages down to 133 pages. I would say that's at least a good start to reduce government wouldn't you?

Happy Independence Day!

Same to you!

Well said, Mr. Hoagland. The FairTax is about a lot of things, but certainly restoring our Constitutional freedoms is way up there. I firmly believe that the Founders would be appalled if they were to come back to life and see what a monstrosity we have spawned with our decision back in 1913 to tax incomes.

The Fair Tax will reduce the size of that pond from 67,000+ pages down to 133 pages. I would say that's at least a good start to reduce government wouldn't you?

And you still repeat the lie. As you well know, the tax code isn't 67,000+ pages and it wouldn't be 133 pages under the FairTax (the bill doesn't repeal all taxes). If you are going to promote the FairTax, why not use the truth? Why lie?

“And you still repeat the lie. As you well know, the tax code isn’t 67,000+ pages...”

He didn’t say “the tax code”. As you have been made aware in the past, Commerce Clearing House counts Treasury Dept rulings, IRS regs and other official pronouncements as part of the body of knowledge which they refer to as “the tax system”. That entire collection of unintelligible gibberish is what they count at 67,000 pages and growing. At the rate it is growing, it will probably exceed 100,000 pages by the end of this decade or shortly thereafter.

You obviously prefer to play silly games with semantics than to address substantive issues - such as the enormous complexity of the current system and the associated compliance costs.

Here is some interesting data on compliance costs in the remote possibility that you care.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1962.html

I don't think you'll find any disagreement with the assertions in your post. We all want smaller government. Well, there may be some on this board that don't care as long as they can maintain their precious income tax and the concomitant enterprises that have sprung up around it.

But the fact is that no one is doing anything AT ALL other than the hundreds of thousands of FairTax grass roots brigades.

Congess can't even get rid of the AMT. Hell you can't find a single congessman who isn't rabidly against the Federal deficit yet they don't do a damn thing about it year after year.

Hell you can't find a single congessman who isn't rabidly against the Federal deficit yet they don't do a damn thing about it year after year.

When you have 535 people all trying to (competing to) buy votes from special interests in their home districts to keep their jobs, it gets pretty expensive.

Add in the very vocal groups who want to ban this, tax that, and generally meddle in the private lives of others and pretty soon you have a governmental leviathan none on the inside dare attempt to pare down.

With the Socialist media framing the arguments in the public forum, (let's call a spade a spade, shall we, they are Socialists), it is difficult to remove so much as one "entitlement" without being branded "evil" and God forbid "UNcaring"...

The very people we send to eliminate the monster are swallowed by it and become of it.

None have the courage to defy even their home district to cut the pork and the budget, nor to call the others to task, because they know they will lose their jobs.

IF (mighty big if) we could elect a one-time, one term majority who had the stones to get in there and repeal, abolish, eliminate, and de-Federalize even a significant fraction of what should be repealed, eliminated, abolished and de-federalized, the nation would go into shock, but even for one term, it might be enough to get the Socialists out in the streets where they could be dealt with, instead of letting them continue hiding behind the robes of activist judges.

It would not be pretty, the economy would take a big hit as the shuffle went down (and then recover), but it would set back the Socialist/Marxist agenda back decades.

Keep in mind the items which had duties and tariffs imposed in Hamilton's day were not the day-to-day necessities, but the items imported from abroad, not the homespun cloth but the finer textiles, and other articles which came in from elsewhere.

My primary objection to the FairTax as proposed remains that it does not exempt the basics of food, energy, medical care, and primary residence.

If the prebate were done away with and those items exempted from the tax, I would be more able to support the idea, so long as the Income tax were removed once and for all.

As I have stated in the past, the idea of taxing those already beset by medical crises or conditions for the additional care they require to live, amounts already above and beyond what the general populace will pay, seems to be adding to the miseries of those who suffer misery and misfortune enough without adding an additional burden of taxation to their pain.

Food, cheap or expensive (Isn't it all nowadays?), is food. One can only eat so much, but we all need to eat.

Energy, regardless of what you put it in, you need it to get around, to keep from freezing to death in the winter, or dying of heat prostration in the summer (depending on your climate). You need it to produce food (current road taxes are not levied on 'off road' fuel uses, including agricultural and other non-transportation uses).

Housing. No matter what you own, the more house you have, the more stuff you will put in it. Those who invest in larger primary residences will pay more taxes when they furnish them. Houses are plenty expensive as it is.

Otherwise, there are plenty of geegaws and optional things which could be taxed to raise money, but leaving the basics alone and eliminating the prebate will pare down the size of the bureaucracy needed to administer the tax.

Which means less government to support.

In the end, FRiend, that is what we really need.

Keep in mind the items which had duties and tariffs imposed in Hamilton's day were not the day-to-day necessities, but the items imported from abroad, not the homespun cloth but the finer textiles, and other articles which came in from elsewhere.

Hamilton wasn't addressing specific items with respect to a consumption tax. He was illustrating the principle of freedom from a potentially strong centralized form of government and power over Congress by the people to keep them in check with a consumption tax.

My primary objection to the FairTax as proposed remains that it does not exempt the basics of food, energy, medical care, and primary residence.

If the prebate were done away with and those items exempted from the tax, I would be more able to support the idea, so long as the Income tax were removed once and for all.

Exemptions and loopholes in the income tax are the bane of taxpayers. Both are the direct result of lobbyists on behalf of corporations or whole industries influencing Congress for tax breaks. The result is the morass of a tax code we have today. The Fair Tax eliminates all loopholes and exemptions and thereby the power of lobbyists by taxing all new items up front.

The prebate is compensation for eliminating all exemptions and will create an effective tax rate that is lower than than the average tax rate under the income tax. The income tax will be removed with The Fair Tax(Hr25/s1025) and companion legislation House Joint Resolution 16 that will abolish the IRS.

As I have stated in the past, the idea of taxing those already beset by medical crises or conditions for the additional care they require to live, amounts already above and beyond what the general populace will pay, seems to be adding to the miseries of those who suffer misery and misfortune enough without adding an additional burden of taxation to their pain.

All those items are already taxed under the income tax! The insidious problem is corporate taxes are embedded in the price of every item you purchase. Those taxes and the associated compliance costs are costs to businesses they pass onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. The Fair Tax will abolish corporate taxes. Eventually businesses will pass on at least some of those savings to the consumer thereby lowering prices. The prebate will create an effective tax rate lower than what people pay on average with the income tax.

Housing. No matter what you own, the more house you have, the more stuff you will put in it. Those who invest in larger primary residences will pay more taxes when they furnish them. Houses are plenty expensive as it is.

Those who invest in larger residences do so because they can afford to pay the price plus all the associated costs and therefore can afford to pay a higher tax rate than lower income people. Your example only proves the essential point of The Fair Tax. People will have the choice as to how much they are taxed as it will directly correspond to what they can afford to purchase. The Fair Tax will only tax people based on what they can afford to purchase. The income tax does not give people the power to decide how much or how often they pay their income taxes. All this ignores the fact used homes will not incur any Fair Tax!

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. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Please detail what Hamilton's taxes on consumption have in common with the FairTax.

YAWN!!! Now that you have shown once again that you either can’t read or can’t understand what you read (if you have ever read the explanation about the “67,000 pages at all), you can crawl back under your rock now and let the adults have a chance at a sensible discussion.

We’re both wasting our time even recognizes that this troll even exists.

As I have stated in the past, the idea of taxing those already beset by medical crises or conditions for the additional care they require to live, amounts already above and beyond what the general populace will pay, seems to be adding to the miseries of those who suffer misery and misfortune enough without adding an additional burden of taxation to their pain.

All those items are already taxed under the income tax!

Yes, but the cost of health care, insurance if properly structured, extraordinary but necessary expenses, procedures, and medication is NOT taxed, the expense is a deduction. Under the Fair Tax, it would be taxed as if it were fur coats and Feraris, not something necessary to stay alive.

The insidious problem is corporate taxes are embedded in the price of every item you purchase. Those taxes and the associated compliance costs are costs to businesses they pass onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. The Fair Tax will abolish corporate taxes. Eventually businesses will pass on at least some of those savings to the consumer thereby lowering prices. The prebate will create an effective tax rate lower than what people pay on average with the income tax.

Which will in no way make up for the difference between the expenses in taxes for someone who has a serious medical condition and someoen who only spends the "average" for health care.

So here's the rub.

If the system is not percieved as fair, not "Fair" (registered trademark), but ordinarily decent to you were you in the situation, it will be changed.

If you want a tax system which will not be being modified before the ink is dry, then you will be more concerned with making it a system which any decent human being could live with.

Clinging to the issuance of a check/credit to every household is an unnecessary expense, and virtually anyone could see that if they would look. How many month has it taken for 'economic stimiulus checks' to be issued? Yet you claim this will be done every month.

As a practical matter it is ridiculous.

Eliminate it, the expense of tracking every household monthly, and the bureaucracy needed to do it. WHY NOT???

All you have to do is not charge the tax at the point of sale for a few essential items.

Don't spew catechismic answers, simply explain why, in your own words, this is such a good idea.

If you cannot sell the tax plan without issuing all those payments, then either the plan is flawed, or our "gimmie" culture is far worse than I thought.

Next, how are you going to index the "average amount" spent on say, energy. First, the CPI isn't the indicator you use (food and energy are not considered), second, the average amount of heat in December is woefully inadequate in International Falls or Point Barrow, as is the average expenditure for cooling.

NOT Fair, and people will seek to change it.

Food. Fine, wait for the check so you can eat? Food is already NOT taxed at the point of sale in many states. No problem to continue NOT taxing it.

Eventually, eventually may happen, but in the meantime, FRiend, the age old crafts of carpentry and homebuilding will become a lost art as those folks find new ways to feed their families. A new house will be a thing of the past for all but a very few.

Think about it, I know we have had this 'conversation' before.

But as it stands, the ink would not be dry before the tax plan you propose would be getting the same modifications done to it the current one has had. If you really want to replace the mess we have with something fair and lasting and relatively uncomplicated, make it something which can endure without modification and still be considered "Fair" after it has been in use for a while.

(if you have ever read the explanation about the “67,000 pages at all),

I wouldn't expect you to comprehend that there are new members coming here everyday. So could you post that explanation again for the ones who haven't read it yet?

Yes, but the cost of health care, insurance if properly structured, extraordinary but necessary expenses, procedures, and medication is NOT taxed, the expense is a deduction.

Wrong! You still pay embedded taxes at the point of sale with the income tax! Every item produced today incurs embedded corporate income taxes and associated compliance costs( totaling 22%)as I already stated in my previous post! Your difficulty, as is with many other people, comprehending these hidden costs perfectly illustrates the deception of the income tax!

Under the Fair Tax, it would be taxed as if it were fur coats and Feraris, not something necessary to stay alive.

Wrong again. Whatever total tax paid by people up front with the Fair Tax will be offset with the prebate covering those taxes paid on necessities up to the poverty level Fair Tax FAQ #3.

Which will in no way make up for the difference between the expenses in taxes for someone who has a serious medical condition and someoen who only spends the "average" for health care.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Obviously someone who has greater or more serious conditions will incur a greater cost than someone who has less severe or numerous conditions. The appropriate comparison would be between two people with the same medical conditions and the corresponding tax burdens under the income tax versus Fair Tax. The overall burden will be lower with The Fair Tax taking into account price reductions of medications with corporations passing on some of their cost savings to the consumer plus the prebate.

So here's the rub.

The only rub is the income tax increasingly rubbing taxpayers the wrong way.

If you want a tax system which will not be being modified before the ink is dry, then you will be more concerned with making it a system which any decent human being could live with.

Huh? Before the ink dries? There is no basis in fact with this statement. Now you're merely pulling wild assumptions out of the clear blue and trying to assert them as fact. The fact is the people, not Congress, have the power. The former will never allow the latter to revert back to an oppressive and indecipherable income tax code once the former experiences what it means to no longer fill out any tax forms and have the power to decide when and how much they are taxed.

Eliminate it, the expense of tracking every household monthly, and the bureaucracy needed to do it. WHY NOT???

Better yet eliminate with The Fair Tax the far greater expense of printing out a multitude of different types of tax forms numbering in the multi millions total printed with the income tax and replace it with one prebate check.

All you have to do is not charge the tax at the point of sale for a few essential items.

You're not paying attention. As I have already stated exemptions only empower lobbyists who distort the economy on behalf of their corporate or industry wide clients. No thanks. It will be far more effective to eliminate the lobbyists and their exemptions all together by taxing every item then returning the difference to taxpayers with a prebate check.

Don't spew catechismic answers, simply explain why, in your own words, this is such a good idea.

You refuse to accept the fact all my answers have been simply explained in my own words because you disagree. How convenient.

Please detail what Hamilton's taxes on consumption have in common with the FairTax.

Only that the FairTax is a tax on consumption, that's all.

I wouldn't expect you to comprehend that there are new members coming here everyday.

I am absolutely amazed that you do; up- to now you don't even seem able to comprehend the very simplest things about the FairTax after dozens of repeats explaining them.

So could you post that explanation again for the ones who haven't read it yet?

Be happy to. And in view of the fact that you either didn't or couldn't read it in your rush to get here and post you silly, childish attempt at insulting me, I will re-post the appropriat portion of post # 9. It gits you like a glove, too.

He didn’t say “the tax code”. As you have been made aware in the past, Commerce Clearing House counts Treasury Dept rulings, IRS regs and other official pronouncements as part of the body of knowledge which they refer to as “the tax system”. That entire collection of unintelligible gibberish is what they count at 67,000 pages and growing. At the rate it is growing, it will probably exceed 100,000 pages by the end of this decade or shortly thereafter.

You obviously prefer to play silly games with semantics than to address substantive issues - such as the enormous complexity of the current system and the associated compliance costs.

He didn’t say “the tax code”. As you have been made aware in the past, Commerce Clearing House counts Treasury Dept rulings, IRS regs and other official pronouncements as part of the body of knowledge which they refer to as “the tax system”. That entire collection of unintelligible gibberish is what they count at 67,000 pages and growing.

Well, if he's counting the pages of the "Standard Federal Tax Reporter" he needs to state that. That's not an offical document of any sort. He also needs to point out it's a cumulative record. So if the FairTax were passed it would go from 67,000 to 67,133.

A cumulative record is not a gauge of complexity.

Here is some interesting data on compliance costs in the remote possibility that you care.

I do care. In fact, I care so much I actually looked at the source data for their study. It's based on the Arthur D. Little from the early 80s! It's methods were laughable at the time and it's now woefully outdated. The IRS had IBM replace the study but the Tax Foundation decided not to use IBM's data. Hmm....

Maybe if you cared about the truth - you'd do a little research of your own.

We’re both wasting our time even recognizes that this troll even exists.

Troll!?! Me? I've never had my account suspended.

Troll!?! Me? I've never had my account suspended.

God only knows why noy -- you've made enough of a pest of yourself to have been banned.

Here's a tip as to what Hamilton meant: even though he was Sec. of Treasury, he never proposed a national retail sales tax.

You are correct. Hamilton was talking about excise taxes on specific goods, not a comprehensive consumption tax.

And you still repeat the lie. As you well know, the tax code isn't 67,000+ pages ...

So, do you know exactly how many pages it is?

Let me tell you that what matters is the several hundred or thousand pages, as the case may be, of gibberish that most poeple have to read through if they choose to do your own taxes.

Tell us, do you do your own taxes or do you have someone do them for you?

YAWN!!! Now that you have shown once again that you either can’t read or can’t understand what you read (if you have ever read the explanation about the “67,000 pages at all),

So he's a mind reader now. The so called explanation you're accusing him of not reading was posted AFTER his comment.

Even so it still doesn't "explain" how the Fairtax would eliminate over 66,000 pages of anything...

Why doesn't it explain it? Because what is obvious to anyone from your squirming on the subject it isn't possible, it, them and YOU couldn't explain it even if you knew how.

“You are correct. Hamilton was talking about excise taxes on specific goods, not a comprehensive consumption tax.”

Then why didn’t he say that? Are you suggesting that Hamilton was so inarticulate that he could not make himself understood? The self limiting feature which he was remarking on is NOT limited to excise taxes, your feeble attempts to distort his words notwithstanding.

“It’s based on the Arthur D. Little from the early 80s! It’s methods were laughable at the time and it’s now woefully outdated. The IRS had IBM replace the study but the Tax Foundation decided not to use IBM’s data.”

So you trust the IRS more than The Tax Foundation. Not surprising. You have also criticized CCH’s data on the number of pages, even though CCH is the publisher for most, if not all of them. Anyone who attempts to present unbiased data is attacked, aren’t they?

For someone who defends the current system so vigorously, can you tell us why you chafe at being called and SQL (status quo lover)?

He didn’t say “the tax code”. As you have been made aware in the past, Commerce Clearing House counts Treasury Dept rulings, IRS regs and other official pronouncements as part of the body of knowledge which they refer to as “the tax system”.

He didn’t say “the tax code”, this time. The only ones who need to be made aware are the ones repeating the same Fairtax lies.

Man50d:

This doesn't even factor in the cost of compliance with a tax code of 67,000+ pages.

He didn’t say “the tax code”.

I didn't say it in that post but I should have as have many others have reffered to it as the tax code. The sources and passages referring to the "67,000 page tax code" are below.

CCH CompleteTax Highlights Tax Changes Impacting 2007 Individual Income Tax Returns

”With the tax code now exceeding 67,000 pages, CCH CompleteTax highlights some of the changes that taxpayers need to be aware of as they sit down to prepare their 2007 income tax returns”

7 tax terrors and how to overcome them

“1. Afraid I can't do my taxes myself The tax law publisher CCH Inc. notes that the 1913 tax code took up 400 pages in its "Standard Federal Tax Reporter." By 2007, CCH filled more than 67,000 pages of that document with tax law intricacies.”

How Much Are Americans Paying in Income Taxes?

” So why are so many Americans willing to shell out what amounts to a 20 percent additional tax just to pay tax preparers? Complexity. Our 67,000-page tax code is impossible to understand—even for the experts.”

The Double Trouble of Taxation

” The burden of complying with the income tax is tremendous. Since its inception in 1913, the tax code has gone from 400 pages to over 67,000.”

Cheat on Your Taxes and Ace April 15

” Rumor has it that you haven't done your homework -- you know, poring over all 67,000 pages of the tax code, highlighting relevant passages and clever turns of phrase.”

Don't pay attention to those who keep resorting to flase accusations and innuendos and name calling. They are reduced to semantics trying to deflect attention from the advantages of The Fair Tax out of desperation for lack of meaningful content to refute The Fair Tax.

Tell us, do you do your own taxes or do you have someone do them for you?

TurboTax. And it usually takes me about an hour.

Then why didn’t he say that?

He did. That's what "articles of consumption" means. Different goods.

So maybe you can point me to the NRST legislation Hamilton proposed...

So you trust the IRS more than The Tax Foundation. Not surprising.

Not surprising, you have no idea where the Tax Foundation got their source data from. They got it from the IRS. I guess they trust the IRS.

You have also criticized CCH’s data on the number of pages, even though CCH is the publisher for most, if not all of them.

I have never criticized CCH. But when people quote that silly "67,000 pages" nonsense they always seem to forget to mention that it's the number of pages in CCH's "Standard Federal Tax Reporter," and that's not the tax code.

. Anyone who attempts to present unbiased data is attacked, aren’t they?

Huh? When did I attack anyone for presenting unbiased data?

For someone who defends the current system so vigorously, can you tell us why you chafe at being called and SQL (status quo lover)?

Because it's just another lie. I don't love the status quo. I would prefer have the current system replace with the Flat Tax.

I didn't say it in that post but I should have as have many others have reffered to it as the tax code.

That doesn't make it true! I have shown you conclusively it's not true. So it's OK for you to tell a lie if everyone else is? They are probably just mistaken - you know it's not true.

“Hamilton was talking about excise taxes on specific goods, not a comprehensive consumption tax.”

“He did. That’s what ‘articles of consumption’ means. Different goods.”

So “articles of consumption” means “excise taxes on specific goods”?

When did you make up that interpretation? I will say this again - there is nothing about the self limiting feature which Hamilton was commenting on which is restricted to excise taxes on specific goods - it is obviously a feature of ALL consumption taxes. I realize that does not comport with your agenda. I also realize that you have appointed yourself Lord and Master of the FR tax reform threads and you think you have the authority to post an opinion which seems illogical or is simply an unsupported assertion and to force everyone else to conform their posts to your opinions. There is no recourse for anyone who disagrees with you - no avenue for appeal. Your decisions are final. Anyone not adhering will be personally attacked and bullied.

Let me say this again - I DO NOT NOW NOR WILL I EVER IN THE FUTURE RECOGNIZE YOUR AUTHORITY AS SELF APPOINTED LORD AND MASTER OF THE TAX REFORM THREADS. THAT IS TRUE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU ATTACK ME OR OTHERS ON THE THREAD.

“I didn’t say it in that post but I should have as have many others have referred to it as the tax code.”

The Internal Revenue Code itself is about 9,500 pages, if memory serves. The term “tax code” in this case is obviously being used more generically.

I use CCH’s data because I consider them the most reputable and unbiased source available. If the SQLs on this thread would prefer another source for that type of data, then please let us know which source you prefer. If you believe that you have more accurate and reliable data, then by all means share it with the rest of us.

Only that the FairTax is a tax on consumption, that's all.

And what items did Hamilton's consumption tax tax, and at what rate?

“You are correct. Hamilton was talking about excise taxes on specific goods, not a comprehensive consumption tax.”

Then why didn’t he say that? Are you suggesting that Hamilton was so inarticulate that he could not make himself understood? The self limiting feature which he was remarking on is NOT limited to excise taxes, your feeble attempts to distort his words notwithstanding.

IMHO, Hamilton would be outraged at the thought of his words being distorted to support a 30% federal tax on the purchase of the family horse, buggy, and feed to keep the horse on the road. I doubt he would have endorsed a 30% federal tax on fuel to heat early American homes and cook their meals. In fact, its difficult to imagine the founding fathers even conceiving of the idea of the federal government with its hand out for 30% on the price of an egg or a sack of flour.

The common understanding in the eighteenth century, nevertheless, was that the impost fell on "luxuries" rather than "necessaries," that is, things such as fuel, basic foodstuffs, and clothing. As long as the fiscal legislation respected this distinction, customs duties could therefore be regarded as a voluntary tax. As the Philadelphia merchant and political economist Pelatiah Webster wrote, no person was "compelled to pay any of the taxes, unless he chooses to be concerned in the articles taxed." "Alexander Hamilton's Fiscal Reform: Transforming the Structure of Taxation in the Early Republic", William and Mary Quarterly, October 2004

Note that in the above quote "necessaries" are defined as classes of goods, not as a dollar amount determined by government.

There is no recourse for anyone who disagrees with you - no avenue for appeal. Your decisions are final. Anyone not adhering will be personally attacked and bullied.

That's total crap. Man50D claims the tax code is 67,000 pages and I actually link to the tax code and show it's no where near that and somehow I'm bullying him? Right.

Let me say this again - I DO NOT NOW NOR WILL I EVER IN THE FUTURE RECOGNIZE YOUR AUTHORITY AS SELF APPOINTED LORD AND MASTER OF THE TAX REFORM THREADS.

Curses! Foiled again...

THAT IS TRUE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU ATTACK ME OR OTHERS ON THE THREAD.

Maybe you could show some examples of these vicious attacks so I could know what you are talking about. (BTW, you might want to have a word with TurretGunner if you are worried about attacks on these threads.)

And what items did Hamilton's consumption tax tax, and at what rate?

And what items did Hamilton's consumption tax tax, and at what rate?

Right off hand I haven't the forrest notion.

Now I have a question for you:

Do you think that the spenthrift idiots in Congress could manage the coutry on revenues received from his percentage of taxtion?

... 30% federal tax .... >p? Still trying to re-write the FairTax proposal I see. And until you can learn to read and understand at least what the proposal has to say, you really aren't worth payiing any attention to, are you?

Do you think that the spenthrift idiots in Congress could manage the coutry on revenues received from his percentage of taxtion?

I agree, government spending is the problem and that's the problem that needs to be addressed. A feel good tax scam is not the answer.

forrest = foggiest

Maybe you could show some examples of these vicious attacks so I could know what you are talking about.

You mean like this one from your post # 35? “ So it's OK for you to tell a lie if everyone else is?”

You just, as is your consistent habit, called him a liar. And you are one of the hypocrites on this forum who are always sniveling about name-calling.

(BTW, you might want to have a word with TurretGunner if you are worried about attacks on these threads.)

It’s OK for you to lie your head off, ridicule, attack, insult and generally make a damned nuisance of yourself, with lies like the one I just cited. and for some reason you get away with it. But, I am not a bootlicking troll like you are, so I got suspended a couple of time for TELLING THE TRUTH about you and several other clucks like you on this forum. So what?

So whine and lie away, little man, your time will come. Maybe some day we will get a moderator who will read YOUR attacks on other, your distortions, your downright lies, and your hijacking of threads.

You mean like this one from your post # 35? “ So it's OK for you to tell a lie if everyone else is?” You just, as is your consistent habit, called him a liar. And you are one of the hypocrites on this forum who are always sniveling about name-calling.

He consistently posts something he knows isn't true. I showed him it's not true. He kept posting it. I reminded him it's not true. He kept posting it. Only then did I state he's posting a lie. What would you call him? Lemme guess: a good FairTaxer...

It’s OK for you to lie your head off, ridicule, attack, insult and generally make a damned nuisance of yourself, with lies like the one I just cited. and for some reason you get away with it. But, I am not a bootlicking troll like you are, so I got suspended a couple of time for TELLING THE TRUTH about you and several other clucks like you on this forum. So what?

So whine and lie away, little man, your time will come. Maybe some day we will get a moderator who will read YOUR attacks on other, your distortions, your downright lies, and your hijacking of threads.

This type of raving sounds like something out of the Unibomber Manifesto. I honestly worry about you sometimes.

This type of raving sounds like something out of the Unibomber Manifesto.

Are you calling me a terrorist bomber? That figures -- nothing worthwhile to say so go on the attack. Nice going, hypocrite.

I honestly worry about you sometimes.

Don't hand me that puke -- you aren't capable of doing anything 'honestly.

The Internal Revenue Code itself is about 9,500 pages, if memory serves. The term “tax code” in this case is obviously being used more generically.

"Tax code" is a very specific thing. It refers to Title 26 of the U.S. Code. There is no "generic" term. If you say "the tax code has 67,000 pages" and actually mean "Commerce Clearing House's Standard Federal Tax Reporter has 67,000 pages," you are misleading people.

I use CCH’s data because I consider them the most reputable and unbiased source available.

Source of what? They are reputable, but they've never claimed the "tax code" is 67,000 pages — only that their "Standard Federal Tax Reporter" has 67,000 pages. But the "Standard Federal Tax Reporter" is a cumulative record of changes to the tax code and regulations. Why is it surprising that in grows every year and how that evidence of complexity?

If the SQLs on this thread would prefer another source for that type of data, then please let us know which source you prefer. If you believe that you have more accurate and reliable data, then by all means share it with the rest of us.

Well, I've already posted a link to the tax code so you could see for yourself. But if you need to have someone cut your meat for you, the Tax Foundation has counted the words in the Internal Revenue Code and IRS Regulations. For 2006, they show the code and regulations were 9,097,000 words. (That would be 67,000 pages if there were only 135 words per page!! LOL!)

Are you calling me a terrorist bomber?

Uh, no.