Why the Constitution Party opposes both the fair tax and the income tax

[Red Green]

As a libertarian, I couldn't care less what the most efficient way to steal from people is.

The only tax I can support is a fee for service, such as a toll for road repair, a stamp for mail delivery, or a subscription for fire protective services - provided that the government gives up its claims to monopoly and allows competition, of course.

OK well, think of me as a doctor describing to you the least worst form of cancer you can have. The fact is that right now, there will be taxes, just like in this world there will be cancer. What I am telling you is the least worst form of taxes you can have is a VAT. I agree that being tax-free, like being cancer-free, is the best condition to be in, but aside from that I am offering up a least-worst position.

 

[enoch150]

OK well, think of me as a doctor describing to you the least worst form of cancer you can have. The fact is that right now, there will be taxes, just like in this world there will be cancer. What I am telling you is the least worst form of taxes you can have is a VAT. I agree that being tax-free, like being cancer-free, is the best condition to be in, but aside from that I am offering up a least-worst position.

I've heard it argued that it is preferable for government to be very inefficient at all things. They have fewer resources with which to do damage that way. I'm not sure I agree with that, because the government could always just try to confiscate more, but it is a decent point.

 

[Madison320]

As I have said, income taxes are the most inefficient tax of all tax systems. As for 'sharing' in the pain, the cost of any tax is borne by the end consumer, as that is the person who cannot pass the cost of the tax alone.

So your support of an income tax based on 'everyone feels it' is foolish. Keep in mind most of the cost of an income tax is still paid out for initially by businesses.

And a VAT does not disadvantage retailers. All stages of production are filing tax returns.

I don't necessarily want taxes to be "efficient". One problem with a retail sales tax is that the "burden of collection" not the economic burden, falls on the retailor. All we as consumers have to do is pay the sales tax, we don't face penalties and possible jail time if we screw up the collection of the taxes. Ask any retailor how they feel about a national sales tax. If everyone shares in the pain its more likely that politicians will keep taxes lower. This reminds me of progressive taxation. More of the burden is placed on a minority. I think laws should be applied as evenly as possible.

All that being said I still tend to favor a sales tax for its other advantages over the income tax.

 

[Red Green]

I don't necessarily want taxes to be "efficient". One problem with a retail sales tax is that the "burden of collection" not the economic burden, falls on the retailor. All we as consumers have to do is pay the sales tax, we don't face penalties and possible jail time if we screw up the collection of the taxes. Ask any retailor how they feel about a national sales tax. If everyone shares in the pain its more likely that politicians will keep taxes lower. This reminds me of progressive taxation. More of the burden is placed on a minority. I think laws should be applied as evenly as possible.

All that being said I still tend to favor a sales tax for its other advantages over the income tax.

OK so you want inefficiency in taxes then? You want to increase the burden on taxpayers? Look, I don't want govt, but if we're going to have it, I would at least prefer that it is efficient.

And what I am suggesting as a "least worst" tax is not a retail sales tax, but a VAT and with a VAT, everyone down the line fills out a tax return. And as far as filling out a retail sales tax return, it's about the easiest return to calculate, but of course some jurisdictions make it very complicated by having a rigged-up tax system. A broad-based VAT would no be a burden to just about any enterprise. These days most mom-and-pops can run their shop with Quickbooks, which is more than powerful enough to make doing such a tax return a snap and it's cheap enough that even the smallest of organizations can afford it.

 

[enoch150]

OK so you want inefficiency in taxes then? You want to increase the burden on taxpayers? Look, I don't want govt, but if we're going to have it, I would at least prefer that it is efficient.

Can you give an example of a country that introduced a VAT and had a lower tax burden a few years down the road?

In 1965, before the EU 15 countries began introducing a VAT, they had a total tax confiscation of 28% of GDP, compared to 25% in the US. Total tax confiscations in the US today (including federal, state, and local) is around 27% of GDP. The unweighted average in the EU 15 is now 40%, and in Denmark it's nearly 50%.

Never mind, you've convinced me. Wanting the government to be more efficient at tax confiscation is like wanting the government to be more efficient at spying or killing.

 

[Red Green]

Can you give an example of a country that introduced a VAT and had a lower tax burden a few years down the road?

I can't give you an example of a country that introduced any new tax and had a lower burden as a result. A VAT does nothing to encourage government largess but it also does nothing to make in lean either. And I would never support simply adding in a VAT; I would support repealing income taxes in favor of a VAT because it lessens the burden of administering the tax and because the tax has the least distortionary effect on the economy.

In 1965, before the EU 15 countries began introducing a VAT, they had a total tax confiscation of 28% of GDP, compared to 25% in the US. Total tax confiscations in the US today (including federal, state, and local) is around 27% of GDP. The unweighted average in the EU 15 is now 40%, and in Denmark it's nearly 50%.

Never mind, you've convinced me. Wanting the government to be more efficient at tax confiscation is like wanting the government to be more efficient at spying or killing.

If you think the income tax is preferable (that is, having to submit how much you make, who you work for and justify your expenses to the king's revenue agents) then so be it but you are just supporting having more lawyers, accountants, govt agents and paperwork.

 

[enoch150]

...A VAT does nothing to encourage government largess but it also does nothing to make in lean either.

It doesn't?

...I would support repealing income taxes in favor of a VAT because it lessens the burden of administering the tax... If you think the income tax is preferable ... then so be it but you are just supporting having more lawyers, accountants, govt agents and paperwork.

The income tax is more progressively imposed than a VAT, which serves to slightly balance the scales in a fascist country. A VAT would hit the poor harder. The income tax has also thus far limited federal confiscations to 15% - 20% of GDP regardless of the tax rate imposed, at least in the post war US, as observed by Hauser's Law. That limit does not seem to be observed in countries which have a VAT, so far as I have seen. That's a bit worrisome.

But I made it clear earlier that I only would support user fees, provided competition was permitted. I oppose everything else. If you're going to limit government, you have to limit its ability to collect taxes. A VAT enables it.

 

[Red Green]

The income tax is more progressively imposed than a VAT, which serves to slightly balance the scales in a fascist country.

I believe Warren Buffet claimed that he paid a tax rate roughly equal to mine last year. That's not much for being progressive. And keep in mind that all taxes end up being paid by the end consumer anyway so just because someone initially pays the tax, it does not mean they end up bearing the cost of the tax. And I personally don't engage in class warfare. If you want some sort of targeted tax, tax everyone who gets a government check at a rate double to those who make an honest living.

A VAT would hit the poor harder. The income tax has also thus far limited federal confiscations to 15% - 20% of GDP regardless of the tax rate imposed, at least in the post war US, as observed by Hauser's Law. That limit does not seem to be observed in countries which have a VAT, so far as I have seen. That's a bit worrisome.

We've been able to borrow quite a bit, but regardless, just because you see some correlation (I'm not sure there is one), it does not mean there is causation. Also, some VAT proposals carry a refund (or prefund) provision for those on the lower tier of the income scale.

But I made it clear earlier that I only would support user fees, provided competition was permitted. I oppose everything else. If you're going to limit government, you have to limit its ability to collect taxes. A VAT enables it.

I'm actually for the feds being limited to duties and apportionment amongst the states, but I would see anything that would do away with the income tax as being a step in the right direction. You want to see some economic boom times here in the US, deep-six the income tax.

 

[Madison320]

These days most mom-and-pops can run their shop with Quickbooks, which is more than powerful enough to make doing such a tax return a snap and it's cheap enough that even the smallest of organizations can afford it.

I've heard lots of horror stories about small businesses getting investigated, threatened and fined for mistakes on their sales tax. As I said before, overall I prefer a sales tax, but don't tell me it doesn't place a larger burden on the businesses that are forced to collect it. As long as you and I don't have to worry about collecting the tax it's cool though, right?

 

[Red Green]

I've heard lots of horror stories about small businesses getting investigated, threatened and fined for mistakes on their sales tax. As I said before, overall I prefer a sales tax, but don't tell me it doesn't place a larger burden on the businesses that are forced to collect it. As long as you and I don't have to worry about collecting the tax it's cool though, right?

Do you want me to go through all the ways a business is forced to report to the feds due to the income tax? Look, I work in this field, and I can tell you that without reservation, income taxes are the worst thing to deal with when you are a business. As I stated earlier, some jurisdictions rig up their sales taxes to make it nearly as complicated as an income tax, but a VAT tax works best when it is very broadly based and uniform.

 

[enoch150]

I believe Warren Buffet claimed that he paid a tax rate roughly equal to mine last year. That's not much for being progressive. And keep in mind that all taxes end up being paid by the end consumer anyway so just because someone initially pays the tax, it does not mean they end up bearing the cost of the tax. And I personally don't engage in class warfare. If you want some sort of targeted tax, tax everyone who gets a government check at a rate double to those who make an honest living.



We've been able to borrow quite a bit, but regardless, just because you see some correlation (I'm not sure there is one), it does not mean there is causation. Also, some VAT proposals carry a refund (or prefund) provision for those on the lower tier of the income scale.



I'm actually for the feds being limited to duties and apportionment amongst the states, but I would see anything that would do away with the income tax as being a step in the right direction. You want to see some economic boom times here in the US, deep-six the income tax.

In 2009 the top 1% of taxpayers earned 16.9% of total income reported and paid 36.7% of the income tax. They had an average effective income tax rate of 24.01%.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers earned 13.5% of total income reported and paid 2.3% of the income tax. They had an average effective income tax rate of 1.85%.

I had not heard of a prebate proposal for a VAT. But if it's like the prebate proposal for the Fair Tax, some poor, especially single parent households (although not the very poorest) would end up paying more. In recent years the Fair tax proponents have become well established liars about both that, and about needing "only" a 23% tax rate to be revenue neutral.

I'm all for getting rid of the income tax. I don't support replacing it with anything.

 

[dude58677]

You have it wrong. It's Hendrickson who won't touch the subject, because the illegal income cases prove beyond doubt that his claim that only income from federally-privileged activities is taxable is 100% B.S.



Tax scholars? LOL!!!!! The morons who post on LH have a collective tax law IQ of -73. And if you don't think Pete censors anything that's not lockstep with his idiotic delusions, I have an orange bridge in the Bay Area for sale.



The Constitution specifies only one thing (exports) Congress can't tax, and you will search in vain for any exemption for private-sector pay. And what makes you think that a Chinese person getting paid in the U.S. isn't subject to the income tax (it's quite irrelevant what medium he gets paid in)?

Typical Obama supporter when you can't come up with a solid argument you then insult the other person or keep arguing till you get the last word in while pretending to be stupid. You can't accept that your view of the law is controversial so you want to shut down any dissent and hope we go away. We won't!

 

[Red Green]

In 2009 the top 1% of taxpayers earned 16.9% of total income reported and paid 36.7% of the income tax. They had an average effective income tax rate of 24.01%.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers earned 13.5% of total income reported and paid 2.3% of the income tax. They had an average effective income tax rate of 1.85%.

As I said, I mentioned Warren Buffet in particular because of the way he makes his money. The tax rate for long-term capital gains has been 15% for the last few years as has been the tax rate for qualified dividends. Municipal bond interest is tax-free.

I had not heard of a prebate proposal for a VAT. But if it's like the prebate proposal for the Fair Tax, some poor, especially single parent households (although not the very poorest) would end up paying more. In recent years the Fair tax proponents have become well established liars about both that, and about needing "only" a 23% tax rate to be revenue neutral.

I don't believe in progressive taxation, to be honest. I believe our founding fathers believed that taxes would in fact be kept in check by the poor in that the government would have to keep taxes sufficiently low to avoid causing undue hardships to the poorest lest they have a revolt on their hands. I believe that should be the approach: make taxes so low that even the poorest are not unduly burdened.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Typical Obama supporter

Typical moron who thinks that anyone who disagrees with his views must support Obama.

You can't accept that your view of the law is controversial so you want to shut down any dissent and hope we go away. We won't!

My view of the law isn't controversial -- it's the same view that all of the judges, CPA's, tax lawyers, and law professors have. It's the view that is reflected in all of the court decisions, especially those that reject out of hand the ridiculous claims of Hendrickson and his pathetic followers (I suggest you read post #41 in this thread). If you want to see a place where dissent isn't allowed, go to Hendrickson's site -- he bans anyone who dares to criticize his idiotic theories.

 

[dude58677]

Typical moron who thinks that anyone who disagrees with his views must support Obama.



My view of the law isn't controversial -- it's the same view that all of the judges, CPA's, tax lawyers, and law professors have. It's the view that is reflected in all of the court decisions, especially those that reject out of hand the ridiculous claims of Hendrickson and his pathetic followers (I suggest you read post #41 in this thread). If you want to see a place where dissent isn't allowed, go to Hendrickson's site -- he bans anyone who dares to criticize his idiotic theories.

All the people you mentioned are Obama supporters. You don't have the authority to ban anyone here because you are not a moderator. BTW, you're name calling and lying about who you support is another thing Obama supporters do. The idea is to get me to appear that I am extreme when it is you who is extreme as you don't have any problem telling people how to spend their money and you don't have any problem with doing it at the point of a gun. What if Rand Paul were to be President and issue executive order to end the IRS for the reasons the Constitution Party says it is? Would you be appalled and wish Hilliary or any RINO was President. I bet you and the above mentioned people would!

 

[Danke]

All the people you mentioned are Obama supporters. You don't have the authority to ban anyone here because you are not a moderator. BTW, you're name calling and lying about who you support is another thing Obama supporters do. The idea is to get me to appear that I am extreme when it is you who is extreme as you don't have any problem telling people how to spend their money and you don't have any problem with doing it at the point of a gun. What if Rand Paul were to be President and issue executive order to end the IRS for the reasons the Constitution Party says it is? Would you be appalled and wish Hilliary or any RINO was President. I bet you and the above mentioned people would!

 

[Sonny Tufts]

All the people you mentioned are Obama supporters.

Are you really so paranoid to think that every single judge, CPA, tax lawyers, and law prof supports Obama?

you don't have any problem telling people how to spend their money and you don't have any problem with doing it at the point of a gun. What if Rand Paul were to be President and issue executive order to end the IRS for the reasons the Constitution Party says it is? Would you be appalled and wish Hilliary or any RINO was President. I bet you and the above mentioned people would!

I describe what the law IS, not what I think it should be. Like most ignorant tax protesters (a redundant term), you operate under the delusion that if someone exposes bogus anti-tax theories it automatically means that one is a pro-government stooge of the IRS. Those who would like to see a different tax system (or no system at all) don't do their cause any good by promoting the idiotic claims that con artists like Hendrickson peddle or the comeplelely misguided and legally baseless theories of the Constitution Party.

Rand Paul is too intelligent to believe that a President (of whatever party) has the constitutional authority to eliminate the IRS, especially based upon the nonsensical theories of the Constitution Party.

 

[Klibet]

My list of taxes from hate the least to hate the most is: "tax on holding money, excise sin taxes, pollution taxes (including gas taxes), property tax, other excise taxes, other sin taxes, tariffs, progressive income tax, estate and gift taxes, flat income tax, VAT, general sales tax, payroll tax.

 

[Red Green]

My list of taxes from hate the least to hate the most is: "excise sin taxes, pollution tax, property tax, other excise taxes, other sin taxes, tariffs, income tax, estate and gift taxes, payroll tax, VAT, general sales tax.

OK I had to read that again. That's a mixed up list there. You say you prefer income taxes to sales and VAT taxes? Why!!???

 

[Klibet]

OK I had to read that again. That's a mixed up list there. You say you prefer income taxes to sales and VAT taxes? Why!!???

A tax on general consumption and/or VAT means a lower MPC, while an income tax tends to increase the MPC. Since the American economy does not need more savings but more consumption I favor taxes that increase the MPC because they hurt the economy less then taxes that reduces the MPC. My favorite tax would be a small tax on holding money, to increase consumtion and reduce the amount of money saved for a long period of time.