Wednesday, May 14, 2008

'Fair Tax' Supporters

Post 5:


*NEWS*
I have had this blog for a whole one and a half weeks now and am already at three hundred unique views. I am already read worldwide and want to keep growing. Please send links to your friends, DIGG me, facebook me, anything to get the word out. The more people this reaches the more people who can comment and create a better site. This site is here for you, and I want you all to be a part of it. This is a map of all the unique locations I have so far been viewed from.



There is also a new poll located on the side of this blog, please respond to it (will be put up soon as blogger lets me)
*ENDING OF THE NEWS*



Have you figured out what the theme that I am circling around is? Only a few more posts and that theme itself becomes the blog entry.

From our countries humble beginnings to the present we have always had thousands of people who have issues with taxes. They have issues with taxes in any forms; from property taxes to income taxes to sales tax. These objectors have usually kept their protests to vocal forms, but have, at times, erupted in violence - for example, the Whiskey Rebellion. Seeing as one of the major events leading up to the Revolutionary War was the Boston Tea Party we have a long history in this country of not liking taxes. But, in reality, taxes are essential for any society to function, as something is needed to protect the persons and the country as a whole. The issue really comes down to arguing how much is too much, and how much is needed. However, when the issue of where the tax comes from is brought up we, as a country, have vastly different angles and views. Most people, however, seem to accept our current system, that is, income tax subsidized by sales tax and the like. There is, however, a very vocal group of people who think that the idea of income tax is wrong (or even unconstitutional), and feel that all taxes should be done via sales tax, a flat one at that: Fair Taxers, What Really Grinds My Gigantic Notched Wheels.

Nobody likes taxes. We all have issues with spending money out of our checks and pocketbooks for seemingly pointless things. Do we all agree with what the taxes are spent on? Of course not. However, most of us agree that roads, fire fighters, police, schools, libraries, the Internet, etc. are worth the money. So when people start trying to change the way that our tax system works you need to start wondering how they are planning on taking care of said issues. It is hard to accept a new system when we are afraid that what we need to be a running functioning society is on the line. When fair taxers supporters start recommending and talking about their great discovery and idea four main things stick out as a sore thumb - They argue that the income tax is unconstitutional - they use faulty math - they do not explain how this tax will handle inflation or how it handles third-party used transfers (basically, the feasibility of it) - they do not address how regressive this tax actually is.

They argue that the income tax is unconstitutional
Most 'fair tax' supporters will start of their argument by saying that our system needs to change. Now, some will (logically) argue that there are inherent flaws with the IRS and income tax, most will simply argue that the income tax is unconstitutional. Now, last time I checked if something is specifically allowed in the Constitution it is Constitutional. Well, apparently the 'fair taxers' and tax evaders have never heard of the 16th Amendment. Now, even if the 16th had never happened income tax would still be Constitutional. Most will say that the decision Bowers V. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. clearly said that the 16th did not give any new taxing powers by quoting this part of the decision:
“It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.”
The problem with this is that they clearly ignore the next line which says:
“Congress already had power to tax all incomes.”
If congress already had this power than there is no way to argue that the Income tax is Unconstitutional.

They use faulty math
If you are new to the concept of the 'fair tax' or want to gets a quick refresher and are wondering what the fair tax is here you go. It is a sales tax that would increase all sales to 30% (they claim 23%, but I will show how fuzzy their math is shortly) and eliminate all income tax. Furthermore, it would give a 'prebate’ that is supposed to cover the cost of living for the year (pays you back the sales tax used that year for ‘needed’ things). Now, let us address the issue of faulty math. Those who present the math on the site believe that sales tax is inclusive (they use the logic that it would be the same type as the current income tax system). Sales tax however, is an exclusive tax, so it is calculated after the final cost, not the initial. That said, here is how it is calculated according to the website:
Final product is $130.00
Tax was $30.00
30 is 23% of 130, ergo 23% sales tax
Common logic shows that $30 is 30% of $100, not the 23% that the ‘fair tax’ group says. The fact that they claim one statistic, and then don’t mention to tell you that that claim is false automatically makes me suspicious of the group.

They do not explain how the tax will handle inflation or how it handles third-party used transfers (basically, the feasibility of it)

While we are on the topic of fuzzy math, let us discuss exactly how we can fund the government with the ‘fair tax’. Currently, the Federal Budget is 2.8 trillion dollars. Our countries current GNP is 11059.3 billion dollars. If we use the 30% tax (the real amount they are taxing), we can see that we only get 3317.79 billion, or 3.31779 trillion. For now, that looks like it is the perfect amount needed to fund our current budget, but what happens if either our government spends more (they are increasing on average .2 trillion a year (meaning 4 years until this is not enough money)) or our country spends less as a people. The current proposal leaves no area for adjustment, and, as it is a Constitutional Amendment will not be able to change it before we go into a deeper debt.

One of the main problems with problems with the fair tax is that it is only a tax on taxable stores and new FULLY PRODUCED items. That said, is it not actually easier to circumvent this system than the current one? Sites like Ebay and Amazon and the like will need to be shut down, as they create a system that circumnavigates the governments income. Suddenly, we start buying used items because they are cheaper. Now, even though the GNP stays roughly the same, the government is making less money because there is no more sales tax. Soon, the government will need to crack down on these “black markets”; they will need to shut down drug rings, flea markets, half-priced books, and renegade sub shops. Soon, the government will need to be spending more money (something we already showed they will not have) to make the money. So, they stop the finished products black market, but why would I buy a full product? If labor is not taxed and unfinished products are not taxed why do I not just buy the parts and pay somebody to put it together. This would probably save me compared to the 30% add on. It becomes quite clear that the fair tax has no way to handle this, and our government would get into far more debt than we already have.

They do not address how regressive this tax is
My last issue with the ‘fair tax’ is what it does exactly. If we charge every person 30% on all items the poor will be charged more than the rest. While the supporters claim that the prebates should take care of this, we all know that will not happen. Already the rebates which are supposed to help those below the poverty level do not provide enough for the family, so why would the rebate. Furthermore, because you would need to deal with inflation and different locations, just to figure out who gets how much in a prebate would be a nightmare and cost more than the IRS does now. That said, this tax is clearly regressive. By having the poor pay roughly 30% of their paycheck on this tax while the rich pay 1% shows the clear disregard for the lower classes that this tax has. Clearly, this tax is not designed to help the lower classes, despite that being one of their main claims.

In the end, I feel that the 'fair tax' is nothing more than a cleverly designed ploy, a Trojan Horse if you will, to get those who have money more, and make those who are poor poorer. This is clearly not a fair tax, in any attempt at defining the word, and it is clearly an example of doublespeak which is intended to make others support it without reason. In the end, any group that specifically lies is worthy of intense scrutiny, and under that gaze, the ‘fair tax’ falls short. While the Income Tax is not the best system, until we get another that can replace it and replace it well, we need to work on fixing it up.


As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole. Thanks

Digg my article

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Final product is $130.00
Tax was $30.00
30 is 23% of 130, ergo 23% sales tax
Common logic shows that $30 is 30% of $100, not the 23% that the ‘fair tax’ group says."

There are 2 ways to view taxes: as inclusive or exclusive. Inclusive is when the tax is already included in the final amount. That is how income taxes are and that is how the FairTax is. Exclusive is where the tax is added on to the final amount, like a general sales tax (however the FairTax is by law inclusive).

When you go out and buy something for $130 under the FairTax, you will pay $130 since the tax is already included in that amount.

What you are doing is faulty math and actually changing the problem. Here is what you said: Common logic shows that $30 is 30% of $100. However the FairTax people are using the final amount of $130. You are using the exclusive rate, which is not how the FairTax works.

The FairTax is meant to be revenue neutral, not spending neutral. It is just a means to replace the current tax code and bring in the same amount of funds. The tax base that the FairTax uses is the amount people spend each year. This tax base is much larger than the current tax base used today for income. Economists and supporters of the plan adjust the tax base for different things which I will not get into and then take the amount of current revenue that will be replaced and divide it by the adjusted tax base. That will give the revenue neutral rate of 23.81%. When you use the 30% rate, you are incorrectly using the exclusive rate and need to use the inclusive rate. It is like saying I earned and have now $1000 but paid $300 in taxes (which means you earned $1300).

Anyway, this tax base that the FairTax uses will grow (because people will continue to spend). Income over the past many years has increased (which therefore has increased the income tax base) and the same goes for spending.

The black market effect you speak of will not occur. The current tax system unintentially causes a 22% embedded tax (a cost for the current system). When the FairTax takes place, this will go away causing prices to drop but then it will be offset by the 23% inclusive rate causing price neutrality.

Used items are not taxed. When Amazon sells something new, they must collect the taxes on it and send that in to the state government who will then forward it to the federal government. Also, there are only so many used items out there will (by supply and demand) increase the price of used goods to the point where it isn't cheaper. But since prices won't change for new goods, there is no added incentive for buying used goods.

You obviously have no knowledge on the FairTax prebate. When you register your household, you tell how many people are living in your home (you prove this through using you SSN). Poverty levels vary depending on how many people are in your household. For a family of 4, the poverty level is around $27,000. 23% of that (which is what you pay in taxes) will be sent back to each household so they won't pay taxes up to the poverty level. The President's economic counsel (or something like that) found that the FairTax is regressive. However, they created a new tax base and determined a new tax rate (34%)but only had the prebate rate at 23%. The prebate rate is the same as the tax rate. If the tax rate is 25%, the prebate rate will be 25%. The FairTax ends up being progressive.

Most of your knowledge on the FairTax is either incorrect based on misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of the subject.

Hajile said...

Long comment. @.@

Anyway, I don't care what they do, almost anything is better than the Income tax. An Income tax doesn't even make sense to me.

Personally, I think a flat tax would be best. With some various rebates tacked on for those with bad financial situations. ;o

Barga said...

Okay, either way the initial is 100$, right? If it is, then a 23% tax makes it 123$, not 130%. That is basic math. Now, there is no way to argue the initial is not 100, which is why most economic persons say it is really 30%

The tax base grows only if the people spend more than they are now and the cost of living does not increase at a greater rest than the rest of the items.

How will a black market not occur. If I can buy old items for cheaper than new items the of course I will buy the used ones. It would be a profitable market as I could start a buisness (buisnesses are not taxed), buy items from China, open them, sell them used. Makes money

I am aware that the prebate gives me back what I need to function. However, any luxuries the tax costs me more than it does a rich person (by percentage) and therefore is regressive.

Barga said...

What is wrong with the income tax hajile?

Hajile said...

It crushes the idea of capitalism.
We've been over this before. xD

Our society is setup so that if you want to make something of yourself and become wealthy, you can. (For the most part.) Capitalism is setup so that the harder you work, the more you make. However, the income tax crushes that idea. Someone who is working hard and trying to better themselves and society is taxed more than some slob who could care less what he makes. So therefore, some go "Why the heck should I work harder if more money is going to be take from me?"

Wouldn't we rather have a society that has people working harder instead of slacking?

Anonymous said...

"Okay, either way the initial is 100$, right? If it is, then a 23% tax makes it 123$, not 130%. That is basic math. Now, there is no way to argue the initial is not 100, which is why most economic persons say it is really 30%"

But by the way the FairTax will be set up, that is not how it works. You are making the FairTax into an exclusive tax, which it is not. Even though most sales taxes are exclusive, the FairTax is inclusive.

By saying that the FairTax has a 30% tax rate is incorrect. You could say that the FairTax inclusive tax rate of 23% causes prices to rise 30%. That would be correct. However that 30% price increase will be offset by the embedded taxes going away. leaving prices relatively neutral.

The tax base grows if more people purchase more items. The tax base is partially based off of the GDP. Look at the historical figures for the GDP and you will get your answer.

Black markets will not occur because there is no incentive for them to. Prices stay the same. Since the numbers of filers has gone from 100+ million to just 25 million, the likely hood of an audit is vastly greater. Your idea of the business selling used items would be considered fraud and you would face a hefty fine and jail time.

Let's look at a married couple with 2 children (let's assume they spend 100% of their income and they recieve no deductions, sort of offsets the other/maximum they would pay):

For $30,000 of income, under the current tax system, they would pay $3,745 in income taxes (12.5% tax rate) and $2,295 in payroll taxes for a total of $6,040 in federal taxes, or a 20.1% tax rate. Under the FairTax, they would pay $6,900 in taxes but will be refunded $6,297 from the prebate, with their total taxes at $603, or a 2.0% tax rate.

For $50,000 of income, under the current tax system, they would pay $6,745 in income taxes (13.5% tax rate) and $3,825 in payroll taxes for a total of $10,570 in federal taxes, or a 21.1% tax rate. Under the FairTax, they would pay $11,500 in taxes but will be refunded $6,297 from the prebate, with their total taxes at $5,203, or a 10.4% tax rate.

For $100,000 of income, under the current system, would pay $18,115 in income taxes (18.1% tax rate) and $7,650 in payroll taxes totaling $25,765 or a 25.7% tax rate. Under the FairTax, they would pay $23,000 in taxes but will be refunded $6,297 from the prebate, with their total taxes at $16,703, or a 16.7% tax rate.

Barga said...

Hajile -

How does it crush the idea of capitalism. Yes, it leeps you from going to 1% below the line to 1% above, but once you pass 5% above you still make more than before. Income tax would harm self improvement if it were set up differently, but because of how it is set up (with the exceptions and the like) it does not harm the idea. Remember, working more means more money is taken, not that you have less (you still would have more than before the improvement)

Barga said...

Anon -

All sales tax are exclusive, by the very definition. Unless you are telling me that the item is going to cost more because the fair tax exists then you are paying 30%. You are saying I need to pay an extra 7$ per every 100$ because you guys chose to set it up differently than it is supposed to be. Making the tax exclusive saves money, I have yet to see a problem with that.

Price is 100$ now, 123$ with exclusive, 130$ with inclusive... How is that neutral price?

How are prices going to stay the same, I already showed above how they will not be. Black markets will be huge because they are nontaxable, when the initial is 100$ (after markup), the taxed version is 130$, and the ebay version (opened, of course) is 110$ who will I buy? The ebayer (and he makes money)

I like how you conveniently are missing the fact that they then need to buy things, at a 15% (your 23% augment) higher rate than before in taxes. How soon does that offset the savings?

Hajile said...

Answer me this:

If I am working harder (to better myself and society) than my neighbor, who is a slouch and works only part-time, why should I be penalized and have a larger portion taken from me?

How does that make sense? The one who is working harder to try and making something of himself suffers.

Barga said...

Mike makes 5000$, pays 500$ in taxes, net of 4500$

Elijah makes 10000$, pays 1500$, net of 8500$

you still make more, thus still having the drive to improve. The reason it is this was is that it is not regressive (effects the poor more)

Hajile said...

You're still not answering the question. xP

"If I work harder to better myself and society, why should I have a larger chunk taken from me?"

Barga said...

Technically, even with a flat tax (which means all people pay X%) you still have more taken

Hajile said...

Frickit, I walked straight into that one. xDD

Rephrase:

"If I work harder to better myself and society, why should I have a larger percentage of my money taken from me?"

Still can't believe how I just walked into that. Really, it was more of a head-long dash. xP

Barga said...

Hajile, think of it like this:

I make 500$ a month (much more, but assume), I spend 50$ on taxes, now is 450$ enough to live on?

You make 5000$ a month, you pay 1000$ in taxes, 4000$ is enough to live on.

The concept is that if you can afford more you should pay more, simply because it allows both to maintain a life style and is not that much more of a burden on you (1/8 more of your salary a month in my example)

Anonymous said...

The FairTax is the best idea I've ever heard off.

Barga said...

Anonymous -
Do you care to defend that position?

Anonymous said...

1) What definition says that sales taxes have to be exclusive?

2) The FairTax explicitly says that the tax will be inclusive. Saying otherwise will be misrepresenting the FairTax and in fact we wouldn't even be referring to the FairTax anymore but a new type of tax system.

3) Do you understand what it means to be price neutral? Something that costs $100 today will cost $100 (or close to it)under a new system.

Let's look at this problem: Something cost $100 today. The FairTax becomes law. The FairTax is applied at its inclusive rate of 23% causing the price of the good to be $130. Now the embedded costs of the current system go away, 22% inclusive rate, leaving prices at $101. Price neutral.

Note: The embedded costs of 22% is an average.

3) Even though you buy goods from eBay, all of there new goods will have taxes collected off of them. Say eBay sells $100 million worth of new goods. When they report that to the state government, the state government will tell them to send in a check for $23 million. There is no incentive for eBay to not tax new goods.

4) "The concept is that if you can afford more you should pay more, simply because it allows both to maintain a life style and is not that much more of a burden on you."

So what you are saying is that if a rich person goes to McDonald's, they should pay more because they can afford it? That is some crazy socialist thought process you have there. Who cares if Bill Gates can afford something more than we can, the fact of the matter is he is living in the same country with the same benefits as the rest of us.

5) "Technically, even with a flat tax (which means all people pay X%) you still have more taken"

You may have more $$$ taken, but the burden (% of income) is equal throughout.

Barga said...

Anonymous -
----1) What definition says that sales taxes have to be exclusive?-----
Merriam Websters

-------2) The FairTax explicitly says that the tax will be inclusive. Saying otherwise will be misrepresenting the FairTax and in fact we wouldn't even be referring to the FairTax anymore but a new type of tax system.-------
Correct, it says that it is inclusive, which is illogical. Sales tax by definition is exclusive. Furthermore, by making it inclusive they are charging Americans more.

-----------3) Do you understand what it means to be price neutral? Something that costs $100 today will cost $100 (or close to it)under a new system.

Let's look at this problem: Something cost $100 today. The FairTax becomes law. The FairTax is applied at its inclusive rate of 23% causing the price of the good to be $130. Now the embedded costs of the current system go away, 22% inclusive rate, leaving prices at $101. Price neutral.

Note: The embedded costs of 22% is an average.-----------
I pay 7% sales tax, so lets look at this. The item costs the same base (we both agree on that) and then I pay 7% whereas you pay 23%. I do not see how that is neutral

-----------3) Even though you buy goods from eBay, all of there new goods will have taxes collected off of them. Say eBay sells $100 million worth of new goods. When they report that to the state government, the state government will tell them to send in a check for $23 million. There is no incentive for eBay to not tax new goods. -------------
Ebay does not sell or buy, they are an auction site. Because the FT is only on new items what is sold used is not taxed, bigger market

------------4) "The concept is that if you can afford more you should pay more, simply because it allows both to maintain a life style and is not that much more of a burden on you."

So what you are saying is that if a rich person goes to McDonald's, they should pay more because they can afford it? That is some crazy socialist thought process you have there. Who cares if Bill Gates can afford something more than we can, the fact of the matter is he is living in the same country with the same benefits as the rest of us.-----------
I am simply explaining the definition of a burden

-------------5) "Technically, even with a flat tax (which means all people pay X%) you still have more taken"

You may have more $$$ taken, but the burden (% of income) is equal throughout.--------
%=/=burden

The Smoky Cigar said...

I am dumber for having read your bullshit. Please, at the VERY LEAST, read, The FairTax Proposal itself...if not the two books that already clear up the misunderstandings you have. What is it that has you so against The FairTax? It surely can't be what you say it is, because those things are not true. so what is it?

The Smoky Cigar said...

Barga - you're almost as ridiculous as Whalertly...almost. neither of you have an original thought to bring forth.

to address #3 - we're not saying that we are replacing the 7% sales tax with a 23% sales tax. The 7% will remain (it is a state or county tax). what will happen is that the 22% (on average) that a company pays in taxes and tax preparation to bring a product to their shelves disappears. then you add 23% (the inclusive consumption tax) back to the price before putting it on the shelf.

So take $100 and subtract the 22% of imbedded taxes.

You know have a product that costs us $78

Then put back in the 23% inclusive or 30% exclusive tax (which ever way you want to do it) and you've got a product that costs $101.4

So now you're paying 1.4% more for a product but your paycheck is 30%(or so) bigger because you're not paying income taxes or payroll taxes! ...if you have a job, that is...

Barga said...

I have read the books, and, the FT does not propose to get rid of the other taxes as well, only income and the current sales tax (Not the taxes the companies pay on the items). Furthermore, I am the blogger

Anonymous said...

1) According to Websters, a sales tax is: a tax levied on the sale of goods and services that is usually calculated as a percentage of the purchase price and collected by the seller.

Key word here is "usually". I am not arguing that sales taxes are usually exclusive. But they don't have to be.

And come on, your using a online dictionary to talk about taxes. Why don't you use a real source, such as the Brooking Institution (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/improve/retail/exclusive-inclusive.cfm)

Here is what they said :Although there is no single correct way to report a sales tax rate, it is crucial to understand which approach is being used.

2) See above

3) ??? Where did you get 7%? When you take the base amount ($100) and add on the tax (total $130) you would then subtract the embedded taxes (they are more like costs associated with the current system) leaving you with a final value of $101, price neutral.

If that 7% is a current state sales tax, then your argument is negligible because 1) it is a state and not a federal tax so therefore the FairTax doesn't even mess with it, 2) it already exists today and will continue to exist tomorrow, and 3) only the federal tax and federal costs of the current system are affected.

4)eBay provides a service, which is taxed. They can rent space on their webpage to businesses who want to advertise on the site. When a seller sells a good, they must pay transaction fees, which are taxed. Also fees charged to users to connect Skype's VoIP product to traditional telecommunication network are taxed.

http://investor.ebay.com/faq.cfm

5) %=/=burden

What does that mean? Say we have a 10% flat tax with 2 earners:$10,000 and $100,000. Even though the 2nd earner will pay $9000 more than the 1st earner, they will still have the same burden of 10%.

6) What sales tax does the FairTax get rid of? It only eliminates the income tax, corporate and business tax, capital gains tax, payroll taxes, gift tax, death tax, alternative minimum tax, and the estate tax.

Here is the breakdown of the embedded costs of the current system (inclusive rates): 22% embedded cost = 10.45% payroll taxes + 11.55% corporate taxes, compliance costs, and the employer share of payroll taxes.

Current sales taxes that businesses pay have nothing to do with this equation and is in fact negligible because we are referring to the elimination of the embedded taxes offsetting the sales tax. The state sales tax has nothing to do with price neutrality because it does not affect what is being dealt with. Not to mention that since it is here today and it still will be here tomorrow, what you actually pay won't change.

Barga said...

Anon -

1) I with draw my point

2) See above

3) From what I understand only the income tax is removed (and any related taxes). Based on that, the 23% already there would still be there. Also, I would like to see data on the percentage you think is inherent.

4)Services are not taxed under the plan, and, because I would not be buying a service, ebay would not be taxed.

5) The burden is not how much you have to pay or the percentage, it is how it would affect you. Paying 10% effects a poor person more than a rich person based on supplemental income

Anonymous said...

3) The embedded taxes (costs) are a result of the payroll taxes, corporate taxes, etc that cause prices to rise in order to accommodate them. Since there will no longer be any of those taxes, there will be no need for those costs.

Wikipedia has all of the documents you would want to look at (too many to post here, plus I don't have the time). Not to mention you will actually learn what the FairTax is instead of what you think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax

4) Services are taxed under the FairTax. And since eBay is providing a service and is receiving revenue from it, that revenue is taxed.

5) Paying a 10% tax affects both the poor and the rich equally. They now have only 9/10th of their income they can spend. Rich people tend to have higher costs (dollar amount) than poor people. Rich people and poor people do not buy the same things. I seriously do not know how you can't understand this (then I looked at some of your previous posts). A loss of 10% of anyone's income is still a loss of 10% of their income, regardless of how much they make.

A poor person earns $10,000 and a rich person earns $100,000. If a 10% flat tax is imposed upon them, they now have only 90% of their income left. The burden is the same.

Danny said...

Unfortunately, that article is very misinformed. It's 30% exclusive and 23% inclusive. The average American spends about 33% of earnings on income taxes (inclusive). Exclusive would be about 54%.

Also, keep in mind that there is a 22% embedded tax on items (companies have to raise the costs of products in order to pay for corporate taxes and payroll taxes)

Also, nobody claims the 16th amendment is unconstitutional, it's just a bad way of collecting money.

Lastly, this writer is completely wrong about the poor and the Fairtax. Poor people spend LESS MONEY than rich people. It's the rich who buy fancy cars, boats, etc... Poor people pay barely any tax as it is.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that under the fairtax you keep 100% of your paycheck, you get the amount of sales tax of the necessities of life each month, and prices of goods do not significantly go up.

This writer clearly hasn't read the Fairtax book.

Zod said...

Remember the 1984 movie "Gremlins"? There are 3 rules for taking care of a "mogwai":
1) Do not expose them to direct sun light.
2) Do not get them wet.
3) No matter how much they cry or beg, never ever feed them after midnight.

Congress is a lot like a mogwai. It also has three rules for proper care:
1) Do not expose it to direct lobbying.
2) Do not allow it to create public debt.
3) No matter how much it begs or cries, never ever fund it with income taxes.

The consequences of breaking the rules for Congress are similar to the consequences of breaking the rules for mogwai. Brake rule #1, justice gets fried. Brake rule #2, the bureaucracy multiplies. Break rule #3, government transforms from a small passive entity into an ugly tyrannical Gremlin.

The only way to deal with Gremlins is to kill them. Fortunately, we can transform Congress back into the passive pet of the people it once was by passing the Fair tax and repealing the 16th Amendment.

Barga said...

I am sorry, but that is probably the funniest thing I have read in a while. Congrats

Steve said...

Kudos, Zod!

And Kudos, Danny, for pointing out the inclusive/exclusive %s for the income tax! I love that fact!

Anonymous said...

Thank you ZOD;
I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers but I lifted your post and put it other places. You nailed it :-)

Regarding the flat tax that some people throw up as a dodge. We had a flaat tax three times, 1913, 1961 and 1986. Since '86 there have been over 14,000 changes to the tax code all done because of special interests lobbying efforts.
There are those who demand doing away with special interests. It is true that 56% of all lobbyists visits with congressmen and senators is tax related.

Hajile said...

I think the point I was trying to argue was proven for me.

Anonymous said...

Dude...you are totally messed up. Please, I studied FairTax for only a weekend and figured out why the whole $100-now =/= $130-after FairTax.

This guy is definitely the best I've read on FairTax. He actually has some faulty reasoning, too, but his paper is definitely the best proof against the FairTax.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=893888

Next time, don't diss something without doing your homework.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for one's marvelous posting! I truly enjoyed reading it, you may be a great author. I will make sure to bookmark your blog and will eventually come back later in life. I want to encourage you continue your great posts, have a nice afternoon!

my web page hip waist ratio

Anonymous said...

I am genuinely pleased to read this website posts which includes
plenty of helpful information, thanks for providing such data.


Here is my webpage :: internet marketing zahay

Anonymous said...

My family always say that I am killing my time here at web, however I know I am getting knowledge every day by reading such good articles or reviews.



Feel free to surf to my web blog; http://mydepression.org/

Anonymous said...

Thank you a lot for sharing this with all people you actually recognize what you're talking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally visit my website =). We may have a hyperlink trade arrangement between us

Feel free to surf to my website: online business books

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the good writeup. It in truth was a enjoyment account it.

Glance complex to far brought agreeable from you! By the way,
how could we keep up a correspondence?

Also visit my web site: mens stuhrling original watches

Redirect

You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by whalertly.blogspot.com, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.