Comments on: Sales, Flat, or Spherical, Tax Reform Isn’t the Answer

By: Michael Johnson

Michael Johnson — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:24:56 +0000

Mr. Smith needs a plan? How about simply repealing Amendment 16 and eliminating the income tax …. replacing it with NOTHING? The Feds were able to ‘live’ without it from 1789 until 1913, they can certainly do so again.

Not that Mr. Callahan needs assistance, but Laurence Vance has two rather detailed critiques of Boortz’s books that even the kool aid drinkers might grasp. At the very least they complement Mr. Callahan’s efforts.

There is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax
Monday, December 12, 2005 by Laurence M. Vance
http://mises.org/daily/1975

There Is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax
Thursday, May 15, 2008 by Laurence M. Vance
http://mises.org/daily/2961

By: Erich Lamontagne

Erich Lamontagne — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:58:36 +0000

@Rocket Man
“Pie-in-the-sky libertarian rhetoric” lol- really? Pie-in-the-sky? I think you need to sit down, watch a Disney movie, and get a little hope, padre. Libertarianism is incredibly simple. We just have so many people with state-educated doubt mental blocks, for example
@Robert L. Hall
says (in my own words) “wahh the Government is not stealing from us the best way.” Come on, how complicated is the idea that government “experimenting” with people is immoral- you “lets tax ourselves better,” people, just want to be the experimenters.
If you’re like @Rocket man and have lost your “confidence in my fellow citizens” that sounds like a personal problem. What do you think the government thinks? That we can take care of ourselves? Ha.

@Jeff Smith
If you’re not educated enough to appreciate a critique, don’t whine about it. Go read some low-bar propaganda like @Rocket Man

“It would create more jobs; it would get Uncle Sam’s hands out of our back pocket… …those idiots to spend on their pork barrel projects in order to keep getting reelected.”

Can you believe this guy? Who says this kind of stuff? He’s practically a propaganda robot, no mind of his own, just repeating some crap he read somewhere. Don’t be a troll!

By: Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:28:21 +0000

Nice analysis. Correct or not, I can’t answer – I just don’t know enough. However, on the surface any plan that does away the multi-thousand page, Byzantine system with special exemptions for single companies we have now has, I say HAS, to be better than the current system, imperfect as the new system may be.

But what really irritates me about articles like this is they are great at picking at someone else’s idea, but they don’t propose a better one. Just saying lower overall taxes isn’t a plan. Not even close.

Try again, maybe you’ll do better…

By: John Anello

John Anello — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:16:04 +0000

One of my major apprehensions about the flat tax is that the actual rate of taxation would be purely arbitrary and subject to same rapacious politicians and bureaucrats as our current tax system. What would be a “fair” rate? 6 percent? 10 percent? Who knows? But who would decide, some Washington czar no doubt. Hayek said that what is needed in a tax system is “a principle that will limit the maximum rate of direct taxation in some relation to the total burden of taxation.”

By: Rocket Man

Rocket Man — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:00:16 +0000

While Libertarians have a few good points they tend to harp on causes that can never come to fruition. Most on this thread could likely agree with the premise that we need a much much smaller and less intrusive government, especially at the federal level. But, short of a revolt and revolution, does anyone honestly believe that the Libertarians could ever make Joe Public understand? I once believed it possible but no longer have the confidence in my fellow citizens. Case in point, look at who the masses elected to run the show in both the Executive and Legislative branches. Those who think correctly are at a definite disadvantage. With out decrepit educational system and a leftist news and print media, and a soon-to-be regulated radio and internet (via Fairness\’esq Doctrines) how do you propose we educate Joe? The best method I\’ve yet seen is to make incremental advances. We need to be on the same team Libertarians! I\’m a college-educated business major who has run a business for many years and the \"Fair Tax\" is the best tax proposal/idea I\’ve seen in my 46 years. It AINT PERFECT, OK! But it is a step in the right direction and, most importantly, it is teachable to Joe Public and is, therefore, implementable. Pie-in-the-sky libertarian rhetoric is not.

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:29:47 +0000

Mr. Hasty: “Linder and Boortz never claim what Mr. Callahan says they claim.”

You seem to be saying I’m lying! Everything I wrote about their claims I took directly from their book. If you care to point to a specific claim you think I got wrong, I will find you the specific page and quote where they say exactly what I wrote that they say.

Mr. Hall says I need to read the book again. Yet he doesn’t cite anything I misunderstood about it. So what would the point of this be?

Mr. Ralston: “Not sure what the author meant by business expenses be non-taxable. Business expenses would be taxed the same. Unless he is talking about \”Cost Of Goods Sold\”,”

The tax as proposed is only levied on final sales, not on sales for business expenses. That is quite explicit in the plan. Perhaps Mr. Ralston needs to read the book again.

By: Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman — Sun, 31 May 2009 10:44:50 +0000

"The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which greatly limited the Congress’ authority to levy an income tax." This is misleading. The Pollock case did not declare the tax on wages and salaries unconstitutional. Nor did it hold that such a tax must be apportioned among the states by population. On the contrary, it affirmed (alas) that Congress has the unquestioned authority to tax wages and salaries, regarding it as an indirect tax that does not require apportionment. What the court struck down was the tax on the income from real and personal property. Such a tax, the court said, is identical to a tax on the property itself, which (in the court's view) is a direct tax requiring apportionment. The court proceeded to strike down the entire tax bill, including the wage-and-salary tax, but only because not to have done so would have put the entire tax burden on wage and salary earners, contrary to Congress's intent. To repeat: the court did not declare the tax on wages and salaries unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment was intended to permit a tax on property income without apportionment. The key words in the amendment are "from whatever source derived." Thus if the 16th Amendment were to be repealed, Congress could still tax wages and salaries legally (though not morally in my view). See my article here.

By: Robert Kinnett

Robert Kinnett — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:42:10 +0000

Left out of this discussion is the important issue of state soveriegnty. The appeal of states has always been that people would have a national government limited in power, and could migrate if their State became too oppressive.

Since 1913 and 1937, Washington has taken enormous power away from the states. Moving to a ‘joint’ system of sales tax collection would quickly be taken over by the feds, with states getting the short end of that stick.

The only solution is for voters to be educated enough to support a reduction in the powers of Washington. No one argues that the founders or the Constitution envisioned a federal government that could vote dollars any direction it wanted… Or print dollars for that matter.

By: Ed Holden

Ed Holden — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:04:27 +0000

Certainly a more efficient method of collecting taxes can be devised. Was it not Milton Friedman who devised the very effective witholding system? It seems to me that spending time and effort on the best method of tax collection is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Perhaps if I were being executed by the state, I could advise them on the the method that would be the least painful to me. Gene Callahan correctly identifies the problem as the level of taxation and not the method.

By: Robert L. Hall

Robert L. Hall — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:57:45 +0000

I whole heartily support the statements made by Philip Hasty and David Ralston on the fair tax. Mr. Callahan needs to read the Fair Tax plan again so he can get all of the information he needs before he writes on tax reform again.
Also the one big thing that needs to be done to make any tax system fair is to repeal the 16th amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which greatly limited the Congress’ authority to levy an income tax.

It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

Robert L. Hall
Alexandria, AL