Is Mark Levin really advocating a flat tax or the fairtax?


#1

I thought I heard Mark Levin saying [Wednesday’s show] that we need to have a flat income tax or the fairtax in order to get rid of the IRS.

I’m not sure if Mark really supports those two mentioned taxes, but if he does someone needs to point out a flat income tax will not get rid of the IRS, nor the evils we now experience under taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

And with reference to the “fairtax”, H.R.25 proposes to create two new federal tax collecting agencies, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and a “Sales Tax Bureau“

The Excuse Tax Bureau would ***“administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms”***. Note that there are countless Excise taxes which are calculated from “incomes”, one of which was the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909. This of course would allow progressives to eventually leach another tax from small business owners in addition to the alleged fairtax, and would require two separate sets of books for business owners to keep which would be audited by the feds___ one for the alleged fairtax, and one for any excise taxes concocted by Congress which may be calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.

In addition, a “Sales Tax Bureau“ is the other federal tax collecting agency proposed to be created under the FT, and would administer the alleged fairtax in any state Congress may arbitrarily decide to administer the tax in.

In other words, under the alleged fairtax the American People will be subject to three tax collecting agencies to fill the national treasury: the Excise Tax Bureau, the Sales Tax Bureau and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms!

In order to rid ourselves of the miseries of taxes calculated from incomes, whether it be laid as an excise tax or “income tax“, we would need to add the following 32 words to our Constitution.

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money H.R.25 does not propose to do this!

Additionally, H.R. 25 also proposes to put every American Family on the public dole with its “family consumption allowance” which is a monthly entitlement check sent to every household to be used to purchase a rationed amount of tax free necessities of life, which would make voters with limited economic means extremely dependent upon the federal government for this monthly subsistence check!

Were we not warned in the Federalist Papers that control over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will? And how many “poor working people” would have a vested interest in voting for progressives who would promise to increase the family consumption entitlement during federal elections if we had the so called “fairtax” and its family consumption entitlement?

There are a number of other major problems with the alleged fairtax which I will not get into now. Aside from that,. I am fully on board with Mark Levin in wanting to get rid of the IRS once and for all, and that is why I propose doing so by adding the above mentioned 32 words to our Constitution which would in fact end all taxes calculated from incomes and bring us back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate.

JWK

Reaching across the aisle is Washington Newspeak for a bipartisan agreement to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.


#2

john, I think I heard that (or a similar) segment. As I understood him, Levin was making two points. First, the current IRS is too thuggish and corrupt. It needs to be dismantled. Second, some sort of agency being needed to enforce tax law, the tax code needs to be replaced with something that is far simpler so that whatever replaces the IRS has far fewer areas of discretion that could be exploitable for corruption and abuse.


#3

A flat tax on consumption at the retail level only that exempts essential items like housing and uncooked food and that prohibits the application of different rates for different things is the ONLY possible way to eradicate the corruption in the I.R.S. and restore integrity to the lobbying process in the political realm.

Nothing else will change anything in any tangible or significant way, no other idea will restore our Founders check and balance concepts in regards to funding government without allowing voters to vote themselves money out of other citizens pockets.


#4

Pete,

I think we both agree what Mark’s ultimate goal probably is. But what troubles me is that the flat tax not only keeps alive the intrusive powers of the IRS, especially a power to harass political opponents with the threat of audits, while H.R. 25 [the FairTax] would not only create two new tax collecting agencies, but also keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”, and all the miseries associated with that kind of tax.

Mark Levin is one of the few talk show hosts who actually yields to the legislative intent of our Constitution, and I’m beginning to think he was suggesting some sort of fair tax and not the Fair Tax [H.R. 25], or perhaps some sort of flat tax which would actually eliminate the evils now suffered under taxes calculated from “incomes” and could be, for example, our Constitution’s allowance for an apportioned tax among the States in conjunction with taxing consumption as our founding fathers intended.

I am not willing at this point in time to give up on Mark. I have grown to admire his continue respect for our Founders and his unflinching efforts to defend the miracle they handed to us called the Constitution of the United States. But I am hoping he will clarify his thinking with respect to tax reform and perhaps he will educate his listening audience to the wisdom and merits of our Constitution’s original tax plan ___ a tax plan that is based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time.

JWK

***“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ *** Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act


#5

[quote=“RET423, post:3, topic:39499”]
A flat tax on consumption at the retail level only that exempts essential items like housing and uncooked food and that prohibits the application of different rates for different things is the ONLY possible way to eradicate the corruption in the I.R.S. and restore integrity to the lobbying process in the political realm.Nothing else will change anything in any tangible or significant way, no other idea will restore our Founders check and balance concepts in regards to funding government without allowing voters to vote themselves money out of other citizens pockets.
[/quote] In support of your post and particularly with preventing the voters of one state to vote themselves money out of our federal treasury which the citizens of another state have contributed, the legislative intent of our Constitutions’ rule of apportionment comes to mind which boils down to an equal per capita tax, and would prevent the evil you point to. Let me explain.

According to 2007 statistical figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita while they exercised 3 electoral college votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. And yet, California got to exercise 55 electoral college votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming.

Now, if a general tax were laid among the States today and in conformity with our Constitution’s rule of apportionment and its legislative intent, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its State’s apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California, under the rule of apportionment, is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when spending federal revenue, and because of the one man one vote and one vote one dollar requirement of our Constitution. But, as the statistics recently show, California is delinquent in paying one dollar for each vote, but still exercises the constitutional requirement of one man one vote. And what does California’s Congressional Delegation generally vote for while in Congress? Big government spending, but avoids paying its apportioned share of the tab!

In fact, the rule of apportionment was to protect against this very crap which occurred under the Articles of Confederation and is pointed out during the State ratification debates which gave life to our federal Constitution:

***“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”***3 Elliot’s 41 ___ PENDLETON during our Constitution’s ratification debates

JWK

If the people of the United States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?


#6

I certainly hope Mark hasn’t been taken in by the Fairtax scheme. HR25 proposes that the federal government tax State and Local government consumption. The Fairtax rationale for doing so is to prevent unfair government competition with the private sector. Federal taxation of State and Local government consumption is inappropriate under our constitutional republic form of government. Our government consists of two sovereign government powers, Federal and State, each with their own responsibilities. Sovereign government powers do not and should not tax each other. The Supreme Court doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity applies to this issue, and such taxation will likely be thrown out, and the exclusive tax rate of 30% would rise to 43%. In addition, there was no need to tax governments as this is covered in Sec. 704 of HR25. Any government agency that sells products or services on the private market has to collect and remit the sales tax. The playing field was already level.

Rather than raising the cost of government, as the Fairtax scheme does, would it not have been wiser to reduce the cost of all government agencies by 10% or so? With savings of $700 billion, perhaps government budgets could return to balance in a very short time. Food for thought!


#7

Did anyone here listen to Mark’s show yesterday, and if so, did he mention anything further about tax reform?

JWK


#8

The government’s are not taxing each other, products would simply be taxed when they are purchased.


#9

My only problem is that we will get back into the exemption game again. The rebate idea presumes to reimburse every American on essential goods, so in effect American’s would only be taxed on luxury items.

Ideally this could also replace our welfare system. I doubt politicians would go along with it, but maybe it would raise reported incomes and cause most people to be ineligible for other programs.


#10

That isn’t correct, Bigfoot. The Federal government is directly taxing State and Local government consumption under the Fairtax, and that is inappropriate, if not unconstitutional. Should the Court approve HR25 as currently written, you will have witnessed the end of our constitutional republic. Ben Franklin would be proven correct when in response to a question “What have you gentlemen created?” he replied, “a republic, madam, if you can keep it!”

We are perilously close to losing our Republic as it is, and the Fairtax would finish the job.


#11

Perhaps it isn’t the case, but you give me the impression that you are confusing the Flat Tax, (on income), with the FAIR Tax, which is based on consumption.

The more you consume, the more you pay, with an allotment for essentials, based on family size.
This, after REPEALING the 16th Amendment, would rid us of the INCOME REVENUE “Service”, and be replaced by accountants who are actually accountable to the tax payers.

The apportioned tax, which would actually be the Constitutional and proper way of laying and collecting taxes, is a layman’s (if you’ll pardon the expression) wet dream.

I would love for tax collecting to go back to its original intent! However, my wish hand is far emptier than the other, if you catch my drift.


#12

What you call a “rebate” is the “family consumption allowance“, a monthly check sent to every household to be used to purchase a rationed amount of tax free necessities of life. It is an entitlement which proposes to put every American family on the public dole. A major problem with the family consumption allowance is, those who are unemployed and already on the public dole would be getting a monthly bonus, while those who work and pay taxes from their earned wages will be taxed to send the monthly bonus to those on the public dole and who now sell their vote to politicians who promise to give them free stuff, or in this case, who would promise to give a larger monthly allowance check!

The FairTax turns out to be a massive redistribution of wealth and would make wage earners who earn about 35K a year dangerously dependent upon that monthly entitlement check and would surely have a vested interest to vote for those who promise to increase that monthly check.

JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the alleged fair tax’s family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and businesses have produced.


#13

I never denied that it acted as a form of welfare system, however, when it would essentially serve as a tax reimbursement I don’t see a problem with it.

The only way it could be increased would be to also increase the monthly poverty level, when theoretically it should be going down after this is in place as our economy improves. Politicians promising to deliberately cook the books in regards to the formulas would be a tough sell in my opinion.


#14

Hmm. I hadn’t thought of it that way. I thought the intent of the FAIRtax was to replace, at least in part, the Welfare System.
Basically, ‘ya got a family of 4, ya get 400 bucks. Do with it as you see fit. No more; no less.’

No?


#15

2cent,

I believe you will discover that the Fairtax grossly overcompensates the poor, because welfare programs are not affected.

If we are going to talk about the Fairtax, I think we need to set aside the AFFT marketing baloney and stick to the facts as described in HR25. No matter what AFFT wants us to believe about tax refunds in advance, the prebate is in reality a cash grant entitlement that can be spent on anything, or saved as conditions warrant. The prebate adds approximately $600 billion to the annual federal budget and comes at a time when entitlements are squeezing out discretionary spending in the federal budget. We don’t need any more entitlements, imho. For those who want to continue to believe that the FCA is a tax refund, I would simply point out that a tax refund doesn’t add one dime to your annual gross income, while an entitlement does. Just look in your checkbook for confirmation.


#16

Okay, I’m listening. I’ve been on the FAIRtax band-wagon since '99 when Bill Archer and, (embarrassingly) forget who else was on the top of the H.R. 2525 to repeal the current U.S tax code and REPLACE it with the FairTax.
I thought, perhaps naively, that it would replace welfare by default.

How, in that case, does it ADD $600 billion to the federal budget?

If each family, by prebate, is given an allotment to take care of their needs, not wants, (like satelite t.v., a fancy car, a cell phone, internet connection, yada yada), I should think a family of four could get by with, say, $600/mo. If they’re in DIRE need, then they can ask for assistance with keeping a roof over their heads.

So, in that scenario, it doesn’t abolish welfare completely, but it sure would shore up a great deal of expenditure that gets wasted.

No?
What am I missing?


#17

2cent,

The $600 billion is my rough estimate of the cost of sending everyone a welfare check known as the Family Consumption Allowance. Ten years ago, it was around $450 billion and has increased with inflation. As the official poverty level rises, the cost of the FCA also goes up. And, if you think that those at the poverty level are going to turn down food stamps, etc. just because they get the FCA, I can’t agree.

The Fairtax just won’t work. As I wrote to Bigfoot, federal taxation of S/L government consumption is a no-no. In addition, the AFFT rate study done in 2006 failed to include evasion estimates. Taken together, the exclusive sales tax rate would be over 60%. How high is too high?

As a retired senior, the Fairtax throws seniors under the bus by double taxing their after tax savings when spent, and forces them to resume paying for their SS retirement benefits with their sales tax dollars. Is that fair? In addition, the Fairtax would require a major restructuring of the Social Security plan, and would destroy the new home market. Does anyone believe that banks will finance a federal sales tax. Where is the collateral value in a sales tax? If you want to get a mortgage insurance free loan, it seems to me you will need 50% down.

There is much else wrong with the Fairtax scheme, but you get the idea. The Fairtax isn’t fair!


#18

The FairTax is nothing like what the public has been told by its primary advocates. I actually took the time and studied the legislative language found in H.R. 25, and it is carefully crafted to actually enlarge the iron fist of Congress’ taxing arm, while it cleverly would keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect “excise” taxes calculated from incomes as was done under the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909.

In fact H.R. 25 proposes to create two new federal tax collecting agencies, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and a “Sales Tax Bureau“

The Excise Tax Bureau would ***“administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms”***. Keep in mind there are countless excise taxes which may be calculated from “incomes” in addition to excise taxes imposed on such things as alcohol beverages, tobacco, gasoline, etc., and these would be in addition to the “FairTax”. In reference to excise taxes calculated from incomes and the “FairTax”, it turns out that business owners would have to keep two separate books, one for the alleged fairtax, and one for any excise taxes concocted by Congress which may be calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” and they would still be subject to audits, filing sales tax returns 12 times a year and keeping any record or reports that Congress may dream up. In other words, under the alleged fairtax the American People will be subject to three tax collecting agencies to fill the national treasury: the Excise Tax Bureau, the Sales Tax Bureau and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and all the miseries we now suffer under taxation would be increased!

But now, let us take a look at Mary and Joe Sixpack, ordinary working people, and how the alleged FairTax would affect them. Mary and Joe have two children and find it necessary to earn extra money to pay their bills. Mary baby sits for neighbors in the community and cleans homes on weekends to raise extra cash while Joe, who works a full time job for a pluming company, also provides the same plumbing service on his own time to people living in his community to raise extra money to help meet his family’s bills.

Well, surprise, surprise! Under the alleged fair tax Mary and Joe Sixpack’s right to sell the property each has in their labor becomes a taxable event, and, they must register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, and then, collect a federal tax for Congress, and file monthly federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, and, they will also be compelled to keep any records Congress may desire, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

And so, while the alleged fair tax “…eliminates the filing of annual income tax returns to the federal government for over 140 million Americans.” the nightmare of annual tax returns becomes a monthly nightmare under the alleged fair tax for millions upon millions of hard working Americans and businesses.

See: `SEC. 501. MONTHLY REPORTS AND PAYMENTS.

`SEC. 501. MONTHLY REPORTS AND PAYMENTS.

`(a) Tax Reports and Filing Dates-

`(1) IN GENERAL- On or before the 15th day of each month, each person who is–

`(A) liable to collect and remit the tax imposed by this subtitle by reason of section 103(a), or

`(B) liable to pay tax imposed by this subtitle which is not collected pursuant to section 103(a),

shall submit to the appropriate sales tax administering authority (in a form prescribed by the Secretary) a report relating to the previous calendar month.`(2) CONTENTS OF REPORT- The report required under paragraph (1) shall set forth–

`(A) the gross payments referred to in section 101,

`(B) the tax collected under chapter 4 in connection with such payments,

`© the amount and type of any credit claimed, and

`(D) other information reasonably required by the Secretary or the sales tax administering authority for the administration, collection, and remittance of the tax imposed by this subtitle.


But don’t expect our Washington Establishment to explain its evils to the American People. Their mission is to con the people and put a happy face on what boils down to be two additional taxes [a sales tax on articles of consumption and another sales tax on the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes

.I hope Mark Levin is not promoting this tyrannical proposal.

JWK

***Let us all read the freaken fairtax bill so we don’t have to find out what’s in it if it should be enacted. ***


#19

What in my plan would leave an opening for any “exemptions”?

I wholly object to the “rebate” idea as it is completely needless, California has had essential items exempted from sales tax for years and it causes no issues.

Buy a pound of hamburger, the register charges no sales tax.
Buy a cooked hamburger, the register charges sales tax.

No forms to fill out, no checks coming in the mail, no administration cost’s beyond initially setting up the registers and database, everyone pays tax (even criminals).

Only retaining a tax on income would necessitate retaining an “exemption/deduction” system, once this abomination to humanity and Liberty is abolished there would be no need for such things.


#20

I understand you want to exempt items from taxation. My point is what is to prevent them from exempting every pet item they want? Not that I am against lower taxes, but the whole point of reform is to make the code simpler.