Talk:FairTax/Archive 1

message: Can they put it there instead of wasting wiki-space?
:It's a real proposal, with a real following, proposing massive, radical changes to the tax system.  It can be made encyclopedic if there are enough editors around.  However, since there are 600k activists pushing this issue, I don't think this article will ever lose the NPOV tag since the anonymous editors who hit this daily don't seem at all concerned with NPOV or neutral tone of voice.  --Unfocused 14:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (10-June-05) The GOP has their own website

message: #I changed the name of the section from 'Black Markets' to 'Tax Code Compliance'. There are relevant pros/cons to the proposal regarding compliance that don't fit the black market label. This was clearly the section to put those facts in, thus the name change.
#I clarified the compare/contrast details on a VAT vs. sales tax. A lot of the content was pretty much a copy/paste from about.com. The terminology was also fairly ambiguous for anyone with a finance/economics background. I tried to clean up the terminology while maintaining accessibility for the layman reader.
#I used indirect sourcing for the IMF and IRS facts. I've heard both of those factoids thrown around for quite a while... I found confirmation in an Economist article. It's subscribers only, but the title is "The case for flat taxes" from 4/14/05 if anyone feels the need to go to a library for a hard copy to verify. I didn't want to add a URL footnote to a page that will just say "subscribers only".
#I also added a disclaimer about who bears the actual cost of a VAT or a sales tax. In either case, it's not necessarily all the consumer or all the producer. That depends on the economic characteristics of the market. Who writes the check for the tax amount is not necessarily the same entity as who actually feels the effect of the tax.
Feco 02:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can, please post your reference to the paper version of the Economist article.  Not all references need to be online.  Obviously online references are easier to double check, but these aren't necessarily contentious facts, just facts that should be referenced.  --Unfocused 15:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NB- an un-linked reference to the Economist article (w/ title & publication date) is now footnoted Feco 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I expect that just as they don't collect and pay payroll taxes now, they won't collect and pay FairTax if the system is ever changed.  --Unfocused 18:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (13-June-05) 6/7 work on 'Black Markets' & 'Tax Code Compliance' section

message: I re-added the graf on marginal analysis, with a new disclaimer that such analysis is back-of-the-envelope. It ignores all of the details (eg, EITC and rebates), but this form of analysis is important enough to be included. It's pretty standard, especially for cross-country comparisons. Feco 02:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (22-June-05) Marginal analysis in 'Tax Rate' section

message: The article handles the subject very well and straightforward.  I however have developed one reservation over the two and half decades I've favored such legislation; that is the fear that without Constitutional change, we may infact end up with both Income & Consumption taxes.  There is no guarantee that if a national value add sales/consumption tax (call it what you will) is made law, that the Income Tax could be reinstated in two years time after the next Congressional elections (or at some point down the road).  Basically, it may even be dangerous to suggest such a radical change without demanding the repeal of the 16th Amendment.  Nobs01 03:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Call me undemocratic if you must, but I figure if we take care of the 17th, the 16th will solve itself. I'm sick of senators from my state approving Iowa corn subsidies simply b/c they may one day caucus there as presidential candidates. A state's interest has become secondary to a politican's interest... that was always expected in the House, but never the Senate. Sigh... stupid populism. Feco 16:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (12-June-05) Politics

message: This proposal is a sales tax for the reasons I stated above, namely, that consumption of natural resources is not taxed.  Consumption of capital is not taxed.  Consumption of labor resources is not taxed.  The only act that is taxed is the final sale to the end user.  It is therefore a sales tax, and should be referred to as such everywhere in the article.  To say that it influences consumption would be an accurate use of consumption in this article, but this is a sales tax proposal we're discussing, not a consumption tax (unlike a VAT, which IS a consumption tax).  --Unfocused 04:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: VATs, retail sales taxes, and luxury taxes all fall under the broad category of consumption taxes since they are taxing acts of consumption.  Income taxes, in turn, tax labor and income (interestingly, some VATs are also income taxes, if they don't exempt labor as a value add).  It may be more precise to call it a sales tax, but it is still a consumption tax. Scott Ritchie 17:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Scott Ritchie. Consumption is all non-investment spending by households. The depletion of natural resources is taxed under the system in that their depletion factors into the final price of a consumer product. Ultimately, every good and service ends up in the hands of a household. Whenever that step occurs, the sales tax is assessed and collected (who bears the economic burden is already passed along the supply chain depending on each component market's characteristics. A VAT and sales tax both do the same thing. Labor is in an entirely different market (factor market), so goods market terminology isn't always relevant. Feco 08:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (12-June-05) Consumption versus sales tax --- Why this is a SALES tax. 

message: There are hidden comments in the references at the bottom of the page.  Please don't change them.  I'm preparing to change to REF/NOTE style citations.  See Caulfield Grammar School for an example of this and how it works.  Thanks.  --Unfocused 04:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (23-June-05) Preparing for change of reference style to REF/NOTE format 

message: Perhaps an entirely new section should be added that explains the concept of "embedded" or "hidden" taxes in goods and services.  The easiest way to see the difference of opinion above is to ask what would happen to Prices if the businesses in the supply chain did not have to pay payroll taxes and income taxes on profits.  That way it is easy to see that Prices = Materials + Wages + Taxes + Overhead + Profit.  Reducing one of these components without increasing another yields a lower price.  A central argument of FairTax supporters is that Taxes will be reduced at each stage of production and all other components will stay the same.  Factually, that is one possibility.  The alternative possibility is that Profit and/or Wages could increase as Taxes are decreased.  What is incorrect is to say (as Gale does) that Price pre-Sales Tax fall only if BOTH Wages and Tax costs to the business fall.  (This gives an incorrect result because lower Wages would mean lower consumption.)  With either option, the consumer comes out ahead -- either Prices have fallen or Income has increased.  FairTax proponents assume the fall in Prices rather than an increase in Wages or Profits.  They apply this drop in Prices to the Materials and Overhead components, and get even lower Prices at the consumer level.  This is applied recursively through however many levels exist in the supply chain for any good or service.  
To call these costs components a "tax" to the consumer is a broad definition of a the term "Tax".  Similar to how people refer to "inflation" as a "tax" on the consumer.  This broader definition could be framed as Tax = Price Paid - Value Received.  "Value Received" is defined as the cost of the item in a world without taxes.  In this sense, any component of a Price that does not contribute to the Value of the good or service is a "Tax".  That it is not labeled as a tax shown in the Price tag makes it an "embedded" and "hidden" tax.  To leave this concept out of the explanation of the FairTax means there can be no direct comparison of  tax rates between the current system and the proposed FairTax system.   Kellis91789 20:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:The explanation of what FairTax supporters call "hidden taxes" could be an appropriate section, if sourced and referenced properly, not original research, and clearly labeled as opinion of supporters. The reasoning behind a bill is an encyclopedic element of it.  If included, it should be kept as brief and simple.  Some AFT support sites go on for pages on a concept that would be best explained in a paragraph or two.  Unless there's a lot to the concept that I don't already know, it would have to be pretty short to remain NPOV. First, it's a relatively simple view.  Second, it has an element of self-explanation in it.  Unfocused 19:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it's practically impossible to do a technical analysis of implicit taxes under the current system against the FairTax sales tax. Who bears the burden of any tax depends on the market's structure, so it's not a safe assumption to say that final good prices will fall if the current tax regime ends. On the other hand, it's not possible to say who will bear the economic burden of the new sales tax under the FairTax regime. Feco 22:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (22-June-05) Section defining and explaining "Hidden taxes"?

message: I am not saying that biased references don't belong.  They can belong.  But all references need to be reviewed for what I'll call "confidence"; that is, what combination of research, editorial, speculation, and advocacy they are.  The farther they are to the right of that scale, the less they belong, or at least the less prominently they should be featured in the article.  Then the sources need to be identified clearly, and openly disclosed.  An example is the claim as fact that interest rates would go down as a result of FairTax, without any supporting documentation.  The only references where I've found these claims are speculation by advocacy groups.  I don't want to add advocate speculation to an article, it's hardly NPOV.  The Gale articles are excellent examples of research, and he's even given his formulas so you can repeat his work.  The Congressional report is primarily research, too.  All research requires some assumptions to be made.  Think there is still bias?  Find an appropriate rebuttal and cite it, preferably based on approximately the same level of confidence or better.  Lower confidence levels can be rebuttals for higher ones, but they usually don't match up as well, so are unlikely to fit in the article as well.  --Unfocused 20:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (23-June-05) Criteria for including references

message: I have some concern with this section.  While the source is quoted, I'm not sure it is true.  "For taxes such as ordinary personal income taxes on wages, where there is withholding and third party reporting to the federal government, tax evasion rates are about one percent. Where there is some reporting or withholding, the rate rises to 17 percent. However, for taxes such as the FairTax proposal that are not withheld and reported by an independent third party to the government, evasion rates rise to 30 percent or more. Evasion rates of only 20 percent would require raising the sales tax rate to over 51 percent. [11]".  While the citizen is not reporting anything to government, the business that collects the tax is required to do so and will be subject to audit.  With only businesses reporting taxes, it is much easier to manage tax fraud.  I know our state does a pretty good job with its sales tax.  Does anyone know the evasion rates on State Sales tax?  While the rate is considerably lower then the federal tax would have to be, it may give a much better indication of evasion and enforcement then the above figures.  In addition, a majority of new goods and services are provided by a small percentage companies. (I use to have the figures on this but I can't seem to find them - I think it is 10% of companies provide 90% of goods & services).  These are larger companies that would most likely not evade taxes.  While I'm sure there will be evasion, I think the claim that under the Fairtax the taxes are not reported or monitored by government is false.  As Unfocused so persistently claimed below, companies must pay taxes.  I propose removing this statement or rewording it as to say that opponents have some concerns as to the evasion rate and maybe reference the article.  Morphh 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still trying to research this myself as I'm not sure how old or accurate that sentence is.  I've heard higher numbers recently but I'm trying to find the reference material.  This article has some source data but it looks a little dated. I tried to put it as a percentage as the discussion uses percentages with regards to FairTax compliance.  It seemed to make sense to put the current evasion rate as a percentage as well.  However, I do see your point (our inclusive / exclusive problem again).  I'd like to get this strait from the IRS with source referenced but I'm having trouble finding it.  I guess this raises the question on how these percentages are compared if we're working with different bases.  Is a 30% evasion rate under the FairTax equal to a 23% evasion rate under the income tax? Is it fair to state a 16.67% income tax evasion rate and in the same thought state a 30% FairTax evasion rate without clarification? At this point, your correct, I can't tell what they are really saying. - I think I have a headache.  :-) Morphh 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the 20%.  Morphh 01:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (30-July-05) Tax Collection

message: The graf: The current income tax system fails to collect on a significant percentage of taxes owed. The IRS estimates there are twenty additional cents or 20% of taxes owed on unreported income for every tax dollar collected. In 2001, the IRS estimated this shortfall to be over $312 billion had the 20% figure recently added. I would rather remove that percentage figure, because it's an ambiguous value in the context. Example:
*considering the revenue increase over current levels: ($1.20 owed / $1.00 collected) - 1 = 20% increase.
*considering the revenue not collected: 1 - ($1.00 collected / $1.20 owed) = 16.67% increase.
Leaving the graf without an explicit percentage figure avoids the problem of different readers reading and interpreting the percentage value in different ways. Feco 17:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still trying to research this myself as I'm not sure how old or accurate that sentence is.  I've heard higher numbers recently but I'm trying to find the reference material.  This article has some source data but it looks a little dated. I tried to put it as a percentage as the discussion uses percentages with regards to FairTax compliance.  It seemed to make sense to put the current evasion rate as a percentage as well.  However, I do see your point (our inclusive / exclusive problem again).  I'd like to get this strait from the IRS with source referenced but I'm having trouble finding it.  I guess this raises the question on how these percentages are compared if we're working with different bases.  Is a 30% evasion rate under the FairTax equal to a 23% evasion rate under the income tax? Is it fair to state a 16.67% income tax evasion rate and in the same thought state a 30% FairTax evasion rate without clarification? At this point, your correct, I can't tell what they are really saying. - I think I have a headache.  :-) Morphh 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the 20%.  Morphh 01:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (2-August-05) Percentage rate statments

message: I gave its own section header to the graf on tax burden visibility. It was (inappropriately) under the 'tax compliance' section. I assume this was an accidental side effect of organic article growth, so I assume the change won't be a problem. Hopefully, the headers now better reflect the actual section content. Feco 19:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (27-July-05) Splitting 'tax visibility' graf

message: I haven't been entirely comfortable with the usage of inclusive tax rate in the article. I haven't heard the term outside of the FairTax discussion. It seems perilously close to an intentional distortion of numbers to make them look better. Google seems to back me up on this. my search (the search string is a doozy: "inclusive tax" OR "inclusive rate" tax  -hotel -car -hospital -room) This generates ~850 hits... some spot checking shows almost all of them are related to FairTax; roughly half of those hits are critiques that critize FairTax's calculation of the 23% rate. Such results tell me that the term inclusive tax rate doesn't have a usage outside of the FairTax context, so it should be treated as such in the article. An example possible treatment: "FairTax would impose a 30% national sales tax on goods and services. This tax would be added to the pre-tax cost of taxable items. FairTax proponents assert that the tax is better stated as a 23% inclusive tax rate. Out of $1.00 of total spending, $0.77 is spent on goods and services, while $0.23 goes to pay tax on purchases. Such treatment includes taxes paid as part of the total amount used to cacluate the tax rate; thus, the inclusive rate of 23% is lower than the assessed rate of 30%." Feco 28 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)
*Well, I think you've done the basic research to justify the changes you propose.  Just as I think "prebate" is made up term that requires definition and conversion to the more commonly used version, it is appropriate to convert the tax rate to the more commonly understood version, then explain why FairTax supporters choose to describe it differently.  Adhering to the proponents' view, in this case, is POV, in my opinion.  Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:54 (UTC)
Just because the term inclusive is not used often doesn't mean the method is not in use.  I would not expect to see it much on Google as it is not often you are comparing the two methods as you are here.  Inclusive is the measuring stick.  The income and payroll tax is factored in this way.  The FairTax is a replacement for the Income and Payroll Tax.  Readers will be reading it as such and comparing it as such.  I'm in no way for deception.  In fact, I believe presenting it as exclusive is an intentional distortion of methods to give the perception of higher numbers.  This is used by opponents as a scare tactic.  I would be all for presenting exclusive if people easily knew how much they currently pay exclusively but people don't.  People know how much they pay inclusively.  It is only fair that any tax reform be presented apples to apples when possible.  First thing people want to know is how much is the rate.  Truthfully, what rate are they comparing it to in their head when you answer this question?  If the comparison to a sales tax was instantly understood, there would be no need for the in depth explanation of inclusive and exclusive.  To present it primarily as anything other then the closest comparison to the system it is replacing is POV.  I'm all for presenting the exclusive rate.  It is important for people to understand how it will be applied to goods and services but this should not be the primary method of presentation. Morphh 30 June 2005 01:20 (UTC)
:Morph-I think you have a valid point that the 30% rate sounds higher than income tax rates. However, income & payroll taxes are "off the top", whereas FT will be "on to the top". So it's not a precise 1:1 comparison. I belive it's accurate to present the rate as a 30% tax, without mention of the terms inclusive or exclusive. I don't belive those terms should be mentioned because inclusive tax rate appears to be a new term coined in the process of the FT debate. Based on Google hits, the term doesn't look to have gained widespread usage, so shouldn't be presented as such. However, it is perfectly reasonable for the article to point out the logical fallacy that a 30% sales tax is a signifiacantly higher rate than a 23% income tax, for all the reasons already discussed. Per my sample text in the initial post on this topic, I think compromise verbiage is close at hand. Perhaps adding "FT supports prefer to describe the tax as a 23% inclusive rate. Because FT replaces current payroll and income taxes, FT's assessed rate of 30% appears similar to a 23% income tax rate, for these reasons...." Apologies for the slapped-together sample, but I hope it illustrates my point. Comments? Feco 1 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)
I have no expertise in economics, but I believe I have heard of the terms "inclusive" and "exclusive" in regards to taxation.  For example, in Wiki's own article on VAT (in the section on VAT in the EU), the terms are used.  I do agree with all above concerns and think that any example rates should be given with examples of what "inclusive" and "exclusive" mean with any given sales prices.  
BTW, this is my first Wiki Talk entry and it took me a while just to figure out how to use the Talk feature and put a signature, so, my apologies for any technical or etiquette mistakes. CCMCornell 3 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
:Glad to have you in the Chat CCMCornell.  I'm still thinking about this myself.  Feco has a point and the sample sounds like a good start.  I guess I'm unsure on removing the terms.  While not used often, they make sense to me.  More so then other terms used such as pre-taxed.  All of the material we use as references also uses these terms.  I guess I'm for making it simple for the reader to understand and discuss while remaining accurate and unbiased.  While listening to the Tax Panel discussing reform sales / vat options, they use the "inclusive" rate.  However, I don't know that I've heard them use the term inclusive or exclusive.  Morphh 14:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some additions to Feco's post.  While I feel the percentage should be presented primarily as compared to the system it is replacing, I think the current format will work.  It first defines the rate as a 30% sales tax and follows up with comparative rates.  We have removed all reference to Inclusive and Exclusive as discussed.  I think the apples-to-apples comparison that Feco added fits well with the article.  I moved one of the paragraphs under this heading as it was more of a comparison then a reference to the FairTax rate.  I also added some supporting information that supports the FairTax rate as we had the other rates defined below it.  I added back in the comparative rates for the JCT and Gale as to line up well with the rates presented by the other economists.  While I understand that some would like everything to strictly be presented as the sales tax rate and have a reference to the comparison, I think that would be biased, difficult to compare, and would not line up with all the supporting documents, articles, and news.   I think we've reached a good compromise. Morphh 16:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (29-July-05) Treat ''inclusive tax rate'' as neologism

message: I wanted to chime in on the debate about quoting FairTax in "tax inclusive" terms.  I've had a pretty spirited debate on FairTax over at my blog, mostly regarding this certain point.  While there is clearly an argument to be made that quoting in tax inclusive terms allows for a true "apples to apples" comparison with the current system, the disadvantages of presenting the proposal in this manner far outstrip the benefits.  The major concerns are:
1.  Since FairTax is (as this article correctly states) a retail sales tax, it should be presented to the public in a manner they would best understand....as a retail sales tax!!!  The overwhelming majority of sales taxes in this country are quoted in tax exclusive terms and more folks will understand it this way.  Presenting in tax inclusive terms generates the perception of misleading the public even if this is not the intended effect.  From the looks of the post (and particularly all of the comments) I've linked to below, it seems pretty clear that even a large percentage of FairTax supporters are/were unaware of this difference.    
2.  Presenting in tax inclusive terms makes it looks like FairTax supporters are trying to hide something.  For example, if you go to FairTax.org and look at the FAQ document, it isn't until question number 47 (out of a 48 question document) that there is an explanation about the difference between tax inclusive and tax exclusive methods.  A reader who only explores the first few sections of this document and who (like most Americans) is unfamiliar with this difference, will not appropriately understand the proposal.  Why isn't there an example prominently featured in the very first question?  Secondly, even the top FairTax leadership seems more than content to let this common misconception just fester.  See this post about a communication to FairTax director Tom Wright for more on this topic.  
If the goal is to get people to understand the proposal, it should be presented as a 30% retail sales tax.  If the goal is to confuse folks by engaging in circular semantic battles, try explaining the difference between tax inclusive and tax exclusive methods.  It's a big exercise in futility and your time is better spent examining (and improving...because there are some weak points) the actual legislation.
</rant>
:Thanks for joining in the discussion.  Most of the editors here fully understand the point you're making.  I think it is best addressed in "Inclusive vs. Normal Rate Statements" as well as under "Treat inclusive tax rate as neologism".  I think we have been fair to present and address both views in this article with a section describing the mathematical semantics.  Both sides feel it is a deception to present it as the other - it is a mater of POV and we do the best to address it equally.  The later posts in Inclusive vs. Normal Rate Statements discuss the most recent changes.  According to the author of the legislation, Congressmen Linder, the FairTax is not to be implemented like a traditional sales tax.  It is to be included in the price of the good and present as 23 cents out of every dollar (this is also how Tom Wright presents it).  Your $100 jacket will be $100 and $23 of that is the tax paid for the coat.  It will not be presented as a $77 dollar coat with $23 of tax.  It is not just a mater of presenting apples to apples.  In the end, it will be presented as 23% tax and not 30% like a traditional sales tax.  Perhaps you should present this in your next poll.  Morphh 14:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really true?  I thought part of the point was to make the tax portion of a purchase more visible, not to hide it in the retail price.  Strange if true.   Unfocused 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is to be included on the sales receipt and visible.  This just means I don't have to figure out what the item really costs out of pocket.  The cost of the good is the cost of the good including the tax.  Sales receipt will show the cost and what I paid in taxes for the purchase - 23% of the cost of the goods.  Morphh 15:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So in essence, FairTax is to be hidden in the retail price until after I've already made my purchase?  Or alternately, on the shelf or on the rack, you would just have to know that about a quarter of the retail price would be FairTax?  Unfocused 15:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya I guess you could state it that way.  It would be like stating that the tax is hidden from the advertised price of the good in a normal sales tax.  You're either adding it to the good in a normal sales tax or subtracting from the good with the FairTax.  Is one more visible then the other?  I prefer it to be included as it is the true price of the good.  I see lunch adds all the time for $4.99.  Be nice to actually pull out $5 bucks and be done with it instead of trying to figure out how much change I need.  It will be on the receipt how much I paid in tax for that transaction - $1.15.  It is certainly more visible then the current income tax that is designed to hide the true cost of government from the taxpayer. Morphh 16:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (11-August-05) Tax Exclusive/Tax Inclusive

message: I noticed the new addition that lists articles that are For / Against the FairTax.  Seems we could probably go on for pages with articles for / against.  I thought it would be better if we could get Associations that are Supporting or Opposing the FairTax.  This seems more meaningful then articles conveying just the author's opinion.  Perhaps this section should be broken up into For / Against with Associations and then Articles.  Morphh 13:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (20-August-05) Associations Endorsing FairTax - For / Against

message: I hope I am not being too bold, but in reviewing this article, the discussion on this talk page and the article itself I would say this article is written from a unbiased viewpoint and should no longer be marked NPOV.  I don't see a particular comment in the edit back to May 2005 where it was added but I would like to remove it.  Thane Eichenauer 09:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (20-August-05) Remove NPOV tag

message: Simple repeal of the 16th Amendment is not sufficient to preclude the return of income tax. A little history:
Article 2 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay taxes.
Article 2 Section 9 of the Constitution requires that any taxes be apportioned among the states based on the census. This makes an income tax very cumbersome but not impossible.
Amendment 16 removes the apportion requirement of Article 2 Section 9.
Any repeal legislation would need to go further and preclude taxing of incomes.
:I think an Income Tax is unconstitutional even with the 16th Amendment. www.861.info and www.861evidence.com - These sites containing scans of the prior law that shows over 80 years in the law itself that only those engaged in INTERNATIONAL commerce can owe federal income taxes.  Most Americans are engaged only in DOMESTIC commerce and such incomes are NOT shown to be taxable. In other words, the type of taxation that the public has been led to believe exists is MISSING from the law BECAUSE the Constitution prohibits Congress from taxing these incomes (Congress does NOT have jurisdiction over intrastate commerce, state governments do).  Morphh 13:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you good luck waving Web site printouts in the faces of the IRS agents as they seize your property for nonpayment of taxes. FCYTravis 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that I avoid anything.  I try to change system through my representatives and not defaince.  Hence my involvement with a consitutional tax system for reform.  Sure would be nice to live without fear of the dreaded IRS seizing my property. :-)  Morphh 20:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree that the income tax is flawed. I just disagree that a national sales tax is the way to fix it. :-) FCYTravis 20:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (23-August-05) Repeal of the 16th Amendment