Does Sean Hannity support H.R. 25, an alleged fair tax?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I am curious to know if anyone here knows if Sean Hannity actually supports H.R. 25, or if he is undecided an merely leaning in favor of H.R. 25. I understand he is scheduling a public event with Neal Boortz who promotes H.R. 25.

I am also curious to know if Sean Hannity has ever considered comparing H.R. 25 to our nations original tax plan which contains a number of self regulating checks and balances which were intentionally designed to create a fair tax system and also designed to control the fiscal conduct of Congress.

For example, the founder`s plan provides a method to extinguish deficits in a timely manner and by a fixed rule of apportionment which todays socialists in Congress and friends of big government dread. H. R. 25 by contrast is designed to support existing big government and socialist programs which are financed by borrowing and deficit spending, without a fixed rule to extinguish deficits.

Our founding fathers original tax plan was also designed to allow Congress to tax consumption, but in a manner in which the limit of tax on each particular article taxed would be determined by the market place, and was intended to not tax the necessities of life nor tools of production and supplies necessary in conducting trade.

The founder`s intended each specific article of consumption to be intentionally selected for taxation, and then an appropriate amount of tax levied upon each specific article chosen. By contrast, H.R. 25 is an across the board percentage tax on the sale of property which interferes with the market place determining the limit of taxation on each specific article chosen for taxation.

H. R. 25 also defies the founder`s intention to limit taxes on consumption to articles of luxury. H.R. 25 seemingly addresses this important concern by creating a ``family consumption allowance``, but which rations tax-free necessities of life by the dollar amount of the allowance.

In addition, the family consumption allowance entitles those who do not work for a living and contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance. Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; prostitutes and bookies and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but makes babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. As a matter of fact the above would be getting an approximate $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25 for either breaking the law or sitting at home making babies. [/color]

The family consumption allowance happens to be a socialist windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and, would be a gift to Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress who would gladly promise to increase the family consumption allowance during elections to buy votes and remain in power!

The family consumption allowance would create a new voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check. Why in the world would any freedom loving person support such a plan over our founding fathers original tax plan?

Hopefully Sean Hannity will take the time to compare the founding fathers original tax plan to H.R. 25 and then discuss the two with Neal Boortz who has failed to compare the two plans on his show.

In my opinion, the only tax reform freedom loving American need is to have the following words added 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[/i]

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn`t take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship and entrench our nation with more socialism and big government___ it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our Founder`s original plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!

Regards,

JWK___ a proud supporter of our founding father`s original tax plan.[/u]

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"[/i]---Jefferson

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,541 • Replies: 37

No top replies

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"---Jefferson

This is particularly true
as to the 37 chains of the Bill of Rights,
which secure the monster to his slab,
in the lab.
David

0 Replies

Fascinating thread Shocked

0 Replies

I doubt that talking head actually understands taxation and finance and how they are ingrained in our society.

This notion of HR25 being a "fair tax" is BS. It is NOT a fair and equitible tax system. It is design to make the rich "richer' and the poor "poorer".

0 Replies

A message to fair tax rally participants!
A message to fair tax rally participants!

So, you have fallen for the propaganda Neal Boortz and others have told you about H.R. 25? Lets get down to understanding what H.R. 25 really is!

WILL H.R. 25 END EXISTING PAPERWORK AND RECORD KEEPING?[/u]

TAXING CONSUMPTION,THE FOUNDER`S WAY[/u]

H.R. 25`s $600 billion a year family consumption entitlement gimmick

REVENUE NEUTRAL MEANS: let`s fund existing big government without a moment of accountability[/u]

Another observation concerning H.R. 25, the alleged Fair Tax.

TAX GATHERS INCREASE IN NUMBER___ self employed converted into federal tax gathers

H.R. 25 CREATES NEW RULE BOOK IN ADDITION TO RULE BOOK FOR TAXES CALCULATED FROM INCOME[/u]

Neal Boortz / Rep. Linder___ documenting lies and misleading information][/u]

Does Sean Hannity support H.R. 25, an alleged fair tax?[/u]

An answer to the Steve Forbes flat tax[/u] [the founder's fair share formula!]

SURPRISE, H.R. 25 is not a consumption tax![/u]

Regards,

JWK ___a proud supporter of our founding father`s ORIGINAL TAX REFORM PLAN[/u]

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."[/i] ___ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

0 Replies

I am not totally informed on this HR 25, but I would favor scrapping the IRS in favor of a national sales tax, but importantly it should exempt tax on housing under a threshold amount, and on food and utility/gasoline, to make it somewhat progressive. At least it seems reasonable, but good arguments could sway my opinion.

The advantages I see is a level playing field for all consumer products regardless of origin or where manufactured, and it would allow all Americans to see how much they are being taxed on a daily basis, thus more scrutiny and accountability on government spending. Product prices would be lower and people would have more money to spend, but sales tax would obviously be higher, but the collection system would be much simplified because almost every state already collects state sales tax. The retail sales tax balanced against more money to spend and slightly lower retail prices would hopefully come out a wash or we could come out ahead of what we do now hopefully. Paying money under the table for services, including illegal immigrants would be rendered a non-issue.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I am not totally informed on this HR 25 issue.

I have taken a great length of time to put that information at your finger tips. Follow the links I provided above!

Regards,

JWK

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency [our existing federal reserve system], first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.[/i] Thomas Jefferson

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

I have taken a great length of time to put that information at your finger tips. Follow the links I provided above!

Regards,

JWK

Your links look like lots of opinions rather than basic information on the proposal. I've heard Bortz explain what he favors. I'm not sure about what I would think about a consumption entitlement. If the debate ever gets serious in Congress, I would look for many amendments and versions of the idea to surface. I merely commented on what I might favor, that I think a retail sales tax makes sense, as it is a proven method of taxation employed by cities, counties, and states. I am a bit mystified by you surfacing here with such a vehement diatribe accusing Bortz of propaganda, etc. It is a legislative tax idea to be debated on its merits, I would think could be done without such vicious attacks at this stage of the game.

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

okie wrote:
I am not totally informed on this HR 25 issue.

I have taken a great length of time to put that information at your finger tips. Follow the links I provided above!

Regards,

JWK

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency [our existing federal reserve system], first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.[/i] Thomas Jefferson

You may find that it is better to explain in a brief post what your opinion is rather than expect anyone for go through all your links.

OKIE - A consumption is in many ways similiar to a "flat tax" that HR 25 addresses. As a result, IMO, a consumption tax is not a "fair" tax nor is it able to maintain the spirit of our tax system, which was designed NOT be be a equitible system (on purpose).

Our income tax system is designed to re-distribute some wealth and is designed to put the burden on the upper income earners.

Very similiar to the Estate TAx system, which is designed to be a SOCIAL TAX to limit the potential for Aristrocricies to control govt.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

john w k wrote:
I have taken a great length of time to put that information at your finger tips. Follow the links I provided above!

Regards,

JWK

Your links look like lots of opinions rather than basic information on the proposal.

Be specific! I have provided a wealth of documentation and facts.

The only tax reform needed is for the American People to demand their employees add the following words to our Constitution bringing us back the our Founder`s original tax reform plan:

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[/i]

JWK___ a proud supporter of our founding father`s ORIGINAL TAX REFORM PLAN[/u]

I was once told we have a problem in America...Billy can't read, but I have found the real problem is, Billy can read but wont.[/i]

.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

[
OKIE - A consumption is in many ways similiar to a "flat tax" that HR 25 addresses. As a result, IMO, a consumption tax is not a "fair" tax nor is it able to maintain the spirit of our tax system, which was designed NOT be be a equitible system (on purpose).

Our income tax system is designed to re-distribute some wealth and is designed to put the burden on the upper income earners.

Very similiar to the Estate TAx system, which is designed to be a SOCIAL TAX to limit the potential for Aristrocricies to control govt.

I don't agree it would be a flat tax, or would need to be. First of all, rich people buy much more goods and more expensive items, for example a far higher tax would be incurred on a luxury car. Further, if you exclude shelter to a threshold, as well as exclude food and utilities / fuel / energy, you have excluded much of the necessities of life, which makes it "progressive." A 1 million dollar home would incur a huge amount of tax, whereas lower income people could be excluded from paying any tax on rent or purchase of a smaller more inexpensive home. Boats, yachts, and other expensive items afforded by people that have the money will generate far more money from them than from low income people.

Further, if I interpret the idea, a consumption rebate might correct for such effects whereby poor working people actually receive more money now than they pay into income tax via the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. And you need to consider the fact that most people would have a much more attractive paycheck because no income tax would be deducted, so although goods might cost more after tax is added, they have more purchasing power. Add to this the effect that goods might be priced less because of no income tax costs built into the cost of the goods.

The final result of this idea could be quite "progressive," not flat as you say, while reaping all of the advantages afforded by the system. I can see other downsides to it that I have not mentioned, but on balance, I think it is worth serious consideration. My fear is that we might end up with both a sales tax and an income tax, which I think would be worse than what we have now.

The estate tax is a different issue it would seem and could possibly be handled within the consumption tax system.

0 Replies

My problem with a national sales tax is in the economic impact it would have on private property ownership, one of the absolutely crucial building blocks of a free society, and the effect it would have on private charties that provide so many critical social services.

A sales tax is also regressive in that it is ho hum to the affluent, but a real issue for those of more limited means.

And finally, it is so damn easy to nudge up a sales tax. A quarter cent seems so insignificant that it barefly causes a ripple in public reaction, but add a lot of quarter cents and all of a sudden you're paying a whole lot more for everything you buy and you're not sure who to blame for that.

I still favor a flat tax as the fairest and least regressive of all forms of taxation. Of necessity it would need to exempt a few things such as mortgage interest, donations to bonafide charities, and certain costs necessary to earn an income, but it would be entirely fair and equitable with everybody having to pay in something.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I still favor a flat tax as the fairest and least regressive of all forms of taxation. Of necessity it would need to exempt a few things such as mortgage interest, donations to bonafide charities, and certain costs necessary to earn an income, but it would be entirely fair and equitable with everybody having to pay in something.

Then its not flat.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I still favor a flat tax as the fairest and least regressive of all forms of taxation. Of necessity it would need to exempt a few things such as mortgage interest, donations to bonafide charities, and certain costs necessary to earn an income, but it would be entirely fair and equitable with everybody having to pay in something.

Why do you believe a flat tax is fair and the founder`s original tax plan not fair or inferior to a flat tax?

It would have been nice if you would explain why you favor a flat tax over our founding father`s ORIGINAL TAX REFORM PLAN[/u]. Making specific comparisons would be quite helpful.

You indicate a flat tax would be fair, but such a tax invites creative definitions of what is and what is not taxable income___ which is brought about by creative tax legislation.

Jefferson informs us that "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"[/i]---

How does a flat tax bind the hands of Congress?

Regards,

JWK

``___with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities`` Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

0 Replies

Taxing consumption, the Founder`s way

okie wrote:

First of all, rich people buy much more goods and more expensive items, for example a far higher tax would be incurred on a luxury car. Further, if you exclude shelter to a threshold, as well as exclude food and utilities / fuel / energy, you have excluded much of the necessities of life, which makes it "progressive." A 1 million dollar home would incur a huge amount of tax, whereas lower income people could be excluded from paying any tax on rent or purchase of a smaller more inexpensive home. Boats, yachts, and other expensive items afforded by people that have the money will generate far more money from them than from low income people.

okie,

I think you would agree with TAXING CONSUMPTION, THE FOUNDER`S WAY

Regards,

JWK

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I still favor a flat tax as the fairest and least regressive of all forms of taxation. Of necessity it would need to exempt a few things such as mortgage interest, donations to bonafide charities, and certain costs necessary to earn an income, but it would be entirely fair and equitable with everybody having to pay in something.

Then its not flat.

It is quite flat if you allow identical exemptions for everybody and such exemptions should be 100% targeted at a principle of promoting the national welfare; i.e. real property ownership, bonafide charities, and maybe a very limited number of incentives for businesses to take risks in expansion or new innovations, etc.

A true flat tax would be entirely equitable with no group favored over any other group and all being able to benefit from any incentives built into it whether or not they choose such benefits.

In a world where the best intentions sometime result in unintended bad consequences, I think we must always look to see what net effect any policy is likely to produce. My instincts tell me that when it comes to taxes, much much simpler is preferable and far more fair than what we have, but there is such a thing as making it so simple it doesn't produce the results we hope for.

0 Replies

Re: Taxing consumption, the Founder`s way

john w k wrote:

okie wrote:

First of all, rich people buy much more goods and more expensive items, for example a far higher tax would be incurred on a luxury car. Further, if you exclude shelter to a threshold, as well as exclude food and utilities / fuel / energy, you have excluded much of the necessities of life, which makes it "progressive." A 1 million dollar home would incur a huge amount of tax, whereas lower income people could be excluded from paying any tax on rent or purchase of a smaller more inexpensive home. Boats, yachts, and other expensive items afforded by people that have the money will generate far more money from them than from low income people.

okie,

I think you would agree with TAXING CONSUMPTION, THE FOUNDER`S WAY

Regards,

JWK

A consumption tax, which essentially a national sales tax would be, is attractive but is riddled with quirks and problems, many of which I have already noted, at least in my opinion. I prefer a system that does not discourage consumption but rather encourages prosperity.

If this does not adequately respond to your previous post directed to me, we can certainly discuss it further.

0 Replies

Always cool to find oneself aligned with someone unlikely (in this case: Woiyo, it looks like) <nods>

Foxfyre wrote:

A sales tax is also regressive in that it is ho hum to the affluent, but a real issue for those of more limited means. [..]

I still favor a flat tax

Wouldnt a flat tax also be "regressive in that it is ho hum to the affluent, but a real issue for those of more limited means"?

Foxfyre wrote:

I still favor a flat tax as the fairest and least regressive of all forms of taxation

How is a flat tax "less regressive" than the tax system you have now? The tax system you have now is progressive, after all, whereas a flat tax is not.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

[
It is quite flat if you allow identical exemptions for everybody and such exemptions should be 100% targeted at a principle of promoting the national welfare; i.e. real property ownership, bonafide charities, and maybe a very limited number of incentives for businesses to take risks in expansion or new innovations, etc.

A true flat tax would be entirely equitable with no group favored over any other group and all being able to benefit from any incentives built into it whether or not they choose such benefits.

In a world where the best intentions sometime result in unintended bad consequences, I think we must always look to see what net effect any policy is likely to produce. My instincts tell me that when it comes to taxes, much much simpler is preferable and far more fair than what we have, but there is such a thing as making it so simple it doesn't produce the results we hope for.

I generally agree the simpler the better, but a true flat tax would never be acceptable because poor people would be required to pay an equal percentage of their earned income, which is so far from what happens today, a flat tax would never be acceptable to voters. Also, you are falling into the same trap of straying from a flat tax with just a handful of exemptions, which are not always available to everybody, so the tax soon becomes non-flat, but instead progressive. Your thinking has simply been taken a step further for each and every tax incentive or loophole that has ever been enacted. They all have a purpose, either to help the disadvantaged or encourage investment and economic activity in specific ways. And each one has their constituency, and if you take them away, there is always a public outcry to various degrees.

nimh, I agree a true flat tax is not "progressive" at all. I use the term "progressive" according to its tax meaning. A national sales tax could be made progressive by excluding food, shelter and fuel/utilities. Shelter to a threshold amount.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
[
It is quite flat if you allow identical exemptions for everybody and such exemptions should be 100% targeted at a principle of promoting the national welfare; i.e. real property ownership, bonafide charities, and maybe a very limited number of incentives for businesses to take risks in expansion or new innovations, etc.

A true flat tax would be entirely equitable with no group favored over any other group and all being able to benefit from any incentives built into it whether or not they choose such benefits.

In a world where the best intentions sometime result in unintended bad consequences, I think we must always look to see what net effect any policy is likely to produce. My instincts tell me that when it comes to taxes, much much simpler is preferable and far more fair than what we have, but there is such a thing as making it so simple it doesn't produce the results we hope for.

I generally agree the simpler the better, but a true flat tax would never be acceptable because poor people would be required to pay an equal percentage of their earned income, which is so far from what happens today, a flat tax would never be acceptable to voters. Also, you are falling into the same trap of straying from a flat tax with just a handful of exemptions, which are not always available to everybody, so the tax soon becomes non-flat, but instead progressive. Your thinking has simply been taken a step further for each and every tax incentive or loophole that has ever been enacted. They all have a purpose, either to help the disadvantaged or encourage investment and economic activity in specific ways. And each one has their constituency, and if you take them away, there is always a public outcry to various degrees.

No, I don't think it is progressive until people are taxed at different rates. I'm suggesting the same flat rate for everybody with EVERYBODY benefitting with a few exemptions necessary to promote the national welfare. I don't want to take away those exemptions for the reason that too much property in the hands to too few creates a serious and danger imbalance of power that could seriously bite us. And I do believe that there should be a way for charities to provide for the truly helpless and needy and don't think providing incentive for them to be able to do that in any way corrupts the principle of the flat tax system. Finally, there must be incentive for people to take risks in building prototypes, embarking on new ventures, or developing new systems and resources.

I just don't think considering these elements of a national system violates the principle of a flat tax.

0 Replies

Does Sean Hannity support H.R. 25, an alleged fair tax?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know