The following article is from the people that wrote "Cracking the Code". It is a rebuttal to the proposed Value Added Tax for replacing the current bogus Income Tax. 

Ray

Tom, the following article is from the people that wrote "Cracking the Code". It is a rebuttal to the proposed Value Added Tax for replacing the current bogus Income Tax. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Tax "Reform"

"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances."
-R. W. Emerson

Now that it has been deciphered, and revealed to be benign as written, it falls to all of us to actively and strenuously resist any attempt by the tax beneficiary crowd to replace the actual current "income" tax structure-- which they are coming to recognize as fatally compromised, for their purposes-- with an alternative, such as a national sales tax or value-added tax.  Such alternatives-- all of which would seek to maintain spending at or near current levels-- would quickly be riddled with exceptions, special-interest pay-offs and so forth; as well as the subsidies and associated means-testing necessary to forestall what would otherwise be an intolerable burden for the poor.  They would quickly become indistinguishable from the current regime in complexity, bureaucracy, and injustice.  And, depending upon how such an alternative was instituted, we might never be rid of it.

After all, a broad-based federal sales tax or VAT-- which would necessarily be involuntary in nature, and would lack any effective connection between the federal government and the object of the tax as well-- is just as much prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution as is a general tax on receipts, and thus would be unconstitutional, without an amendment.  However, with the current "income" tax scheme having been successfully pulled off long enough for the citizenry to have reached an, "Anything but this!" attitude, there is every danger that the general public would take the position that if a Constitutional amendment would rid us of that current regime, then so be it.

Of course, legislative reform is not needed to do away with those aspects of the current regime that distresses the citizenry-- simple adherence to the actual structure of the law will accomplish that; a reformed system would be no better than the current one when all was said and done; and if such a reform was accomplished by means of an amendment, what has been lawlessly practiced upon the people-- to their ruin, dismay, and righteous anger-- will have become "lawful" (meaning: vastly more difficult to reason against, despite the fact that even by means of a Constitutional amendment, a people cannot lawfully alienate from themselves a fundamental right).  Thus, calls for such reforms are merely efforts to better secure the benefits enjoyed by clients of the state under the current mis-administration of the existing law.

Some will protest that since the "income" tax, lawfully administered, could not possibly bring in as much money to the state as is "needed", a replacement such as one of those mentioned above is unavoidable.  This is simply not true.  Even if current levels of spending are deemed desirable or necessary, the Constitution has always provided perfectly adequate methods by which the money can be raised.  There is no limit to the size of a lawful apportioned direct tax-- and such a tax can be sought as often as circumstances require.  A revenue tariff is also available, and capable of bringing in very large amounts indefinitely.  These are the methods provided for by the founders, and they are quite sufficient.  They also happen to be far more accountable and politically rigorous than the open spigot of money into the federal coffers that the mis-administered "income" tax has become, and thus far less desirable to the political class.  However, the freedom of the people and the conveniences of the state are generally mutually exclusive.  We can provide for only one or the other.  I know which one I choose.  And if inconveniencing the state inconveniences me as well, I will call to mind the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."  I hope that everyone will join me in vigorously oppose all efforts at "tax reform", and instead insist on simple, lawful taxation, as provided for in the Constitution.

There's a lot of effort being made lately to push some kind of tax "reform"-- most notably a 'national sales tax', such as the "Fair Tax".  Although the above comments are not new, they are worthy  in light of the increased vigor with which these attempts to start up the same old hungry beast in distracting new clothes are being marketed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Tax "Reform"

"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances."
-R. W. Emerson

Now that it has been deciphered, and revealed to be benign as written, it falls to all of us to actively and strenuously resist any attempt by the tax beneficiary crowd to replace the actual current "income" tax structure-- which they are coming to recognize as fatally compromised, for their purposes-- with an alternative, such as a national sales tax or value-added tax.  Such alternatives-- all of which would seek to maintain spending at or near current levels-- would quickly be riddled with exceptions, special-interest pay-offs and so forth; as well as the subsidies and associated means-testing necessary to forestall what would otherwise be an intolerable burden for the poor.  They would quickly become indistinguishable from the current regime in complexity, bureaucracy, and injustice.  And, depending upon how such an alternative was instituted, we might never be rid of it.

After all, a broad-based federal sales tax or VAT-- which would necessarily be involuntary in nature, and would lack any effective connection between the federal government and the object of the tax as well-- is just as much prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution as is a general tax on receipts, and thus would be unconstitutional, without an amendment.  However, with the current "income" tax scheme having been successfully pulled off long enough for the citizenry to have reached an, "Anything but this!" attitude, there is every danger that the general public would take the position that if a Constitutional amendment would rid us of that current regime, then so be it.

Of course, legislative reform is not needed to do away with those aspects of the current regime that distresses the citizenry-- simple adherence to the actual structure of the law will accomplish that; a reformed system would be no better than the current one when all was said and done; and if such a reform was accomplished by means of an amendment, what has been lawlessly practiced upon the people-- to their ruin, dismay, and righteous anger-- will have become "lawful" (meaning: vastly more difficult to reason against, despite the fact that even by means of a Constitutional amendment, a people cannot lawfully alienate from themselves a fundamental right).  Thus, calls for such reforms are merely efforts to better secure the benefits enjoyed by clients of the state under the current mis-administration of the existing law.

Some will protest that since the "income" tax, lawfully administered, could not possibly bring in as much money to the state as is "needed", a replacement such as one of those mentioned above is unavoidable.  This is simply not true.  Even if current levels of spending are deemed desirable or necessary, the Constitution has always provided perfectly adequate methods by which the money can be raised.  There is no limit to the size of a lawful apportioned direct tax-- and such a tax can be sought as often as circumstances require.  A revenue tariff is also available, and capable of bringing in very large amounts indefinitely.  These are the methods provided for by the founders, and they are quite sufficient.  They also happen to be far more accountable and politically rigorous than the open spigot of money into the federal coffers that the mis-administered "income" tax has become, and thus far less desirable to the political class.  However, the freedom of the people and the conveniences of the state are generally mutually exclusive.  We can provide for only one or the other.  I know which one I choose.  And if inconveniencing the state inconveniences me as well, I will call to mind the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."  I hope that everyone will join me in vigorously oppose all efforts at "tax reform", and instead insist on simple, lawful taxation, as provided for in the Constitution.

There's a lot of effort being made lately to push some kind of tax "reform"-- most notably a 'national sales tax', such as the "Fair Tax".  Although the above comments are not new, they are worthy  in light of the increased vigor with which these attempts to start up the same old hungry beast in distracting new clothes are being marketed.