Walter SwierczynskiA flat tax would be better, but a Ron Paul "No Tax" is better yet.

Richard TaylorDo not fall for another "unenumerated flat percentage federal tax" such as the flat tax or Fairtax. Not only does it guarantee increase of taxation with an increase in private sector economy without oversight, consent or enumeration before being granted to them; Fairtax and national sales taxation invites the federal government into your state law to allow the "federal Government" to "define what is and what is not a business!!!" that means you invite them into your living room!!! A sales tax invites them into documenting your income from sales as well!!! You will then have a BUY, SELL and TRADE tax!!! i.e. a Jelousy tax. resulting in a Total Ignorance as to the real problem which is to "REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING ans REGULATION"; Then you can remove the income tax and remove the need for other unconstitutional taxation. Ron Paul ts correct in removing the income tax and NOT to replace it with ANYTHING!!!. Com'on People THINK!!! The constitution was written correctly; it was based on what the federal government was allowed to collect taxes for and consensually granted; Not on what a person has or spends. See our special report #5 American Patriot Party .CC

Richard TaylorTrevor: The same way it did before the income tax in 1930's. First you need to understand the limits set down by the Founders; When people look at the federal government now, they think it for everything; it's not, and it was never meant to be. Here is a few brief quotes from the Virginia Ratifying convention 6-16-1788 (which defines the "general phrases" within the Constitution) It is one of our suggested reading documents on our web site: " George Nicholas 6-16-1788: > ...that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the general power of legislation", but to the >particular power > of laying and collecting taxes, IMPOSTS, and EXCISES, >>>FOR THE PURPOSE of paying the DEBTS and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE", that is, that they could raise "AS MUCH" money as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", in "CONSEQUENCE of this power". The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause (Article VI) contained "NO new grant of power"." Only 2 things! Do you see anything about social security, welfare checks (a misuse of the word welfare and an expounding upon a "general phrase")??? Now let's look at police powers outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC and the VERY FEW crimes that the federal government can prosecute... Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions 1798 makes this abundantly clear: "#2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to: a.) punish treason, b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and d.) offenses against the law of nations, and >>>>>>>"NO OTHER" CRIMES, >>>>>>>"WHATSOEVER"; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and "ALL" their OTHER acts which >>>ASSUME to >>>create, >>>define, or >>>punish crimes, OTHER than those SO ENUMERATED in the Constitution,) are >>>"ALTOGETHER" >>>"VOID", and of >>>"NO FORCE"; and that the power to create, define, and punish such OTHER crimes is RESERVED, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, >>>>>>>each within its OWN territory." FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF etc. are all undelegated federal powers within the states; and all "other" "crimes" which the federal government now prosecute outside these limited delegated powers are the true responsibility of the individual state's within their own territory. (the federal government can set a standard, but ultimately illegal aliens etc. are a states responsibility because the federal government was never granted the power to prosecute them - the states can also refuse it or anything- see James Madison below) Here again from the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: Mr. PENDLETON: "Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART" of the Constitution, (N)or to make >>>"ANY" "REGULATION" that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union >>>AT LARGE (APP...THINK ABOUT THAT!!!). But it gives them power over the "local" "police of THE >>>PLACE", so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within >>>>>>>THAT district. What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall BE. What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there, in order to preserve {440} serve the "police" OF THE >>>>>>>"PLACE" and their OWN personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the >>>>>>>"fair construction". Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: JAMES MADISON: Mr. Chairman: "...I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "SMALL district", which >>>"CANNOT EXCEED" >>>ten miles square, and may >>>"NOT be" more than "ONE" mile, will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a "VERY" CIRCUMSCRIBED district, to the prejudice of the community at large. ...... Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must be a cession, by particular states, of the district to Congress, and that the states may settle the terms of the cession. The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend >>>"ANY" danger, they >>>"MAY" >>>REFUSE it >>>ALTOGETHER." So if we only had to pay for the federal government collecting taxes for 2 things - Debts and defense; and 4 crimes.... as is the only authority that they have been given to collect for, clearly, we would have plenty with a simple import tax; Which by the way takes very little regulation to implement and secures peoples right to be secure in their person, papers and effects (as the government does not need to know anything about the person or the company while collecting an import tax on a product as it passes in front of him); As simple as that.

Mark AveryWhen you tax something, you get less of it. In many cases, that's precisely why the item is taxed. Alcohol taxes, tobacco taxes, "luxury" taxes - all are crafted to reduce the use or purchase of those items. Our economy requires that we generate more income and more investment, and to do so requires that we spend less of what we make so there's something left to save and invest. So what does Government do? It taxes income and investment but not spending. Hello? That's exactly the opposite of what makes sense! A flat tax is still an income tax - the opposite of what makes sense. The Fair Tax is, in part, a national embedded retail sales tax - sales, as in spending on new things sold at retail. So which is a better way to increase income and savings - taxing income or taxing spending? Can I get a "Duh"? Tax spending and not income. That's the Fair Tax in a nutshell. The main problem with the Fair Tax is that you can't do it overnight. A prerequisite for implementation is repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. That requires a two-thirds supermajority in Congress to pass it and ratification by two-thirds of the states. This is precisely why Herman Cain didn't try to start there - the Fair Tax is the next phase of his plan after 999 which can get the transition started as soon as it's passed.

William PayneI'm in agreement with the FairTaxers here for many reasons, not the least of which is that it expands the tax base. What is "expanding the tax base"? That means that EVERYBODY pays tax and contributes to the welfare of the country. Under the FairTax, 11 million+ illegals will begin paying the same tax as you pay. So will the 58 million visitors to the country, who spend an average of over $2,000 each. You do that math. Then there is the $1 trillion underground economy. Again, easy math. Expanding the tax base makes it easier on the rest of us. The flat tax does NOT address expanding the base. We started with a flat tax. How do you like it now? http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Richard TaylorRead the lesson regarding "FairTax" and Fairness i.e. Jelousy Taxes "Special Report #5" (far right) on the American Patriot Party.CC: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc website front page as well as viewing our Opposition to the FairTax and other Unenumerated Flat percentage tax systems: For more on the American Patriot Party's opposition to unenumerated percentage taxes Go Here.<