Constitutional Convention

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Simon Girty on May 8, 2009 at 8:16pm

Sir,
If you had, or were capable of puting together, a "strong coalition of selected organizations who will have the power to influence the state legislatures to ammend only the items requested by the coalition" then why do you even need a constitutional convention. With such a "strong coalition" you could just enact the Fair Tax, and any other changes the coalition wanted, if they had to power.

The problem is that in order to get the power you must first defeat the people who already have the power. You wont defeat them with a constitutional convention, nor will you defeat them by working from within the corrupt political organizations they control.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Shipp on May 10, 2009 at 2:29pm

I am unclear why there is any discussion or why any thing more needs to be introduced to eliminate the IRS. H.R. 25/S.296 clearly addresses elimination of the IRS and what happens in the event the IRS is not eliminated in a specific time frame. The IRS would have to co exist with the Fairtax simply due to the fact that the IRS can audit back five years and collect taxes back to seven years. That simply means that they can try to collect previous years taxes that the IRS thinks are owed. That does not mean they can continue to tax after Fairtax is implemented.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Girty on May 11, 2009 at 6:09am

Can you tell me the date that H.R. 25/S.296 will be signed into Law?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fla Vol on May 8, 2009 at 3:31pm

Ron,
Are you saying that 5 states do not have a sales tax and their income comes from an income tax that is collected by the feds?
Under the fair tax the selling prices will decline and be replaced by a consumption tax of about the same amount of money. There are plans to embed this tax in the selling price but stll let people know how much goes for federal funding. You also say states will lose federal funding? I have not heard that before-is that in the book?
If you stick with the congressional route you still have to get the states to ratify the change of removing the income tax amendment from the constitution. Why not do just the concon with ratifying being an easier job since 2/3 of the states are commited for the convention and we only have to work on the balance to make the 3/4 for ratification.
If you saw Beck last night you would have seen the segment on states rights (it is on you tube) and you would see the states are hot to make their rights known. I am sure they would like support from a coalition to clarify the states rights and reaffirm them.
Also many feel that when we start getting many states lined up congress will cave and pass the fair tax before we go around them. It seems like a good probability but we should be prepared to go through the whole process.
Thanks for the questions-it makes me think about covering as many probabilities as I can.
Stew

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Wenrich on May 8, 2009 at 6:47pm

No, I'm saying that most states collect income tax. A few don't. How are you going to require the feds to stop collecting income tax, then turn around and tell your constituents that's its OK for the state to collect it? That's part of the politics where I think it will fall apart.

Many of the states use the same scenario as the feds. They have graduated income levels and personal deductions. Doing both taxes together at tax time streamlines the system. Remove one and the other one still requires the taxpayer to keep receipts, pay stubs and has the employer withhold taxes. Nothing is saved, except the IRS is relegated to collecting the Fair Tax. Feds do not collect state taxes.

Fed funding does come back to the states in all different types of subsidies. Its not in the book. The fed helps to fund schools, for example. If Congress does not support the Fair Tax, and states try to bring it about in a different route, I could easily see how the Congress would dry up funds rather quickly. DUI and seat belt laws have all been enacted with the fed promising to withhold road subsidies from states not in compliance. Politics will play a heavy role.

There are several states that have bills in their legislature claiming state sovereignty. But, I would hazard to guess that most of them have been sent to committee, where they will die. The committee chair decides when it comes up for a vote. Only a few have passed any type of bill. You would also need the governor's signature.

You have to watch when you start talking about prices dropping. I don't see that happening. Although the personal taxes are embedded in the cost of labor, its up to labor to pay the bills. Business is the tax collector. For prices to drop by any large percentage, labor will have to fore go the value of those taxes through lower wages. Business only pays 7.5% FICA and some business taxes. The balance is paid by labor in the form of wages. The amount of the drop would also depend on how labor intensive the business is.

What will happen is that prices will drop somewhat, maybe 10%. But, the Fair Tax will raise it 30% (I know about the 23% rate). Labor will have increased purchasing power due to the added taxes in their paycheck, and the prebate. I think some people think that the amount that prices will drop will make up for the amount of tax.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Shipp on May 10, 2009 at 2:08pm

It sounds to me as though you are getting all your information from the Fairtax book. (which is a good guide) A better source of information is fairtax.org. I believe (from what I read above) you are unaware that according to H.R.25 / S.296, states will be paid for the effort of collecting the Fairtax. You also appear to not have a grasp of the hidden taxes that are eliminated by Fairtax and are replaced by a transparent (meaning every one will then know how much the governement is stealing from them30% consumption tax. The elimination of hidden taxes will cause prices to fall because of the decrease in cost of the products being manufactured. Imagine all the people involved in the manufacturing and sales under the current tax system. Start by imagining the person handling the raw materials for ANY manufactured item in the US. Every one right up to the cash register clerk selling that manufactured item is paying income tax. That's a lot of hidden tax on one item. Now consider fairtax also eliminates compliance costs and corporate tax.
also look at the compliance costs here; http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhatTheFederalTaxSystemIsCostingYou.pdf and here http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf

Competition Will make it impossible for retail prices to remain the same, (when S. 296 becomes law) as they are now, under the current tax system. The wholesale price will come down and then so will the retail price.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fla Vol on May 8, 2009 at 10:37pm

Dear Simon Girty,
The answer to your objection is this. If we go the regular route we are dealing with control of the congress which is under control of the liberal majority at this time. The popular vote as evidenced by the control of the congress is tilted toward liberals who do not want to give up the power of control of taxes and tax deductions and opportunities to increase taxes and find new sources of income.
If you go to the states, the balance of power has a better chance of changing. The states that are interior, less populated and what we might call the heartland of America tend to be more conservative and there are more states in numbers like that to give a greater chance of power to the states and their citizens. The founding fathers gave us a great gift by giving to the number of states the balancing of power to enact legislation that can refine our constitution. The coalition can work state by state and work with those that are the most receptive to get the ball rolling. I discuss more of this at http://saveyourconstitution.blogspot.com
Ron, You raise some good points that can be debated but I am afraid you are generally negative to the Fair Tax.
You do not believe we can overcome a few states having to revise their income tax collection or that they might decide to rely on a consumption tax also.
Your arguement about fed funding indicates acceptance of the problem of the feds controlling social activities through funding. It has been estimated that the Fair Tax can fund the government at normal levels. It can raise as much as the income tax based on studies by the best consultants that could be hired.
You do not feel the sections of the constitution reserving many powers to the states can be strengthened. You feel the attempts will be pigeon holed. That reflects a negative outlook. I see the states fed up and active in this area. It is even more reason to have a strong coalition which will provide the support of several strong organizations to push the project through.
Finally the research shows the prices will go down through competition. As a moderately conservative business trained person I believe that will happen and those who developed the Fair Tax believe it will happen. You do not believe it will happen.
Are you just generally opposed to the Fair Tax? I do not understand your apparent negative outlook.
Stew

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Wenrich on May 9, 2009 at 6:17am

Thanks for telling me of my beliefs.

I offer a scenario that's different from yours. Its not that a "few states" would have to restructure their taxing system. Its 45. Or they could decide to keep their tax system. Legislators are lazy people. They will take the route with the least resistance and the one that will give them the most benefit. I'm not that stupid to believe that political parties won't put extreme amounts of pressure on legislators at both the state and federal level. In most cases, money talks. Its especially true in politics.

The only thing that will spur politicians into any type of action is through a grassroots effort. If they don't see any need to change their actions reflected in the general voting population, they will do nothing or whatever they feel like doing. Gun control issues are an example. Most politicians know that voting for gun control will have them thrown out of office. The Fair Tax has not reached a point to spur the politicians, yet.

Although I take a pragmatic view of things, I do support the Fair Tax. I support it on grounds other than reducing consumer costs. I think it erodes the power of politicians and lobbyists, and I think it helps the US in trade and business expansion. I don't see a huge reduction in prices that would offset the price of the tax.

Others can differ on that point, and that's OK. I think that the prebate has been downplayed too much and would rather see that promoted over the price deflation issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Girty on May 9, 2009 at 7:43am

Sir,
You have not answered my objection because your answer missed the point of the objection. I understand the constitutional process and have looked at your links and still do not see you addressing my objection.

So, here it is again.

You plan relies on putting together a "STRONG COALITION" of "SELECTED ORGANIZATIONA" the "WILL HAVE the POWER" to achieve your goal. Such a coalition does not exist. Putting it together will not work. If you could do that you would not need a constitutional convention anyway.
Your blog suggests putting together groups like the Fair Tax proponents with religious group who would seek to have your constitutional convention somehow "preserve the recognition of the teaching of common sense guidelines of their groups." While some people might share these heartland values many, such as myself, would not. I can support the concept of the Fair Tax but I see no role for the constitution, or the government to clarify religious teaching of any group. On the other hand, many religious people who could enter your coalition might care only about prayer in school or abortion and think nothing of the Fair Tax.

It is the idea of diversity of your coalition that opens Pandora's Box.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fla Vol on May 9, 2009 at 8:26am

Dear Simon,
Now I understand your objection and have respect for your concern. I am now working on approaches to several groups as possible members of a coalition. There is a very successful movement that has found acceptance and it is a text book and classes that discuss the benefits of the philosophy of the good suggestions in the bible so they are teaching the common sense guidelines rather than the religious philosophy in a number of schools. Students seem to be impressed and it is taught to members of many religions. I am encourgaed by this anf feel that with tweaking we will be able to gain acceptance of God but possibly not Jesus. It is estimated that about 86% of our population believes in Christ.
However, the decision of which groups to involve will be decided by the coalition itself and this is an area of danger as you point out. This is also the reason for my posting answers to objections. I am also looking for solutions to various objections as I proceed. I am sure that as I present the coalition approach the movement if successful will be taken over by others who are leaders and I will not be important.
If a successful coalition evolves it can be successful but if it is not a good project it will fail and the proof will be in the acceptance of the public.
A couple of states are already passing laws to bypass government interference with their gun control laws. Several states are upset by the Federal intrusion into the states control. So I feel states would like a strong support for their efforts. The right to bear arms issue is strong and has millions of active followers. The religions suppression of the past years has a strong support group, the American Legion has come very close to passing a flag protection amendment several times, our Fair Tax group is growing and has an extensive organization and can reach as many as 5 million with its members of about a million or so but the organization is well distributed and organized. I feel a strong coalition can develop and be one we can all live with and with that support request a convention by state legislation than defines the changes to be requested. There will have to be many meetings between the groups to determine the language that is not too radical and will be acceptable to all the groups. The biggest change would be the changes desired by the Fair Tax.
Thanks for looking at my information and your contribution of concerns.
Stew

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Girty on May 9, 2009 at 9:34am

Stew,
I will be watching your coalition from the tall grass. If it turns into something I can support then I will join you. In the mean time I will continue to practice Assymetrical Politics from within the Libertarian Movement.

I applaud your efforts to help people learn about the constitution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fla Vol on May 10, 2009 at 11:26am

I thank you for taking the time and effort to become familiar with my proposal. I appreciate this effort and respect your thoughts and ideas.

I have learned through these discussions there are a number of reasons the public has to be concerned with the constitutional convention and will be contemplating the thoughts.
I hope to avoid the abortion issue but might not be able to. I am against taking a life but have served in the military and am conflicted by seeing people hurt each other over the issue. I wish it were left to the states to determine for themselves so there are always places where people can go for their needs as we debate the issue and maybe find some solution. The issue boils down to reversing Roe vs Wade and let the states decide but I feel a strong coalition will be able to avoid that in the "Save the Constitution Guidelines". It is a difficult road but we will eventually find this same problem when we work to remove the income tax amendment.
I have not sold the Fair Tax people on the approach yet. I know Boortz and Linder and others have discussed it and are giving it consideration. My only change in their thought is to suggest a coalition which will have the strength to control the issues, the wording of the legislation and the public support for those who in state legislatures who support it. If nothing else it will add to the knowledge and acceptance of the public for the Fair Tax.
Tomorrow several increases in business taxes will be announced which are actually the tightening of controls over avoidance of taxes. It is expected to raise 6 billion a year. As we know, these will be passed on in higher prices to the consumer so our living costs will increase and the resulting cost of living increase will raise Social Security and other entitlement programs. The Fair Tax will hopefully become of more interest.
Thank you again
Stew

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page