37 votes

The "Flat" Tax is Not Flat and the "Fair" Tax is Not Fair

Shift taxes? Increase taxes? Tax the rich? Impose new taxes? Use the tax code to influence public policy? What kind of libertarian tax reform plan is this? How about reduce, cut, eliminate, and abolish taxes? Not deductions, not exemptions, not credits, not shelters, not loopholes — taxes.

Two specific tax reform plans that some libertarians have fallen for are the Flat Tax and the FairTax. Both plans promise to invigorate the economy, increase employment, and raise everyone's standard of living. Neither one is true to its name; neither one is an incremental step toward overall lower taxes. Both are fraught with problems and contradictions; both are revenue-neutral plans that would fund the federal government at the same obscene level that it is now.

Neither the Flat Tax nor the FairTax is a step toward the libertarian goal of substantially reducing or abolishing the income tax; neither tax-reform plan is an incremental step toward lower overall taxes. They could be, however, if their promoters recognized that the problem is taxation itself, not the tax code. All they have done is shift the debate from how much of the wealth of the American people the federal government confiscates to the manner in which the wealth is confiscated.

The Fairtax is a consumption tax. It is the most radical tax reform plan, bar none.

We don't need compassionate tax reform that makes people feel better about paying their taxes; we need radical tax reform that reduces, cuts, eliminates, and abolishes taxes without replacing them with other taxes. As I have quoted Congressman Ron Paul on many occasions, "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Taxation is Theft!

Don't plead with the thieves to steal slightly less or in a more crafty way.

Demand that they stop stealing from you!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

And "Free Trade Agreements"

are the opposite of free trade.

American Patriot Party - SPECIAL REPORTS #5 - TAX BURDEN


Understand this.

This is a Lesson.


2.) It is NOT about "WHO" pays the tax;

.... But it is "WHAT" the tax is paid FOR.

To illustrate why any tax that uses fairness i.e. Jealousy to tax the wealthy, simply taxes the POOR harder and keeps them poor;

as well as eventually financially enslaves them.

First you need to recognize your ENEMY, and that enemy is "YOU".

1.) Ignorance
2.) Jealousy

Now to recognize it in yourself, I will make you not only jealous of me, I will make you hate me.

First I will tell you I am rich, filthy rich (I am not, but that is what I'm using to make you recognize jealousy i.e. your worst enemy which is YOU).

Next, I will make you hate me: "You miserable pathetic poor person! I have everything I want! EVERYTHING! More Money, Cars, big house(S), boats, I'm always on vacation because I never need to work! I make so much money! HA HA but YOU! You pathetic little poor person, you will always be poor! Working for little to nothing! What is more, you will never get my money! Because I am RICH! HA HA RICH! And I will keep you poor by being so RICH! I will pay you nothing just so to KEEP YOU POOR!"

Feel that little enemy called "Jealousy"? good.

Now let us examine why taxing because of jealousy of the wealthy will never work, and why taxes need to be directed at what a tax is FOR; and

Why taxing the wealthy only taxes the poor by passing on the "BURDEN" of the TAX:

Let's say I am a wealthy shoe maker, and there is no income tax; I make a shoe for .50 and sell it for $1.00 for a .50 profit.

Now lets say a Jealousy tax (income tax, sales tax, Flattax, Fairtax or other) is created on my shoe of .25;

As a good business man, I will look to maintain my .50 profit;

A good business man will attempt to absorb override ANY expenses by including them in the selling price, this INCLUDES "TAXES".

Below illustrates what happens when you attempt to tax the wealthy harder because of JEALOUSY i.e. fairness.

Cost of Manufacture: .50
Profit: .50
Tax: .25 then .55
Final Cost of product: 1.25 then 1.50
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations

Now lets say that this makes you MAD, and you don't think that this is "FAIR" You are so "JEALOUS" that you want to force them to pay taxes that will reduce their profits; So you tax them harder! (brilliant) You tax them .75 on every shoe!

The Shoe manufacturer realizes that he cannot sell the shoe on the market for 1.75, so to maintain his profit margin, he makes his shoes for less, either by reducing quality, reducing number of workers i.e. "downsizing" or becoming more efficient.

Cost of Manufacture: .25
Profit: .65
Tax: .75
Final Cost of product: 1.65
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations

Now your really MAD! (in more ways than one - as in insanity); So you Tax them even harder!!! 1.00 a shoe!

The Shoe maker cannot manufacturer the shoe in the United States and maintain his profit margin; So he fires his workers and produces his shoes in China and also increases his profit margin.

Cost of Manufacture: 05
Profit: .70
Tax: 1.00
Final Cost of product: 1.75
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations

This makes you HATE the shoe company; and in your Jealous insanity, you tax them 1.25 on every shoe!

The shoe maker closes shop, retires or invests in something different that is taxed less. China makes the shoe for .02 (manufactured in India) and is happy to make .73 per shoe.

Cost of Manufacture: .02
Profit: .73
Tax: 1.25
Final Cost of product: 2.00
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations-China

Now the Consumer is stuck with paying 2.00 a shoe and a tax and bloated government that continues to create more BUREAUCRACIES that impose greater taxes to support their dependency on tax money;

To support their job dependency, they create more REGULATIONS that reduce free trade further.

This is how socialism advances.

Now you think the story ends here....

It gets MUCH better.


The Shoe maker creates a Corporation (state born exclusive privilege of cartel) with a few Union officials and lobbies congress for a military shoe contract using mostly India labor and produces a army boot for .05 and sells it to the military for 49.95!!!

You might argue that a graduated income tax would make the company pay more taxes, but that would only compound the problem by giving more money to government, government contracts, Government Unions, Tax supported special interests and undelegated state and federal bureaucracies;

A flat set percentage sales tax would only guarantee increase to government with an increase in the private sector with no oversight or enumeration before it is collected.

Cost of Manufacture: .05
Profit: 48.20
Tax: 1.75
Final Cost of product: 50.00
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations-India

Now do you understand why trying to tax WHO is futile;

This is because it is NOT taxing for the REAL PURPOSE of what taxes are "FOR";

The REAL PURPOSE of Taxes are "WHAT" the tax is paid "FOR" is for NECESSARY SERVICES;

That means ENUMERATED for actual cost of those services ONLY; ..... and "BEFORE" "CONSENSUALY" (Very important) giving it to government.

This LIMITS the amount everyone has to pay.

NOT to throw a "flat" percentage "arbitrary" "tax amount" from either sales, income or property that is collected far in excess of that necessary for needful services, only to create more and more government dependency upon it.

The Democrats use Jealousy to increase Union government bureaucracies and tax supported Special Interest groups;

and the Republican's (those that are corporate capitolists) use the money derived from that jealousy to lobby for large government contracts as well as Union Contracts (private or government).

All are State born "Exclusive Privileged" and undelegated cartels which should not even exist in a free country.


Some important understanding is that:

1.) You cannot base taxation on who pays taxes simply through a "tax form" given to the government, without considering who will actually pay the "BURDEN" of the tax.

2.) Often income tax only creates the role of tax collector on the part of who it collects taxes from, distorting who actually pays the "BURDEN" of taxation.

3.) Where taxes are considered by a service provider, retailer or manufacturer, which is almost considered by every business man, "EVERYONE" pays taxes;

4.) This absolutely discredits any reports that attempt to establish there is a percentage of people who pay Most or ALL the taxes in the United States; as tax forms are far from the exclusive determinator of who pays taxes.

5.) This also discredits any reports that there is anyone who does not pay taxes simply because they do not fill out a tax form;

6.) "ANYONE" who buys a product, hires a service, rents, buys gas, or other, from anyone or ANY entity who considers his own taxation so to establish a price he will receive for that product or service so to be able to pay it, which ANY business man does, PAYS TAXES;

7.) "ANYONE who does ANYTHING" to spend money within the United States "PAYS TAXES";

8.) Those end users of the system will pay the highest percentage of their earnings in this way, as they will be unable to Write-off the tax or transfer it elsewhere onto the price of products etc.

9.) This is why taxing "WHO" pays the tax, instead of limiting to "WHAT" the tax is supposed to be collected for, simply does not work;

10.) Regulation and FLAT percentage taxes, on sales or income, guaranteeing a percentage to government without oversight and consent BEFORE giving it, simply empowers Government and Exclusive privileges and creates waste.

11.) It also flies in the face of those who "attempt to establish" that all illegal aliens do not pay taxes, which "IN FACT THOSE THAT LIVE AND WORK HERE DO";

If they rent, buy products, buy gas, by food or any liquid such as milk or soft drinks or anything while they are here, >>>>THEY ARE PAYING THE "BURDEN OF TAXATION" ATTACHED TO THOSE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.

This is not to say that they should be misusing our laws, it simply establishes a gross misstatement that all aliens, or that anyone, simply because they do not make out a "income tax form" does not pay taxes. A complete lie;

12.) These type statements derail the American public as to the real problem; and that is not abiding by the Constitutional way taxation is suppose to be; DIRECT CONSENSUAL TAXATION FOR ONLY THOSE THINGS THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO TAX THE PEOPLE FOR.

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewslett er

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".

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS,: "....He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to >>>>pay the public debts and >>>>provide for the common defence;

<> 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

(1) debts

and provide for the

(2) "common defence",

>>>>>"in "CONSEQUENCE" of THIS power".

The clause which was affectedly called the "sweeping clause" contained >>>"NO new grant of power".

To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power.

If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power?

As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole...."

It was clear to the Founder's, that FEDERAL TAXES CAN BE COLLECTED FOR TWO THINGS ONLY!!!!

Review the CONSTITUTIONAL way to collect Taxes that removes costly REGULATION costs, LEGAL and INCARCERATION costs and COMPLIANCE costs:

Learn More:

The "A" or Anonymity Tax system is a
Constitutionally correct tax:

See also 2006 and 2009 newsletters regarding Founder's warnings 6-16-1788 of government granting " Exclusive Privileges".

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.


'The "Flat" Tax is Not Flat and the "Fair" Tax is Not Fair.'

^ Tautological claim is tautological.

Upon hearing of protest over the healthcare bill Obama proclaimed:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes."

My bad...that's actually Luke 12:47.

The tax rate numbers are deceptive and fraudulent.

First off, a reminder to all that up until 1913 the tax rate was 0%. Secondly, the hidden inflation tax and the devaluation of the currency affect the income, the purchasing power of the currency, the savings, as well as the investments of the individuals.

Now back on topic... Perhaps there is one right way to look at income tax and the 16th Amendment and that is as being evil because it allows the Govt to decide how much of the fruits of our labor we can keep. Even if the tax rate is 1%, it is still unacceptable as this is a matter of principle. The Govt does not own individuals, nor the fruits of their labor. Period.

It also makes sense to think that the "flat and fair" taxes are a way to lure people into gladly accepting to pay a higher tax just because "the rich" will pay the same percentage without realizing that currently their tax rate is perhaps 1/2 of 25%. In comparison to the current tax code, if after all deductions one's tax rate is let's say about 10%, it makes no sense to pay 25% when they can pay 7% or 14% or 10%.

tasmlab's picture

Get rid of withholdings and promote visibility

I suspect that if we just got rid of paystub withholdings and made people write a massive check on April 15, people's minds would change.

I also think it would be good if everybody had to send a separate check for different categories, i.e., a check for "wars", one for 'defense", one for 'wellfare', one for 'interest on the national debt'. Maybe "war on drugs", "wall st. bailout" etc., so you could feel your contributions to things you don't like.

It would be fun to see progressives have to mail their war check each year, and for conservatives have to send in their abortion bill each month or similar.

And maybe people will wonder why there are no checks for roads, garbage pick up, schooling, cops, fire firefighters, parks, fireworks, etc., that is like 99% of the government we experience daily from our towns. That stuff is mysteriously funded with a smaller check than is sent to the Federal govt.

And then the national debt could also be shipped to everyone's house like a credit card statement with each portion of an individual's responsibility on it.

There could be a special edition for young children that shows their projected responsibility when they turn 18. It could include pictures to color and connect-the-dots and the like.

Once a year they could send a sandwich bag over that is marked with all of the programs that politicians make a big deal about (e.g., NPR, NEA, Planned Parenthood, NASA) and you are asked to drop in whatever change can be found under your couch cushions.

And then perhaps some photos of dead foreigners that your tax dollars helped fund killing with a nice thank you note "Thanks to your taxes of $x,000 this year, we were able to fund the killing of these four non-combatants. Don't the children look peaceful? Thanks so much!"

OK. I'm done.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

fireant's picture

What's wrong with original intent?

Direct Taxes only to be apportioned among the States, and the States represented in Congress.
Either we want to get control of the fedguv or we don't. Original intent will put the feds back in the box because States will want to re-claim lost power. If we're going to change, get er done while you have everyone's attention.

Undo what Wilson did

The Fairtax is superior (even for retirees)

For those who have already "paid into the system" and feel like they would be getting screwed or double taxed by the Fairtax, consider the following 5 points:

1. Yes you have paid in but you have also lived high on the hog on the backs of future generations. In the words of Ron Paul, “Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.” In other words, while you may not have asked for it, you benefitted from the deficit spending incurred during your working years and you children will have to pay for it.

2. Everyone knows it's better to be early, than late to a Ponzi scheme. Current retirees will at least see some returns from SS and Medicare while those entering the workforce now will be S.O.L.

3. The Fairtax will reduce prices by an estimated 22% on average by eliminating the embedded taxes and costs hidden in the price of goods today. This helps offset the 23% sales tax on new goods.

4. You won't have to pay taxes on your SS income. You will also get a monthly check for the "prebate" to supplement your income. (scroll for more)

5. And most importantly, retirees have had a lifetime to accumulate a nest egg during decades of stock market growth and higher bond yields. (Whereas new workers are in debt to college loans and have had a flat stock market for ten years and minimal return on bonds.) That nest egg will benefit from the huge boost to the stock market and influx of capital caused by zero corporate taxes and zero capital gains taxes.

Bottom line: every one of us, young and old, has been screwed by the system. We must all make some sacrifices. The Fairtax would provide the best outcome for all of us given our situation and will encourage growth, hard work, and savings while eliminating the IRS and bringing the true tax burden out into the open putting downward pressure on rates.

For the record, I am 38 and right in the middle of my "working years."

For more liberty, check out my blog at:

2.5% national sale tax to fund the Federal Government

Ideally, I would like a national consumption tax of around 2.5%, instead of the 23%. The Federal Government needs only between 200 and 300 billion dollars (somewhat pulling it out of my poopy hole, but not entirely), and the Government could still have a strong national defense comparable to China. My 2.5% tax rate can only happen if spending is cut to a minimum and we've paid off our debt.

I'm basing my 2.5% on the current fair tax proposal. Currently, the Gov't takes in 2.3 trillion in tax revenue. divide 2.3 trillion by 9, and you get 255 billion. So that means that if we divide 23% by 9, we get 2.55%. So I'm just gonna round that down to 2.5%, my ideal national consumption tax rate. I would not include a rebate.

The government takes in 2.3

The government takes in 2.3 trillion, but about 1 trillion of that goes for SS and MEdicare, which are dedicated programs with dedicated revenue streams.

Back in 1796, the government collected what today would be equal to 500 billion in taxes, if you look at a % of GDP alone, even though every economist knows that the larger the economy, the more it costs to maintain it (ie, defense costs do not rise at a linear rate). In 1816, the taxes would be equivalent of 1 trillion today.

I estimate we'd need about 450 billion at the very least to have a decent national defense, and no doubt some investment would leave the country. On top of that, we need about 100 billion for veterans payments. Then about 200-500 billion to service the debt. Another 200-400 billion for general government. That is the bare minimum.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Could you direct me to where

Could you direct me to where you got the info in the second paragraph?
Also, I do take into account the larger the economy, the more it takes to maintain it. For example, defense costs in 1800 (usgovernmentspending.org) was 6.1 million dollars. In 2010, this would amount to 77 million. I do not propose that we have military spending at 77 million per year - that is ludicrous. I advocate a national defense around 150 billion. (as I will start below in the next paragraph)

Also, I doubt we need 450 billion to have a "decent" national defense. The second largest military is China, which has a much larger population to defend and is a larger country on the whole, and they spend about 150 on defense, which is very reasonable amount to defend the United States. I would be happy if we spent 150 billion for defense.
Also, I would ideally like to limit veterans payments and eventually abolish them. Also, the debt would be ideally abolished; however, maybe the tax should be slightly raised (+ .5-1% perhaps) to raise a surplus. Also, if war times abound, which is the only way I see the debt going up significantly, let's raise the taxes some. General government can be a little lower since much of the bureaucracy and many of the departments would be gone. According to usgovernentspending.org, general government is about 33 billion per year. For other functions of Government other than defense, I think 100 billion is reasonable.

So I'm going to now say that a 3% national sales tax is ideal for me.

I'll get you think linki when

I'll get you think linki when I can find it. Going off memory here.

In 1796 (which is the year I remember), we spent about 2.5% of GDP on government spending. Today, that would be about 500 billion, and that is not taking into account that the larger economy, the more you need to maintain it.

I don't know how you get the 6.1 to 77 million figure.

You raise a good point about China, but China also uses a lot of authoritarian measures that aid security at a low cost; they can also afford to pay their soldiers much less since their soldiers are living in China. China has more land mass, but also a lot fewer "vital" things to protect; almost every area in the US is vital to protect.

Again, a 22% tax rate would generate about 1.2 trillion in revenue. 3% would only get you about 160 billion.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Here's the figure of the 6.1

Here's the figure of the 6.1 million. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_1800USrn

Here's the inflation calculator I used to get 77 million.

That inflation calculator is

That inflation calculator is wrong. I don't know how it is doing it; probably using an incorrect price-to-gold value.

I am comparing as a % of GDP.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

That would be ideal

I agree that spending is the real problem and the Federal Gov't only needs $200-$300b. We must fight a constant battle to eliminate departments, cut spending everywhere and educate the public.

One advantage of the Fairtax is that it spreads the tax burden equally to everyone based on the new goods and services they buy and puts the taxes out in the open for all to see. That would give everyone an incentive to want lower rates. Politicians would want to appease ALL voters by cutting taxes.

For more liberty, check out my blog at:

Another IGNORANT and UNINFORMED opinion...

Not only is the FairTax FAIR, we must URGENTLY rally around it! For those of you who have a brain, and can use it, review the following two links. GET EDUCATED so you're not parroting the type of non-sense that myajace does.

Synopsis of FairTax Research Conclusions

A Tax System That Can Unite Our Citizens

Just because mises.org doesn't like the FairTax doesn't mean you should follow suit! Here's my rebuttal to Laurence Vance's "Can a Tax Be 'Fair'?"

I would suggest not bein a D*ck in your comments...

It would make YOU look a lot less ignorant. Please point out Daar, where exactly in this thread did I express any opinion at all?? Are you blind or just dumb? It's okay to disagree with someone, but you don't need to be a disrespectful prick. And where exactly in my post did I say that I don't agree with the fair tax because mises.org doesn't. For one, I would imagine that the article had an author, and the opinions were that of the author and not necessarily the site. And apparently you have no grasp on the concept of debate, I guess I'll apologize for YOUR ignorance..People, GET EDUCATED so you don't turn out to be a piece of sh*t like Daar..You won't get very far in life.

"Your" "rebuttal" to the fair tax isn't very convincing...If maybe you hadn't of made it a point to reference people like Warren Buffett, president Obama, and Mike Huckabee as if they're actually people that someone would want to listen to. These people are all lying smumbag fearmongers. Stop being so IGNORANT Daar. You seem to be so sure of yourself, but yet have never created your own thread here to "help" people understand your position. It doesn't appear as if you've ever contributed ANY thread to this website. So, did you really create an account here months and months ago, just to post asinine comments to threads you don't like, so you can come off as some condescending prick? If so, well done.

De criminalize Liberty!

But both are FAR better than

But both are FAR better than the cluster we have now.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

So it might seem...

But neither are as good a plan as the founding fathers made!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

FairTax is BETTER than Founders' plan...

The FairTax does NOT permit the concealment of taxes in the cost of goods purchased by Americans. The PEOPLE ALWAYS pay the tax costs that are passed through when manufacturers, importers, or wholesalers are charged the tax; the best tax system will ensure that the people can see - and know - their true tax load. Only with VISIBILITY will the people be VIGILANT.


I realize that a fair tax taxes peoples spending which is unfair for people nearing retirement but we are already taxed when we spend! We're taxed when we don't spend as well.

The price of a good is determined by how many taxes are placed upon it.

Farmer grows wheat - Land is taxed. Wages of employees are taxed. Business is taxed (twice again for the owner). Wheat is shipped to the mill.

Land on mill taxed. Employees taxed. Wheat itself is taxed. ect ect.

Each stage of the bread is taxed over and over again.
Obviously all this goes into the price of bread.

I agree that a fair tax isn't a 'end all' solution. But to say it isn't a step in the right direction just isn't so.

We all know the problem. OVERSPENDING, WARS, FOREIGN AID, BAILOUTS ect. But at least a fair tax is a step in the right direction.


Illegals will be paying into the system as well.

They have to eat, too, so at least they'd be paying into the system.

They're not really "illegal".

They're not really "illegal". The laws that call them that are unconstitutional.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

OK, how 'bout

immigrants who are in this country illegally?

Have you ever read the

Have you ever read the Constitution of the US? How about the Declaration of Independence? Thomas Jefferson?

Or are you a statist/nationalist like Ron Paul?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

There's no such thing.

There's no such thing. Unless you are part of an invading army, there's no constitutional law against coming here.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"


welfare, theft, illegal employment?!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

What is "illegal employment"

What is "illegal employment" exactly?!?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

From Murray Rothbard's "The

From Murray Rothbard's "The Truth About Taxes":

"Even more egregious was an early doctrine of another group of supposed free-market advocates, the supply-siders. In their original Laffer-curve manifestation, now happily consigned to the dustbin of history, the supply-siders maintained that the tax rate that maximizes tax revenue is the "voluntary" rate, and a rate that should be diligently pursued. It was never pointed out in what sense such a tax rate is "voluntary," or what in the world the concept of "voluntary" has to do with taxation in the first place. Much less did the supply-siders in their Lafferite form ever instruct us why we must all uphold maximizing government revenue as our beau idéal. Surely, for free-market proponents, one might think that minimizing government depredation of the private product would be a bit more appealing."

It was either Ron Paul

or Lew Rockwell who said [paraphrasing] That libertarians shouldn't want a "simple" tax system with "no loopholes" (the government loves to make loopholes sound like it's citizens stealing from the government AHA) because the more complicated with deductions etc the system is, the more of our own money worked for by private individuals are able to figure out how to keep. Less money in the hands of the coercive federal government for wars and everything else they blow it on - and more in the hands of the private sector so real jobs and products can actually be produced - instead of government 'anti-jobs'.

Just a thought.

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM