I'm not a resident of Washington, but I have been watching i-695 closely. It amazes me that people in this country gladly give their money over to politicians who squander it. We are now taxed at a rate above what the Colonies were taxed by King of England at the time of the Revolution. Those people went to war over a lot less taxation than we have now. If the current American generation was alive at the time of the Revolution we would not only have bowed to King George, but we would have asked him to raise our taxes with smiles on our faces. I am damn glad this generation didn't have to fight in the Revolution. Anyway, For those of you morons who like to pay high taxes I will attempt to deprogram you. We do not need the massive amount of taxation that we have now. There are better ways to fund government, especially at the state level. Check out www.justonejustax.org . The 1% commerce tax can provide enough money to run government at the same time relieving the taxpayer's burden of taxation. This tax can eliminate a state's sales, property, income, tangible , intangible , and any state-level tax. Check it out: www.justonejustax.org .

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), March 17, 2000

Answers

Clarification:

The Colonies did not go to war with England because of taxation. The Colonies went to war with England because of taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. That's a major difference.

(BTW: Althought it was the spark for the war, even taxation without representation wasn't enough to start the Revolution on its own. It seems King George was doing other things at the time that "royally" ticked off the colonists: The King was dictating trade agreements, forcing colonists to house English soldiers, dictating ridiculous laws to the New World, seizing Colonial property unjustly, etc etc. For more information, and a greater list of grievences, see "Independence, Declaration of," by Thomas Jefferson, adopted by the Continental Congress, 1776.)

Yes we are taxed today. But are interests are also represented on many governmental levels (city, county, state, and federal). Not always well represented, mind you, but represented nonetheless. And if we're not happy with our particular representation at any time, we are most welcomed to elect someone new. It's called voting. These rules are all spelled out in any basic grade-school history book. (See "Constitution, U.S.")

It amazes me how selective some people's memories are.

Now, if you think that high taxes alone are enough to petition the government, than by all means do so! But do it intellegently, rather than through a lame-brained fiasco like I-695 or "Son of." And at least get the facts straight about American history: the Colonies had better reasons to revolt than high taxes alone.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Hmmmm....are we starting to see some seeds sprout?

1) Taxation without representation. Pay the tax and have special interests get represented instead. Sure we can vote them out of office, just to have special interests corrupt the next one....Our founding Father's never envisioned this predicament.

2) seizing Colonial property unjustly. Can you say C.A.R.A. Bill?

3) dictating trade agreements. Well now, what was that about WTO?

4) dictating ridiculous laws to the New World. I suppose the feds NEVER dictate ridiculous laws to the states. Like we will give you back some money, but with strings attached.

5) forcing colonists to house English soldiers. For a new twist, how about forcing an entire country to support a military installation in your district that the military no longer wants or needs!

I do not propose Direct Democracy, mob rule or any other action that would endanger our nation. But I do propose reform, and a bit of common sense. Of which you seem to have so little of.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Not to get picky, but:

"Special interests" to one person are "justified expenditures" to another. It's all a matter of perspective. For example, if you join a group of friends and successfully lobby the government to have the feds contribute $100 Billion to cancer research, than you may view that as noble and good. However, others will slap you as a "special interest group" and despise you as a political insider.

However, this gets away from my point: we have the right to vote in this country, and make decisions about whom we do and don't elect. The Colonists did not have this right within the English government.

What we do with our right to vote is our own responsibility. But sadly, only about 35% of Americans regularly exercise their right to vote in non-Presidential elections. Pitiful. So if those 35% elect a jerk into office, than that's our own fault. But don't blame special interests because they are not in the voting booth with you when you cast your ballot.

That was my primary point. Sorry you missed it.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Talk about missing a point....

It wouldn't matter how many people voted in an election, or whether or not they elect a jerk.

All I have to offer a candidate is my vote. Once they get elected, my best interests are out the window. Special Interests can give money, and lots of it, to get approval for their agenda. And like it or not, the outcome often, is not in our best interests...

If it's not a problem, then why would all of the Presidential Candidates be talking about it? Hmmmm?

That was a noble example in your scenario. But for every heart string example you can make, I can find several of the opposite.

I can see all the good things that the Teachers Union has done for this state. Just look how well are kids are doing in school!

We need to make some serious changes. But go ahead, stick your head in the sand.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 18, 2000.

To "CommonSense" : Wow! I thought you were going to say the commerce tax is "regressive" like all the other morons do who are against tax reform. You are right there were other issues involved that caused the Colonies to revolt. But you are only partially right that the tax issue that sparked the Revolution was taxation without representation. The average person at that time was suffering from excessive and unfair taxation . "No taxation without representation" was the reason why they were suffering from unfair and excessive taxation, but unfair and excessive taxation was the actual issue they were complaining about. "No taxation without representation" was supposed to be the fix or guarantee that excessive and unfair taxation wouldn't happen again. Read Alexander Hamilton's comments on excessive and unfair taxation in the Federalist Papers. He was against any form of direct taxation (income tax). As a matter of fact there was no Federal income tax until 1913.

Here is a section of the Declaration of Independence:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Notice: " For imposing taxes on us without our consent:"

P.S. "CommenSense": Do you work for the government in some way?

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), March 19, 2000.

No, I do not work for the government, thank you.

. . . and if you read your own posting, you will see that the Colonist's arguments were more than just taxes. Do you even read what you write? The taxation without representation issue was #17 on the list: meaning there were 16 other items that pissed off the author (Jefferson) even more!

Listen people: My only point here is that the Colonists did not go to war with England over taxes ONLY. It was taxation without representation that was the larger issue. . . and even THAT was #17: taxation didn't even make Jefferson's "Top 10"!!!!!

This issue is non-debatable. It's freely available for all to read in any child's texbook. So what's the problem?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), March 19, 2000.

Did you read the beginning of my reply to you? I acknowledged that you were correct that the tax issue wasn't the only issue that caused the revolt. But excessive and unfair taxation was a huge issue for the Colonists. What do you think the Boston Tea Party was all about? Alexander Hamilton goes into great detail about excessive and unfair taxation in the Federalist Papers. You should read it sometime. I don't know if any issue pissed them off more than any other. That's an assumption on your part. The reason I copied and pasted that section of the Declaration of Independence was to show you that a major complaint of the Colonists was being taxed without their consent. In my opinion that is what I-695 is all about. The citezens of Washington have voted that they do NOT want to be taxed without their consent. And a tyrant has imposed his will on the people. If I was a resident of Washington I would be pissed also.

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), March 20, 2000.

to Steve: I checked out the website for "just one justax", and I really don't follow the logic. A lot of states already have sales taxes, and some (e.g., California, Louisiana, etc.) still have property and income taxes to boot.

So, I don't understand why a 1% commerce tax is going to magically raise ten times more money than an existing sales tax. What part of commerce is currently evading the sales tax?

My current federal income tax rate on my gross income is approximately 10%. It's hard for me to whine too much.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 20, 2000.

"It's hard for me to whine too much." Couldn't tell this from your previous postings. It appears to be what you do best.

-- (margo@earthlink.net), March 20, 2000.

to margo: Are you whining about someone else's alleged whining?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 20, 2000.

Matt,

I am glad your taxes are not a burden to you. Mine ARE a burden to me. I felt the same way as you do about taxes till ten years ago....I started keeping track. Your paying far more than you realize. The trouble is, we become oblivious to taxes....And of course you get used to subsidized programs. No, I am not advocating anything like anarchy. I just think it is past time to examine what we are doing with the money, and making sure we are not getting in too deep.

With that said, I did go to the website, and all I derived is rhetoric. I can't see how this would bring in enough revenue to support even the least amount of services. Unless I missed something.

I am in favor of reform, but I don't think this is it. Sorry Steve.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

"to margo: Are you whining about someone else's alleged whining? " No. I'm not even whining about someone else's OBVIOUS whining. Merely making a very self-apparent observation.

-- (margo@earthlink.net), March 20, 2000.

Hi Matt,

Sorry I haven't responded earlier...I haven't been to this board for a few days, but thanks for showing an interest. Most people outright reject the commerce tax without asking questions or further investigating it. The 1% commerce tax is NOT a sales tax, although it would be collected the same way. The sales tax taxes us strictly at the retail level and only taxes products not services. The commerce tax would be instituted at all levels and include services. From manufacturing to retail, products or services, if there is a purchase made on any level then the commerce tax would apply. For example: a manufacturer purchases a widget to make his product,that manufacturer would pay the 1% commerce tax. If a person buys a bottle of cleaner at KMart, that person would pay the 1% commerce tax. A person purchasing an accountant's services would pay the 1% commerce tax). It is probably the most fair tax there could possibly be because it spreads out the tax burden. The legislation for the commerce tax would have to prohibit any exclusions or tax abatements for large corporations which most enjoy from the local and state governments because the corporations provide jobs and the politicians want their areas to have the lowest unemployment available so they can bragg about how good their policies are for their region. Thus big business get the tax breaks in exchange for not eliminating jobs or adding jobs, and we get higher taxes. It happens all the time..... especially property tax abatements. Believe me , small businesses and the average citizen are getting screwed. The commerce tax would fix the unfairness inherent in a state's tax system. Anybody who makes a purchase of anything would pay the 1% tax. It's that simple. All other state taxes could be eliminated. And yes the 1% commerce tax would bring in enough money to run a state's government. Believe it or not it would bring in more than what a particular state is currently bringing in right now. It has been mathematically proven in the state of Florida. For even more detail on the commerce tax email the Taxpayers association at JustOneJustax@yahoo.com

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), March 26, 2000.

to Steve: I'm still a little confused. Doesn't the corporation pay a sales tax now when they buy a widget?

Perhaps you're thinking of things like rent and the purchase of homes. Right now, no one pays sales tax on their rent or mortgage payment. So, yes, I suppose if you charged a 1% fee on such transactions, then perhaps you could significantly lower other taxes.

And, yes, it's not clear to what extent we pay sales taxes on our medical bills. For example, if I have a copay of $15, would the 1% tax mean I pay another 15 cents?

So, I suppose if one were to take into account housing and medical costs, maybe the numbers work.

And, then, there are things like broker fees. You see ads for online trading, where one pays a flat $10 per trade. Would the 1% tax add another $.10? Or, insurance policies. Do we really pay any kind of tax, now, for automobile, homeowners, and life insurance? If not, then the 1% fee would bring in new monies.

You may be on to something, Steve. Very interesting!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 26, 2000.

Matt,

I think , but not 100% sure, that a manufacturer does not pay sales taxes on the raw materials and "widgets" it buys to make it's products.....it gets passed on to the retail level. I'm almost positive that wholesalers do not pay any sales tax either. I used to own a small cleaning franchise and I had to get a business license and tax id from the state, I did not pay sales tax on the special cleaning product I bought from the Franchisor but I had to charge sales tax to my customers when I used the proprietary product. I'm going to look this up because it has been so long since I've owned that franchise.

Medical Bills is a gray area where the Taxpayers Association would be more knowledgeable than I.

Automobiles and homes would definitely apply. Just imagine a 1% tax when you purchase a home and no property taxes thereafter. Some people have said that a 1% commerce tax would make purchasing homes rough on lower income people, but what do mortgage companies do right now? They include the taxes in the mortgage payments. The actual mortgage payment would not be taxed, but the purchase of the home would be taxed. Rent is a gray area ...just not sure but I think the 1% tax would apply there.

Another gray area is stocks and bonds and other securities. I believe that stocks and bonds themselves would not be taxed under the commerce tax but the brokerage fees would be taxed.

I forgot to mention food. Right now most food products are exempt from sales taxes. Food would be taxed at 1% under the commerce tax.

I've emailed the Taxpayers Association about the gray area issues. When I find out the answers to your questions I'll post them.

Steve

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), March 27, 2000.

Thanks, Steve. I'll look forward to see what you find out. I mentioned mortgage payments, because, as a buyer, I don't actually "purchase" the house, outright. I pay a mortgage over 30 years. So, the fair thing, to me, is to pay the 1% tax over 30 years, too.

I don't think stocks and bonds are considered sales, as the web site described them as lateral transactions. However, what if you buy someone's business? Which is really no different than buying a home, in a sense. Is this a lateral transaction?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 27, 2000.

To Matt and anyone else who has been following this:

Today I spoke with Curtis Holmes, President of the Taxpayers Association. He has answered all of our questions. Here is a copy of the written response from Mr. Holmes:

1. Would the commerce tax apply to rent and/or mortgage payments? Rents; yes, mortgage payments; no. And why? rent is a user fee, mortgage is a repayment of a loan.

2. Would the commerce tax apply to stocks, bonds, and broker fees? Stocks and bonds, no (and we didn't include it in M-1 figures anyway) because you're really not buying anything. Stocks are high grade gambling and bonds are nothing but a loan. Brokerage fee's , yes. Fee's are based upon services rendered.

3. Would the commerce tax apply to medical bills? Technically yes....but politically it'll never happen. But ample wiggle room exists for the inevitable "exemption."

3a. Would the commerce tax apply to insurance payments medical (and other) claims? Technically yes, but as stated previously, confidence is high that certain exemptions will be incorporated into the plan, and in the next question's answer I'll explain another oddity.

4: Would the commerce tax apply to insurance premiums? Truth be told, and I've been in the insurance business for the last 2.5 decades, although few policyholders are aware of this, all insurance premiums have built-in, nondisclosed, premium taxes. It's already there! In Florida alone it varies from 1.75% up to 3.5% of the gross premium...and some companies/policies have undisclosed "policy fees". We represent several companies who, in certain instances, the policy fee exceeds the charged premium. end of that stealthy saga.

Current State sales tax info from Mr. Holmes:

Are sales taxes applicable only to retail? Well, that depends. Most of the time, in most States, that's true, however in Florida we actually have a sales tax on certain services, i.e. auto mechanics. And no, I'm not aware of any governmental agency who applies a sales tax on raw materials....unless you include(and you should) the draconian fee's(and these are taxes) assessed by bureaucratic agencies, i.e. EPA and various State Departments of Environmental Regulations, in the form of "disposal fee's" on tires, batteries, various automobile fluid's, land reclamation charges assessed against mining companies ....and believe me, there are hundreds if not thousands of more examples of stealth taxes.

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), March 29, 2000.

Mr. Holmes of the Taxpayers Association has received other questions via email and fax. Apparently he has been asked about the enforcement of the commerce tax and he was also questioned about the credentials of the sources for the stats Mr. Holmes uses to determine the amount of revenue the commerce tax would generate if it were implemented. Here are the answers from Mr. Holmes:

How would the commerce tax be enforced? Identical to existing sales tax regulations...no more no less.

Credentials for Sources? "WOW...now that's a tough one due to numerous sources and, quoting me, "the answer isn't as important as asking the right question." Also, I'm wondering exactly what you're looking for, i.e. financial source materials came from, but not limited to; various Federal Reserve Banks, the Florida Department of Banking, the Statistical Abstract of the United States, etc. If you will, ask a specific question and you'll get a specific answer....and that is not the "artful dodge", I'm quite serious.

Fed Statistics on annual commerce? "Now the "plot" will get interesting. Remember what I said, "ask the right question." The precise total commerce figures, per se, are NOT published, however, it can be determined. Point of clarity and for reason's unknown the producers of the Statistical Abstract told me, point blank: "the Federal Reserve, up until 1994, published SA Chart 803 (this is the chart that shows M-1 turnover) ,however, they suddenly ceased publishing this." Oddly enough, and I'm sure this is just a coincidence (yep), this is the same year we started promoting the JUSTONEJUSTAX...but M-1 celerity can be determined despite the lack of ease in locating said figure. The formula can be easily located within our kit. Forgot to mention, we are using the 1992 celerity figure...but know that it's 25%+ understated. We have financial "wiggle room" that just doesn't quit. Truth be told, we can be 75% completely wrong and the plan still works. And now, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story"... You've enquired about and made mention, several times, about "credibility, economic models, support materials, studies, etc." All good points...but in all seriousness, almost worthless endeavors. Without exception economists are paid to prove the point of view of the entity paying their salary...and I don't care if it's the Heritage Foundation, CBO, OMB, Harvard University, et al. They concoct (and I've seen hundred's of these) economic scenarios, absurd or otherwise, utilizing mathematical formulas that only a physicist may understand and in all reality few, if any, of them are correct. Please carefully analyze the alleged, ultimately in cooked books, federal surpluses(they're non-existent). And this is where our plan excels. We don't need complicated , totally incomprehensible "formulas" (or tax code per se') to calculate revenue productions. The JUSTONEJUSTAX is simple...almost too simple...but identical in simplicity to the governmental revenue production system utilized when this Republic was conceived. And it's worth mentioning, our revenue production formula has one immense omission. We did NOT include the governmental overhead savings, i.e. the IRS would be reduced from 117,000 employees to 12; county property tax appraiser's offices would no longer be needed...of the current 100,000+ taxing agencies nationwide, our plan would reduce that # to 51, with virtually no drag on the economy. When I mentioned that we could be 75% wrong and it still works, that's woefully understated. Also, we did not include M-2 in the calculations (and there's no viable way of segregating M-1 from M-2....and M-2 is 3 times the size of M-1).

Finally, a few of the other anomalies, although I don't like to admit this ...if/when our plan became law it would, in the short run, be the "Laywer relief Act." Lawsuits would be flying fast and furious ...and why? The courts would have to decide the difference between user fees ( not taxable under our plan) and commerce. For example ( and this was a rather stimulating legal argument during one of our board meetings), is a parking meter a tax or does it collect a user fee? Historically, anything that would modify your behaviour ( put more money in the meter or else get towed!) is considered a tax...but you're using the spot, therefore it's a user fee. Also, interest payments on various investment vehicles, i.e. savings accounts. Our plan is a "buyer pay" system., therefore, when an institution pays you interest who's liable for the tax? Did they induce you, with their promise of untold riches, to deposit the money (they would owe the 1% tax), or did you buy into their interest/return scheme(you're liable)? There are numerous other examples ... but enough for now.

If you have any more questions...just give me a call."

Curtis Holmes, Taxpayers Association www.justonejustax.org

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), March 29, 2000.

to Steve: Interesting, about paying the 1% tax on rent. And, if manufacturers don't pay any taxes on their raw materials, then that may, indeed, be another significant source of revenue.

But, I don't believe the IRS will shrink in size. In fact, the IRS may end up expanding quite substantially, having to collect the 1% tax from every conceivable transaction.

The justone-justax folks need to get their people elected. That's the best way to affect change. There already exist several political parties to choose from, so I'll make my decisions as I encounter their candidates.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 29, 2000.

>But, I don't believe the IRS will shrink in size. In fact, the IRS may end up expanding quite substantially, having to collect the 1% tax from every conceivable transaction.<

Matt, what a lot of people don't understand is that the 1% commerce tax would be collected the exact same way that sales taxes are collected. It is a much simpler process. Right now there are 87,000 different taxing entities nationwide. A commerce tax would reduce that significantly. There definitley would be a reduction in IRS employees but I doubt it would be the 12 that Mr. Holmes suggested, I'm sure it would be more than that...... but so what even if there were more IRS employees . The "buyer pay" commerce tax system would be so much better I really wouldn't mind. People would finally be able to own their own homes instead of paying perpetual "rent" to the government in the form of property taxes and schools would not have to rely on those taxes which just pushes them higher and higher.

For those who just can't believe the commerce tax would raise enough revenue , read this: ( if this doesn't convince you nothing will)

Since this is a state initiative, here in Florida, the Taxpayers Association starts by calculating just what each state would raise if it did away with its multitude of taxing offices and just collected a 1% tax on all commerce. The Taxpayers Associations commerce tax calculation for Florida looks like this: According to banking statistics (1995 was when this calculated, can you imagine the increase today?) the M1 money supply in Florida on any given day is $20 billion. Multiplying $20 billion by 600, which is the M1 annual turnover rate in Florida, the Taxpayers Association comes up with $12 trillion worth of money activity per year. Now, they recognize that not all of these transactions should be classified as commerce, in fact, again statistics show that a lot of this $12 trillion is NON commerce, such as, cashing a check, transferring money from checking to savings, or vice versa, transferring money from an interest bearing account to a non interest bearing account... these are logically called lateral transactions. A lateral transaction is NOT commerce. According to statistics, about 40% of this $12 trillion would be classified as lateral transactions. So, what amount of tax could be raised with only a 1% commerce tax? Using the M1 figures alone (they also recognize that there are additional components of the money supply such as M2, M3, and so on, but the Taxpayers Association keeps the calculations simple by only using M1 to prove this point), the non-lateral commerce amounts to 60% of this $12 trillion, or $7.2 trillion per year! A 1% tax on that is 72 billion per year! That's much more than the state of Florida raises currently with its 967 taxing entities collecting excise taxes, use taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes--all taxes--combined!!!!!

-- Steve (Nospam@eartlink.net), March 29, 2000.