H.R.4646

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by rdowlg, Oct 31, 2010.

  1. rdowlg

    rdowlg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    19
    > This is well worth checking out.
    >
    >
    > This is a copy of a e-mail that came across my desk that I thought the readers might be interested in.
    >
    >
    > H. R. 4646
    >
    > I have gone into THOMAS
    > (Library of Congress) and printed out and read all 15 pages of
    > this bill which
    > has been given the "Short Title" of "Debt Free America Act." It
    > is the
    > most socialistic thing I have ever read. Just think, if you
    > deposit
    > $5,000.00 into your checking account or savings account the bank
    > has to
    > take out 1% or $50.00 of that money and send it to Washington .
    > Then, any
    > checks or cash you take out of your bank they will deduct 1%
    > from what is still
    > in the bank and send it to Washington . Total put in the Bank
    > $5,000.00.
    > $100.00 of that you give to Washington .
    >
    > This bill, spells it out
    > that everyone will pay the Government 1% of their gross income.
    > Page 9 states
    > the House and Senate shall convene not later than November 23,
    > 2010 and Page 11
    > states the vote on passage shall occur not later than December
    > 23, 2010.
    > If
    > you don't know who your Congressman or Senator is, go to Google,
    > type in "(your
    > state) Congressman email address". When it comes up, click on
    > "Complete
    > E-mail address for Congress/House, Senate, Governors and get
    > both e-mail and FAX
    > info.
    > The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep
    > Peter DeFazio D- Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. It is
    > now in
    > committee and will probably not be brought out until after the
    > Nov. elections.
    > Suggest that you pass this along and also to your state senator
    > and
    > representative and US Congressman and Senators.
    >
    > One
    > percent transaction tax is proposed
    > President Obama's finance team is
    > recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after
    > the November
    > election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all
    > transactions at any
    > financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any
    > deposit you make, or
    > move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a
    > 1% tax charged.
    > If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct
    > deposit, 1% tax
    > charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax
    > charged, If you take
    > cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged. This is from the man who
    > promised that if
    > you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of
    > new tax. Keep
    > your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn.
    > Some
    > will say aw it's just 1%... remember once the tax is there they
    > can raise it at
    > will.
    > http://www.standard.net/node/44797
    >
    > IMHO...
    >
    > HR4646 is just one
    > of many tax proposals targeted for the "Lame Duck" session right
    > after the
    > November election. Unfortunately that congressional session is
    > a very
    > dangerous time, with reps who lost the election having one last
    > chance to do
    > whatever they want before leaving office, and newly (re-)
    > elected reps having
    > two years for the public to forget and be distracted about
    > whatever they did.
    > Adding to the danger this year is the pending expiration of the
    > Bush tax
    > cuts, for which total inaction will mean a tax increase for
    > nearly everyone.
    > Furthermore, the report of Obama's Deficit Reduction Committee
    > will be
    > released, which will also be an impetus to bring all these bills
    >
    > forward.
    >
    > Concerning transaction taxes alone, proposals have ranged from
    > .025% (targeting primarily high frequency traders) to HR4646's
    > 1%. Notable
    > about HR4646 (and left out of the email below) is that the
    > amount paid in
    > transaction taxes would be creditable against income tax owed -
    > meaning that
    > unless you do a lot of transactions it is unlikely that the tax
    > as proposed
    > would result in a net increase in your total federal tax
    > liability, BUT if the
    > income tax goes up as well (see below) your total taxes could go
    > up in a stealth
    > manner. History also says that both the percentage of tax and
    > the
    > allowable credit are likely to be "adjusted" in the future, and
    > as all new taxes
    > this one definitely warrants opposition.
    >
    > The even more worrisome tax
    > proposal to be aware of in the lame duck session is a Value
    > Added Tax (VAT tax).
    > This would be a kind of national sales tax with a nominal range
    > of 5% -
    > 20%. The left wingers are salivating all over this potential
    > revenue
    > source, as they have it in Europe and elsewhere and present it
    > as just bringing
    > America in line with the rest of the world. A VAT tax is
    > onerous,
    > difficult to calculate, and inflationary but otherwise mostly
    > invisible to the
    > average person on the street because merchants would be required
    > to simply roll
    > it into the sales price of whatever they are selling. I am far
    > more
    > concerned about the possibility of a VAT tax than a transaction
    > tax.
    >
    > All
    > of these proposals are couched as offsetting a reduction,
    > simplification, or
    > elimination of the income tax. I'm all for eliminating the
    > income tax, or
    > short of that at least simplifying and reducing it. However,
    > again looking
    > at history if we allow a new tax without repealing the old tax
    > AT THE SAME TIME
    > IN THE SAME BILL, what we will end up with is both the new tax
    > and the old tax.
    > And often what they have in mind is to allow the Bush tax cuts
    > to expire,
    > thus increasing income taxes at the same time they introduce the
    > new tax and
    > make it creditable against the income tax - so it looks like
    > you're paying the
    > same or less income tax but you're also paying this new tax as
    > well. But
    > they get to claim the new tax does not result in additional
    > total liability,
    > because it is fully creditable against the income tax.
    > Very slimy
    > (what else would you expect?)
    >
    > Also bear in mind that the bill that passes
    > will be far more dangerous than any of the bills currently out
    > there you or I
    > could look at, because it's almost certain that none of the
    > bills in their
    > current form will pass. Instead, like Obama Care, lame duck tax
    > reform is
    > likely to be an enormous bill running hundreds of pages,
    > introduced mere hours
    > before it is voted in based on secret back room deals, about
    > which we find the
    > details weeks, months, or years later.
    >
    > REMEMBER IN
    > NOVEMBER
  2. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    The bait in that trap is that they claim it will "eventually" abolosh the income tax.

    Pops

Share This Page