1. Get Gear'd Up! Enter to WIN $1000 in gear!

    Please Click Here for full details and to enter. You will need to be registered and logged in to view the details and to participate.

    Thanks and good luck to everyone

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