Time: Tue Sep 23 17:18:44 1997 by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23169; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:39:33 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:39:12 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: H.R. 2490 -- Terminate the IRC of 1986 <snip> > >>> H.R. 2490 >> >>> I don't know how to write or add to web pages (especially on short >>> notice) but PLEASE get the word out about Rep. (OK) Stever Largent's bill >>> to *terminate* (yes, "terminate" the IRS code. Read the bill that I've >>> copied from his web page which I got from searching HOTBOT for his >>> "person" only. Maybe you can get Dr. Tavel to help with this also. >> >>I'll send this to you in HTML as well, minus my commentary. >> >>If you want I can post it on my Web page. >> >>> H.R.2490 >> >>> SPONSOR: Rep Largent, (introduced 09/17/97) A bill to terminate the >>> Internal Revenue Code of >>> 1986. >> >>> COSPONSORS: >>> Rep Kasich - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Chambliss - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Forbes - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Hilleary - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Hoekstra - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Jones - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Manzullo - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Packard - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Redmond - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Thornberry - 09/18/97 >>> Rep Wamp - 09/18/97 >> >>> 105th CONGRESS >>> 1st Session H.R. 2490 >> >>> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES >> >>> Mr. Largent introduced the following bill; which was refereed to the >>> Committee on Ways and Means. >> >>> A BILL >>> To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. >> >>> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the >>> United States of America in Congress assembled, >>> SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE >>> OF 1986. >>> No tax shall be imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986-- >>> (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2001, >>> and; >> >>Well, well, I always wondered how they would word the code termination. No >>tax imposed? Since was does a tax imposed = a tax liability, without >>instating or removing any reference of liability in the text of the law. >> >>> (2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a >>> taxable year, on any taxable event >>> or for any period after December 31, 2001. >> >>Hmm, 2001? >> >>I wonder if they calculating, or aware of, the Y2K factor. >> >>> SECTION. 2. STRUCTURE OF NEW FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM. >>> The Congress hereby declares that any new Federal tax system should >>> be a simple and fair system that-- >> >>But don't they realize that the present tax is already simple and fair. >>That's what they have been doing for the past 80 years, making a little more >>"fairer" here, a little "simpler" there, Till, wa la, we end up with the >>present 6000+ monstrosity we have now. >> >>> (1) applies a low rate to all Americans, >> >>Yeah, like zero. >> >>> (2) requires a supermajority of both Houses of Congress to raise >>>taxes, >> >>How about a supermajority to only use taxes to promote the general welfare, >>you know the real general welfare, like doing for the states what they can't >>do for themselves. I think the concept is buried in some old document called >>the constipation... constipulation ... con... consti... something or other. >> >>> (3) provides tax relief for working Americans, >> >>You want to provide tax relief for working Americans, stay the F*** out of >>their pockets. >> >>> (4) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax collection >>>abuses, >> >>I love this. Protects the rights of tax payers. Are they admitting that the >>current system doesn't? If so then when has it been in their authority to not >>protect our rights? In fact they were they not created to protect rights? >> >>This is an interesting admission. >> >>> (5) eliminates the bias against savings and investment, >>> (6) promotes economic growth and job creation, >>> (7) does not penalize marriage or families, and >> >>When has it been in their authority, constitutionally, to penalize anyone? >> >>> (8) protects the integrity of Social Security and Medicare. >> >>Protects what integrity? >> >>Puleeease, that's like saying that those who created it had/have integrity to >>begin with. I don't want the "integrity" of social security and Medicare >>protected, I want them gone as well. Oh well, I guess one thing at a time. >> >>Don't get me wrong, if there is a chance that we can get this Bill to fly, >>and rid ourselves of one less scourge, then I'll do what I can to get as many >>to respond to it as is possible. But I can't let this equally deceptive >>wording, as above, go unanswered. It's a shame the real deception of the >>whole system will never be understood, except by a few. >> >>Bill Watts > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail