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