Posted on 12/31/2013 7:42:46 PM PST by JOHN W K
With the 2014 election just around the corner “conservatives” have the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of the American people by offering real tax reform. Have most Americans not witnessed the progressive’s disastrous and slavish experiment associated with the 16th Amendment and taxes levied on incomes without apportionment? Have we not recently seen how this very tax has been used during election time to punish and harass those who dare to speak out and against our despotic federal government? Have we not also witnessed for generations how this despicable tax is used by our federal government to not only redistribute the paychecks of America’s hard working productive citizens to fund Washington’s “free cheese wagon”, but how it is also used to tighten the regulatory iron fist of government around the necks of Americans labor, businesses and industries?
Our founding fathers were well aware of the slavish and oppressive nature of taxes which are levied directly upon the people. In speaking of this kind of tax and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose direct taxes, Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797 warns his colleagues:
"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."
Unfortunately progressives were able to con the American People in the early 1900s and convinced them to adopt the 16th Amendment. At the time progressives made their appeal to the average working person who was not to be taxed under the proposed Amendment. It was fraudulently sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their “fair share” in taxes.
During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitated the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.
And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).
But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a taxing power to allow the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to also squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and eventually make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But the progressives, after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, patiently waited for one generation to pass when the intentions for which the amendment was adopted would be forgotten and a war to begin before completing their mission, which was the imposition of the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942!
FDR’s class warfare tax unconstitutionally expanded taxes on “gains, profits and unearned income” to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s “earned wages”. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income”, the temporary tax on working people’s “earned wages” was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort.
And here we are today, 70 years later, and this thieving tax, which robs the bread which poor working people have earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then into a dependency upon government for their subsistence ___ an outcome which is needed by our corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive, dependent voting block!
Now, with this in mind the question is, with another election upon us, will Senator Ted Cruz and “conservatives” step forward and offer real tax reform, or will they do a Mark Levin “fan dance” in order to keep alive a tyrannical tax which every despotic government loves? And how may this type of taxing power be withdrawn from Congress’ reach? It can begin with “conservatives” who run for office in 2014 to propose a 32 word amendment to our Constitution which declares:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
These words, if added to our Constitution, would end taxes calculated from incomes and return us to a consumption based taxing system, which is what our founders intended, and which proved to pave the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world because it held Congress’ greedy taxing appetite in check! Hamilton stresses this in Federalist No 21 with regard to taxes on articles of consumption:
“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
I suspect if “conservatives” running for office this coming election unite in an agreement to send the above 32 word amendment to the States for ratification if they are elected, it will not only verify they are true conservatives who want to return to our nation’s founding principles which includes its original tax plan, but they are willing to confront the existing Washington establishment head on which now thrives from and worships the socialist/progressive inspired tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
Don’t look to Washington for solutions: it is the problem.
Every time an election nears, everybody starts with the “tax reform” crap. Promises, promises ... yet, after the election, tax reform seems to be something that never happens.
Similar to the agrarian reform all South American dictators promise their supporters until they come into power.
There are a lot bigger issues for this country, at the moment, with all due
respect.
Fix that, and the other problems go away.
/johnny
That said, taxes on businesses should be zero, dividend tax be done away with and taxes to the fed top rate at 12%.
Interesting that you put Ted Cruz into the mix without understanding that the situation requires the whole of Congress (or at least a majority) and these actions would also require the approval of the Senate which is not and likely will not be controlled by the Republicans. Of course even if controlled, do you really think that they will change their stripes and do things that are actually better for all Americans and not the businesses? Oh you have lots to be learned, mostly after the fact!
How hard will the McRINOs fight against tax reform to preserve the status quo?
If the GOP passes amnesty, none of this will matter.
The budget is twice the size of its income, which means the size and reach of government is twice the size it ought to be.
I have yet to hear one politician seriously propose the elimination or even shrinking of one department of government. They are content to complain and to nibble away at the edges of the problem, counting it as a great victory if they shave away a fraction of a percentage point from the rate of increase in the deficit.
No. They have to watch Obama bring out the VETO pen. However the Republicans had the House, Senate and President for awhile and did absolutely NOTHING. Why do we believe they will start now?
Very good OP ED, congrats.
The politics + the current size of the Leviathan IMO precludes the solution of just repealing the 16th amendment. I would certainly move towards a Forbes Flat Tax and repeal of Obamacare.
Matter of fact I would urge Cruz to call Forbes and get his platform and run on that. Forbes had the right message but was the wrong messenger when he ran against Bush II in the primaries.
I agree — I also think that a flat-rate, no exemption, no credit, no write-off, no refund, no exception income-tax would encourage people to consider the constitutional limits, as they'd be paying for them.
Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes?
JWK
“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act
Socialism/communism is, despite its catchphrase (from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
), an inherently inequitable system precisely because people's abilities and needs are all different — thus a flat-rate tax (applied equally) is not in any manner socialist/communist but proportional.
Why not support ending this socialist tax with adding the 32 words I mentioned above which would return us to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate?
Taxing the states without allowing their representation would be disastrous — the popular election of senators [17th Amd] means that the States-as-entities are not represented in the federal government.
Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes?
What about "flat-rate" combined with "no credit" and "no write-off" and "no exemption" would allow for 45% not to pay taxes? Hm?
. Your flat tax calculated from profits, gains, wages, tips, etc., is a socialist inspired tax. And to your comment that your tax is “proportional”, does not, even remotely, suggest it is not socialist in nature. In fact, the harder a person works to feed his/her family, the more government takes in a proportionate fashion, and then redistributes their earnings to the unproductive who escape paying an equal share. In fact, your tax equates with “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” It is not an equal tax.
Our founding fathers wrote into our constitution that both representation and direct taxation shall be by the rule of apportionment. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution are as follows:
State`s Pop.
_________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
Pop. of U.S.
State`s Pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S FAIR SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.
Now, if a direct tax is laid directly upon the people by the federal government as commanded by our Constitution, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax. For example, if Congress laid an apportioned tax among the States to raise a specific sum and went directly to the people of New York to collect New York’s share of the tax and each resident of New York had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend revenue from the federal treasury, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!
Progressives and socialist just love their one man one vote part of the Constitution, but when it comes time for that one vote one dollar part of our Constitution to be enforced they run and hide and pretend our Constitution does not mean what our founders intended it to mean.
In any event, let our founders speak for themselves regarding the rule of apportionment:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
Also see: “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
And, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255
And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil being corrected!:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
Our founding fathers understood the importance of tying both representation and taxation by the same standard and they commanded by our Constitution, representation with a proportional obligation, or, one vote one dollar. And it is this part of the rule of apportionment (one vote one dollar) which pinko progressives disdain because it discourages the Congressional Delegations of those states with large pinko populations such as New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc., from using their large representation in Congress to recklessly spend money from the federal treasury, and it does this by requiring them to return home with a bill for their State to pay an apportioned share of the federal tab proportionately equal to their voting strength in Congress whenever a general tax is laid among the States.
As I correctly pointed out above, progressives and socialists just love their one man one vote part of the Constitution, but when it comes time for that one vote one dollar part of our Constitution they run and hide and pretend our Constitution does not mean what our founders intended it to mean.
Regards,
JWK
They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
It may be a better system, but only if those two are met. Ask yourself what the chances of repealing both the 16 and 17th are, moreover, ask yourself what the result would be of applying your system while denying the states-as-entities representatives would do (it would make the states slaves to the FedGov, moreso than currently).
It may be a better system, but only if those two are met. Ask yourself what the chances of repealing both the 16 and 17th are, moreover, ask yourself what the result would be of applying your system while denying the states-as-entities representatives would do (it would make the states slaves to the FedGov, moreso than currently).
OneWingedShark
First of all, it is not my “system”. It’s a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan. You ask, what are the chances of repealing the 16th Amendment and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? I would say they are not good when, to date, there is not one “conservative” in Congress willing to defend and promote our Constitution’s original tax plan. Also, keep in mind there is not one so-called “conservative” talk show host who will dare to mention how our Constitution’s original tax plan worked. But they will use their microphones to promote various tax reform proposals which are intentionally designed to keep or expand Congress’ iron fisted taxing power.
Here is a list of the “conservative” media personalities I have in mind: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain. Not one of these “conservatives”, to the best of my knowledge, have ever explained how our Constitution’s original tax plan worked, nor have they ever made any mention that our founders specifically forbid notes of any kind, and this would include Federal Reserve Notes, to be made a legal tender. If these two issues were addressed “honest money and an honorable taxing system” our federal government would once again be forced into being our servant and not the masters which they now believe they are.
Finally, repealing the 17th Amendment does nothing to restore an honest money system or an honorable taxing system, which are the primary causes of our present miseries.
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
Either you intentionally don't get it, or you weren't listening to the replies so far: the 17th Amendment robs the States-as-entities of any representation in the federal government, thus to return to the original tax-plan (without correcting this) would be (a) to endorse taxation without representation [as it is the states being taxed], and (b) to place the States themselves into a sort of slavery/subjugation to the Federal Government.*
I honestly don't give a crap about what radio-hosts are saying, one way or the other — they are ultimately irrelevant.
* Granted, it is common for people to take this view-point claiming that the US Constitution's supremacy-clause grants supremacy over everything despite the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Cruz and our side are being very quiet lately... I suspect a big plan is underway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.