. 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).