I never understood why Levin wants to ban the possibility of a Fair Tax. He says on his show that he’s open to it, but the Liberty Amendment is anti-Fair Tax.
H.R. 25 proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, and would not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.
Although H.R. 25 proposes under its “sunset provision” that after a seven year period once the “fair tax” is in operation and if the 16th Amendment is not repealed in that time period, the fairtax will be ended, it is important to note its companion legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment [H.R. 16], even if adopted into our Constitution, Congress would retain the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes as was done during the civil war when the first income tax was levied and was later upheld as being constitutional.
I also reject the fairtax because it violates the wisdom of our founding fathers under which they agreed that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned so that each state’s contribution of the total sum being collected would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress ___a rule based upon an idea of representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man, one vote, and one vote one dollar. Socialists love their one man one vote part of the rule of apportionment but fear with a passion one vote one dollar.
Under the “fairtax” although the people of a state may contribute a larger share to fund the federal government, they may not get a proportionately equal say in Congress relative to their contribution on how their money will be spent because the rule of apportionment would not be observed!
And what were the very intentions behind the rule of apportioning both representatives and any general tax laid among the States?
In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”
And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :
“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
And 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” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
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, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“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
Having stated the above, I do support Congress raising its revenue from taxing consumption, but only as our Founders intended under our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN
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.
There has never been a better time to take out the IRS.
THE FAIR TAX WOULD BE THE BIGGEST TRANSFER OF POWER FROM DC BACK TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY’S HISTORY.
The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
The FairTax brings jobs back to America by allowing companies to operate on our soil tax free rather than paying the current corporate income tax of 35 percent. Under the FairTax, various economists have predicted higher economic growth ranging from 7 to 14 percent over the current system, more jobs, and higher wages.
With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone. The FairTax as proposed raises the economy’s capital stock by 42 percent, its labor supply by 4 percent, its output by 12 percent, and its real wage rate by 8 percent.
As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.