PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO FREE REPUBLIC TODAY OR BECOMING A MONTHLY DONOR
CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO DONATE
Posted on 10/23/2011 4:57:25 PM PDT by JOHN W K
I’m sorry but your claim to know what the Founder intended based on nothing but your own opinions is absurd.
>> In defense of the poster, did you read the article? It appears that in fact Herman is not clear in his article about the difference between a VAT, the Fair tax, and a national sales tax. >>
I did read the article, and I’ve read the VAT tax he was opposing in the article, and I’ve read the FAIR TAX book. If you had read any or all of that, you would have understood it too.
I find it odd how the critics of Empowerment zones always overlook the fact they were created by Reagan.
I agree.
Ho hum. So, I wonder who you support? How is a flat tax an attack? Seems to me we have the “entitlement class” paying nothing at one end (the occupy crowd), and the GE and Berkshire Hathaway crony capitalism at the other. Cain is the ONLY person who would make BOTH groups PAY their fair share.
Fair share? Our founding fathers wrote the fair share formula in our Constitution for any general tax laid among the States! Our founders understood a suicidal evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation’s population is free to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. And to protect against such evil they adopted the rule of apportionment to be strictly enforced if imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and internal taxes on “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, in which case a general tax was then to be laid among the States, but only in compliance with the rule of apportionment which predetermines each State’s fair share of a total sum being raised, and prevents the class warfare game. The formula being:
State`s Pop
. _________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN
U.S. pop.
But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves and explain 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 [under the Articles of Confederation], 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 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. Progressives 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 implemented they run and hide and pretend our Constitution does not mean what our founders intended it to mean.
Regards,
JWK
So are you knowingly misleading here or do you simply have no clue what you are talking about?
The Constitution was amended as it was designed to be to allow for an income tax. I can see an argument for the same to happen for a national sales tax, but if you’re suggesting that we go back to a pre-1913 tax system, you’re dreaming.
It will NEVER happen.
Thank you for spelling out Cain’s actual intention, to REPLACE the existing tax code with his 999 plan.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen Freepers screaming about “adding” new taxes on top of the taxes we already have.
>> Herman is not getting rid of the income tax with his 999 plan. >>
I hate to be snippy, but you are simply factually ignorant in every post you’ve made in this thread. Cain gets rid of a 70 thousand word code in his 999 plan and replaces it with a simple flat income tax piece. Are you being obtuse on purpose or is this really that complicated for you?
That’s a serious question, because your vapid assumptions are stunting any serious debate on the issue because kindergarten mistakes have to be corrected before we can even get to the philosophical issues.
PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO FREE REPUBLIC TODAY OR BECOMING A MONTHLY DONOR
CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO DONATE
Yep, jut like you Marty, the author of this article is another lying opportunist knowingly misrepresenting what Cain actually said.
Try reading the Cain articles for a change, don't just lie about them.
Think what you will of a national sales tax, but it's not "another" or even a new power. You pay a national sales tax every time you buy a gallon of gasoline or a tire (just to name two). The federal government has imposed excise taxes on goods and services for virtually our entire history.
You can certainly disapprove of the power, but you can't call it new.
Probably all the talk show hosts know more than you on the subject....maybe you should reconsider your stand and maybe your the one that is wrong...Unless you see yourself as being smarter than all of them put together...(but I doubt that you are)
>> Thank you for spelling out Cain’s actual intention, to REPLACE the existing tax code with his 999 plan.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen Freepers screaming about “adding” new taxes on top of the taxes we already have. >>
You and Ken21 are going to have to take it from here on this thread - I can’t risk losing IQ points by continuing to debate a few of the folks involved here. It is giving me a headache.
Those carve outs are a legitimate concern with the plan. So is transition and a few other issues. What kills me are the ignorant misconceptions that so many keep repeating - which adds nothing to the discussion.
I would say 99.9% of the complaints about 999 are based in ignorance. I’d like to get to some real issues with it.
Are you just too stupid to comprehend what Cain said RIGHT in your 1st line?
9-9-9 REPLACES, it does not ADD to the Tax code.
Are you really this completely stupid?
Second in stupidity to “But 9-9-9 can become 25-25-25!” like all other tax systems are immune from rate increases. FUD is alive and well on FR, and it’s pathetic.
Friend, you've done an admirable job of rebutting the fallacious statements about Cain's tax proposal on this thread. None of us can do more than reiterate what you've already said.
Well done (and I'm outta here, too).
Are you unable comprehend what Cain said RIGHT in the very 1st line of your ignorant rant?
9-9-9 REPLACES, it does not ADD to the Tax code.
Are you really this completely stupid?
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.
