The Fair Tax: attacks federalism, promotes democracy!

It’s absolutely amazing that our Republican Party leaders and many political action groups, when it comes to factual information concerning taxation, “conservatism” and “tax reform“, are suspiciously silent to an important provision of our Constitution which the Founding Fathers agreed upon to provide protection against mob rule vote [democracy], a poison which now works to allow the spending of federal revenue without a proportional obligation in filling our national treasury.

Republicans and political action groups who support H.R. 25 and promote it as being “conservative tax reform“ ignore how it cleverly undermines and violates the Founding Fathers’ agreed upon rule intended to protect us from “democracy” when a general tax is laid among the States to fill the national treasury.

Of course, Republican Conservatives who doubt our founding fathers intentionally agreed upon a specific rule to protect us from “democracy” and its inherent and devastating financial consequences associated with taxing and spending, need to study the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and then judge whether or not H.R. 25 undermines our Founding Fathers’ rule for a general tax among the states.

Those who take the time and study the debates will discover a specific rule was in fact created to protect us from democracy when the states are called upon to contribute into the common treasury, and wealth is used as a measure in calculating a tax among the states.

NOTE:Under the Articles of Confederation a general across-the-board-tax among the states to fill the national treasury was based upon wealth in which each member state agreed to contribute into the common treasury in proportion to its assessed land value, i.e., wealth.

“All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.”

The following quotes from Madison‘s Notes on the convention of 1787 establishes the new rule for a general tax and expose the true nature of Republicans and political action groups who support H. R. 25, a proposal which turns out to be another twist on income taxation and boils down to the following concept___ from each state according to their ability, to Congress’ constituents according to their needs.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS … thought property ought to be taken into the estimate as well as the number of inhabitants. Life & liberty were generally said to be of more value, than property. An accurate view of the matter would nevertheless prove that property was the main object of Society. . . . These ideas might appear to some new, but they were nevertheless just. If property then was the main object of Govt. certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due to those who were to be affected by the Governmt. … He thought the rule of representation ought to be so fixed as to secure to the Atlantic States a prevalence in the National Councils….”

Mr. RUTLIDGE…. The gentleman last up had spoken some of his sentiments precisely. Property was certainly the principal object of Society. If numbers should be made the rule of representation, the Atlantic States will be subjected to the Western. He moved . . . "that the suffrages of the several States be regulated and proportioned according to the sums to be paid towards the general revenue by the inhabitants of each State respectively.”

….“ The value of land had been found on full investigation to be an impracticable rule. The contributions of revenue including imports & exports, must be too changeable in their amount; too difficult to be adjusted; and too injurious to the non-commercial States. The number of inhabitants appeared to him the only just & practicable rule.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS “…the Legislature shall possess authority to regulate the number of Representatives in any of the foregoing cases, upon the principles of their wealth and number of inhabitants."

Mr. BUTLER …urged warmly the justice & necessity of regarding wealth in the apportionment of Representation.

Genl. PINKNEY …dwelt on the superior wealth of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the Government.

Mr. WILLIAMSON …was for making it the duty of the Legislature to do what was right & not leaving it at liberty to do or not do it. He moved that Mr. Randolph's proposition be postpond in order to consider the following "that in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population & wealth of the several States, a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants and 3/5 ths. of those of other descriptions on the 1st. year after this Government shall have been adopted and every year thereafter; and that the Representation be regulated accordingly."

Mr. RUTLIDGE …contended for the admission of wealth in the estimate by which Representation should be regulated. …. He moved that "at the end of years after the 1st. meeting of the Legislature, and of every years thereafter, the Legislature shall proportion the Representation according to the principles of wealth & population"

Mr. SHERMAN …thought the number of people alone the best rule for measuring wealth as well as representation; and that if the Legislature were to be governed by wealth, they would be obliged to estimate it by numbers. He was at first for leaving the matter wholly to the discretion of the Legislature; but he had been convinced by the observations of [Mr. Randolph & Mr. Mason,] that the periods & the rule, of revising the Representation ought to be fixt by the Constitution

Mr. MADISON …Future contributions it seemed to be understood on all hands would be principally levied on imports & exports. …He could not agree that any substantial objection lay agst. fixig numbers for the perpetual standard of Representation…It was said that Representation & taxation were to go together; that taxation and wealth ought to go together, that population & wealth were not measures of each other.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS …moved to add to the clause empowering the Legislature to vary the Representation according to the principles of wealth & number of inhabts. A "proviso that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."

General PINKNEY… liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution.

Mr. WILSON …approved the principle, but could not see how it could be carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS …having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

The tax described in H.R. 25 is a tax calculated from the value of property within each particular state and determines the amount of tax contributed into the common treasury by each particular state. But the rule requiring such a tax to be apportioned among the states based upon each states’ number of allotted representatives is ignored under H.R. 25, and thereby subjugates the agreed upon rule that taxation and representation shall be fixed by the same standard!

Ignoring this rule allows the various State Delegates in Congress Assembled to vote to spend money without a fear of their state having to carrying a proportional obligation to replenish the money spent from the common treasury ___ one of the major defects of income taxation and democracy___ which our founding fathers corrected by the rule of apportioning when a general tax is laid, the new rule intended to guarantee Representation with proportional obligation!

H.R. 25, just as income taxation, is another attack upon property ownership, federalism, and gives in to “democracy”, mob rule vote.

Madison, in talking about democracy, in Federalist Paper No. 10 refers to “the violence of faction” and also emphatically states: “ that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Madison continues: "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."

In controlling the “means“, the founding fathers provided a specific rule by which the various states are to contribute into the federal treasury…a rule which was specifically intended to thwart a specific evil of democracy___ two sheep and a wolf voting for what shall be for dinner.

Sorry for the length of the article, but I thought the information may be useful to some, especially those who have been conned by the proponents of democracy under their socialist friendly H.R. 25 tax proposed reform!

The only tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees add the following words to our Constitution:

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.

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff, loopholes and gobblygoo [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our founder’s plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!

For a documented summary of the rule by which the states have agreed to fill the national treasury in a general across the board tax, CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE for the Founder’s Plan___ scroll down to:
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]

TonyRo76 wrote: What could be so awful about trashing the detestable IRS and getting rid of the unconstitutional income tax?!

Tony,

There is nothing wrong with trashing the socialist friendly existing tax calculated from income, and that is why I support a return to the Founder’s original tax plan by adding the following words to our Constitution:

But H.R. 25 would re-establish the same kind of wealth based tax as income taxation, a tax calculated from income, and do so by not requiring it to be apportioned among the states. H.R. 25 is nothing more than a new twist on income taxation as it calculates the amont of tax to be paid from the value of property!

H.R. 25 would also create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year, and the cost of this entitlement to the American Taxpayers would make the projected cost of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed.

In addition, under H.R. 25, those who do not contribute into the common treasury may receive the entitlement upon registering with government. For example, un-wed moms, who now sit at home and make babies to increase their monthly government check, would be receiving a bonus of about $ 400 per month, just to sit at home and make babies which hard working Americans are then forced to support!

H.R. 25 is a windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and, would be a gift to Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress who would gladly promise to increase the family consumption allowance to buy votes and remain in power!

I could go down the list but the bottom line is, H.R. 25 is not what it appears on is surface!

Regards,

JWK

“In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”—Jefferson

KarlInOhio posted:

From Federalist 21 by Alexander Hamilton: ...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. Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. .. . The FairTax makes the consumption tax a direct tax nationally. I see that as superior to a direct income tax or any indirect (hidden) tax.

KarlInOhio:

You forget to highlight an import part of Hamilton’s quote:

But, what is Hamilton talking about? How may the amounts to be contributed by the rich and poor to be determined by one’s own option? And, how is private oppression of taxes on articles of consumption to be avoided?

Surprise! The answer is to be found in that part of the quote which says, “by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions” which is not the kind of tax a NRST is which would oppress America’s businesses, industries and poor working people.

An across the board NRST, in addition to being oppressive upon America’s businesses, is a plan to tax the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon the necessities of life!

The words of Hamilton obviously indicate certain articles of consumption ought to be excluded from the list of taxable items___ the necessities of life, tools of production and supplies necessary to conduct American businesses___ thereby removing the oppressive nature of taxation and making the tax a more voluntarily paid type of tax, which is exactly what our founding fathers practiced!

A consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in THE FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT FOR OUR COUNTRY

NOTE: those interested may use the PREV IMAGE and NEXT IMAGE buttons at the above link to study the bill___it is refreshing to study statesmen creating a revenue raising bill beneficial for America’s businesses, industries and labor force, as opposed to politicians acting in their own self interest and on behalf of internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation [the NAFTA - CAFTA CROWD] !

Limiting the tax to articles of luxury, and requiring each article to be individually selected and having Congress place a specific amount of tax upon each article chosen, as our founding fathers intended, creates a self regulating check and balance upon Congress, just as Hamilton indicates!

If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation’s labor force impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury and thereby defeat an extension of the revenue, just as Hamilton explains above!

For a recent example of how effective the founder's method of taxing consumption works to control the amount of tax on a specific article chosen by Congress see:Fed luxury tax 1990 in which Congress attempted to lay an outrageous 10 percent tax on boats. And then see: 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats

Had the tax been one or two percent rather than the outrageous 10 percent, it probably would have been paid without much resistance and not adversely affect the industries involved which caused Congress to immediately repeal the tax because of its self regulating feature!

Bottom line, unlike the establishment proposed NRST, our founder's plan grants almost unlimited power to raise essential revenue, [imposts, duties and excise taxes in addition to a general apportioned tax among the states], but also provides various checks and balances to control the actions of Congress and makes Congress immediately accountable if it should resort to borrowing to meet its expenses which then requires a general across the board tax to be apportioned among the states to extinguish the deficit created by Congress___ a tax requiring each state’s Congressional Delegation to return to their own state with a bill for their state’s apportioned share to extinguish the deficit which leaves the various state Legislatures and Governors with the job of raising such revenue because of Congress’ failure to meet its own expenses. What a wonderful moment of accountability created by our Founder’s plan, which is dreaded by the friends of a big federal and socialist government. How dare someone would even think of such accountability!

How dare some people in America still desire that people of a particular socialist state such as N.Y. or New Jersey ought to contribute into the common treasury as our Constitution commands___ in proportion to their big mouths in Congress Assembled when voting to squander money from the federal treasury. How dare some people want New York’s and New Jersey’s Congressional Delegations to return to their state with a bill for their states’ apportioned share to extinguish an annual deficit created by their big spending mouths in Congress Assembled.

But heck, we all know America is infested with socialists and that H.R. 25 is socialist inspired in another way___ its family consumption allowance, a socialist gimmick which would create an entitlement making Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed, and create countless more federal political plum jobs in the process with high paying salaries to disburse money taxed away from the people. This socialist gimmick would also give Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his socialist gang on Capitol Hill a valuable gift . . . a new entitlement which they will promise to increase during election time to remain in power! The only thing the Kennedy type care about is getting the vote of the poor to keep themselves in power. If they cared about the poor working people they would have worked long ago to abolish the taxing of their wages.

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.[ This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Unfortunately poor people are usually the least educated in our society and why the Kennedy socialists are able to con the poor and keep themselves in power. But, wouldn’t it be great to hear Neal Boortz say

“You know folks, I’ve been hoodwinked by a number of stealth socialists on this tax thing. I made a serious error in judgment but have learned to never trust anyone on Capitol Hill, especially those on K Street. I have an announcement. I have decided to take all the money made from the H.R. 25 tax book and use it to now promote real tax reform…a repeal of the 16th Amendment by the following words, and forbid Congress the ability to calculate a tax from income, which is the real TAX problem in American."

Regards,

JWK

Fido969 wrote

Who is the "American Constitutional Research Service"?

Fido:

Hopefully the following answers your question.

I founded The American Constitutional Research Service in 1985 to help promote a return to our constitutional system, as it was intended to function by those who framed and ratified our Constitution. My only associate in this venture, Ed Ellison passed away in 1999. He was an excellent public speaker, excellent in public relations, and we appeared on a considerable number of talk radio shows regarding various constitutional issues.

In 1984 we published a book titled Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan… a documented account of our founding father’s original tax plan, and visited every House and Senate Member‘s office to hand delivered a copy of the book. In some instances, such as Ron Paul, and a few other members of Congress, we personally meet with and discussed the prospects of returning to the founder’s plan. We were on the verge of gaining substantial support across the country as hundreds of letters poured in in support of a return to the Founder’s plan from the talk radio shows.

My primary contributions in this venture was a dedication to endless research at the University of Maryland McKeldin Library [a federal depository]; documenting what the Framers and Ratifiers intended, and printing up thousands of pamphlets for distribution and mailing regarding specific constitutional issues. A number of my research papers, after editing, appeared in The Washington Times, and various other publications.

I also was very persistent with talk radio hosts, pleading with them to give us some air time, and setting up shows. I even managed to get air time on NPR! Unfortunately, my associate passed away and I found myself unable to do what came so natural to Ed…putting the most complex ideas into simple and easily understood language. And so, I packed it in for several years until this new contraption called the computer and internet came along, allowing me to once again participate in the promotion and education of our founding father’s plan as they intended it to work.

In closing, I still participate in the original function of the ACRS, do not accept contributions, have never knowingly promoted information contrary to the legislative intent of our federal Constitution, and am not associated with any political or business group. I will always retract any position stated as being constitutional or un-constitutional if sufficient documentation is produced showing a said position I have taken is contrary to or not within the legislative intent of our federal Constitution. In short, the ACRS promotes and documents constitutional government as intended by those who framed and ratified our Constitution and does so without regard to my personal political views, excluding of course, that it is obligatory upon each of us to abide by the Constitution, as it was contemplated by those who framed and ratified it.

Hopefully the above answers your questions.

Sincerely,

JWK

TonyRo76 wrote:

Hmmm, wow. Thanks for the clarification JWK! I'll have to give this matter more study. Meantime, I've always wondered what would be wrong with returning to the pre-16 methods of bringing revenue into the federal treasury. Can't we just go back to some basic, modest tariffs, etc? Whatever "shortfall" this would entail: good! Then abolish all the spending on worthless, misguided, unconstitutional social programs!

Tony:

I believe what you describe above is promoted in THIS PLATFORM

As to any shortfall from imposts, duties and excise taxes in financing the constitutionally enumerated functions of the federal government, the apportioned direct tax among the States would not only provide an emergency means to meet Congress expenses, but it would also create that necessary moment of accountability when each States’ Congressional Delegation would have to return to their own state with a bill for their States’ apportioned share of the direct tax to extinguish a deficit created by Congress___ leaving the various State Legislatures and Governors with the responsibility of raising that revenue, but having to send it off to Washington, D.C. because Congress was better at spending revenue than raising it!

Bottom line…the Founder’s Plan worked so well that by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

The only tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees add the following words to our Constitution:

Regards,

JWK

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

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.