Posted on 02/04/2014 4:39:05 PM PST by JOHN W K
SEE: Ted Cruz readies for next round of tea party-fueled fight
Gromer Jeffers Jr.
03 February 2014 10:36 PM
Now, Cruz said, he wants to engage voters on other issues as well. He said he hoped Congress would use this year to overhaul tax and regulatory policy. And later he expressed his support for ideas like a flat federal income tax rate for everyone, saying people should mail back their tax returns on a postcard.
“We need to get back to the policies that work, like fundamental tax reform,” he said.
This is very disturbing. What we really need to do is get back to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, especially with reference to direct taxation! I thought Senator Cruz wanted to abolish the IRS. As long as Congress exercises a power to lay and collect taxes calculated from wages, profits, gains and other “incomes”, the IRS will not be abolished nor will the countless acts of tyranny end which are now rained down upon the people under a tax which taxes the people directly.
Perhaps Senator Cruz ought to listen to what one of our early members of Congress had to say with respect to direct taxes:
"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."___Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797.
Why not work to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan by supporting the following H/S Resolution?
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: 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.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
I wonder if Senator Cruz has ever studied why our Founder’s demanded in our Constitution that Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States, and went on to further command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Is Senator Cruz 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 would be contributing into our federal treasury under his proposed tax reform and after filling out their tax return on a postcard?
Does Senator Cruz not realize the rule of apportionment, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that each state’s Congressional Delegation, whenever a direct tax is laid among the States to raise a specific sum, is to return home with a bill in hand proportionately equal to its voting strength in Congress, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote one dollar?
Is it impossible for Senator Cruz to imagine the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts if a direct tax were laid and their Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill in hand for their apportioned share of the tax and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their own state treasury and into the United States Treasury?
The truth is, our founder’s tax plan is based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time and if returned to, would reintroduce principles of fairness, such as the rule of apportionment. And what specifically did our Founders say with regard to the rule of apportionment? Let us review part of the historical record!
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 those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government 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
Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
Although it is correct that a flat income tax is still a Progressive Income Tax (the more you make, the more you pay...that is progressive)...I am not going to dump Cruz over this.
It will take awhile to bring back our revenue gathering done by our Founding Fathers...tariffs and duties, w no income tax. Too many on here, and who are conservative, still fall for the Marxist theory of income taxes over tariffs
Cruz does stand for reduced government...and that is a start in the right direction
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: 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.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
Why do you resent ending the socialist/progressive's tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes?
Why do you ignore the protection intended by our founders which commands that all direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States?
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
I just dong have patience for constantly trying to destroy any conservative that goes off the reservation just a little.
If someone has a pattern as RINO that’s one thing, but Ted Cruz is hardly that.
Now maybe you don’t intend this posting to be an attack on Cruz, and you are more concerned about policy, but I have seen too much of this around here.
It has to stop.
I am sorry for the parts of my post there were insulting/over the top.
-JS.
Do you not think proposing to end this horrid tax and returning to our Constitution's original tax plan would not unit America's productive citizens and business owners who now have their earnings stolen and redistributed to those who ride in Obama's free cheese wagon?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
BTTT!
Everything... Apparently you lack not only reading comprehension but practical real world experience.
Now tell me, what do you think about the proposal I offered?
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
JWK
BWAHAHAHHAHAHA. I get more and better reposes than you do. Your thread lacks cogency.
In order to repeal the 16th amendment you need 2/3rd of congress, IOW 67 non rat/rino Senators. and then 3/4 of the states to ratify.
Think the establishment would ever buy into that?
REALLY??????????????????????????
Why should Cruz chase windmills? A flat ta is a possible, doable alternative. Cruz know that even if you don’t.
As Freidman said a national sales ta in the absence of repealing the 16th and we eventually end up with both.
I voted for Forbes in the primaries, when he ran for President. He was the original Tea PArty candidate IMO.
Cruz is as solid as Forbes and a much better speaker.
Our effective rates are decent, yet that certainly hasn't checked .gov. That's why I get sick of people running on taxes, fine, cut .gov first. Then cut taxes.
And ending the Washington Establishment's corruption and thievery carried out under existing taxation will not end until the rule of apportionment is observed as applied to taxation.
Why is it that those who talk the loudest about following the Founder's wisdom written into our Constitution are the first to object to defending our founder's intentions with regard to the rule of apportionment being applied to taxation?
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) [/size]
Do you even know the thinking behind our Constitution's original tax plan which paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world?
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. JWK
The rule of apportion would require 50 different direct taxes for each of the states and commonwealths. The one with the smallest population and thus the lowest rate might readily ratify your amendment, figuring they’re getting a good deal compared to everyone else.
But all the rest would be less and less enthusiastic based on their population ranking from low to high. As many as half if not more might well conclude that they prefer the lowest rate or at least one lower than that apportioned to them.
I find it to be quite fanciful to believe that three quarters of the states would go along with such a scheme. They wouldn’t agree to it in 20 years or 100 years, much less the constitutionally binding seven.
You posted something which is nonsensical. Please refrain from further stupidities.
As for our economic marvel. Take a step back and look at the world today. The world has caught up to US, in different ways.
We by in large have succeeded in growth in the last century because parts of the rest of the world was destroyed, communist, or undeveloped and we grew in debt to fund our adventures. We will be paying for that for years.
Perot would have been the original tea party candidate.
That is not true. The fact is under the rule of apportionment, whenever Congress decides to lay a direct tax to raise a specific sum, the following formula would apply:
States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop.
Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with. And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
JWK
Are we 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 population has contributed into our federal treasury when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
Of course it is, I just called it a tax for the sake of simplicity. Do you prefer the word assessment? It is clearly obvious that each state would be required to pay a different amount, not matter what you call it.
What does your above comment have to do with our Constitution's original tax plan which was based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time?
Are you suggesting the founder's rule tying representation and direct taxation by the same standard is not as valid today as when it was adopted? Do you realize that by enforcing the rule of apportionment as applied to direct taxation would be a crushing blow to the progressive's redistribution of wealth carried out through taxation?
Keep in mind that socialists and progressives love their guarantee to one man, one vote, but they run and hide from the requirement of one vote, one dollar.
The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to protect against some states using their vote to increase the taxes on others without being subject to a proportional tax burden!
Did you miss what PENDLETON stated during the ratification debates?
“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
Do you really believe that representation with a proportional financial obligation is not a valid principle to be followed?
JWK
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 population has contributed into our federal treasury when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
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.