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Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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?
I like it, because my ideal would be to repeal the 16th, and then tax only those things that the Federal government did before the tax was in place.
Of course we wouldn’t be able to sustain a large Federal Government in that case, which would be fine with me.
>”If “slavery” by definition is an income tax rate of 100%, then any lesser percentage is merely a matter of degree”<
It’s just making Slavery “Part Time”, like Obamacare is making Employment “Part Time”.
JWK
My comment is true. Each state’s burden would be different, call it whatever you want to.
To answer your question, I have no problem with “Representation with a proportional financial obligation whenever a direct tax is levied among the states.” It’s a wonderful principle.
How would it work today? Would it be triggered for each new aircraft carrier the Navy requested? Each new paint job for a federal building. Every time a soldier needed a new pair of boots? How would it work for repairs to an interstate highway? In an average day, how many direct taxes would you estimate the Federal Government would impose on the states? 1,000? 10,000? How large would the Federal bureaucracy have to be to manage such a task? As large as the IRS you just abolished?
The little example you offered of the $3M direct tax of 1813 was quite quaint, but not particularly instructive for an era of federal budgets approaching 4 Trillion dollars.
JWK
The apportioned tax would be triggered whenever Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes levied upon specifically chosen articles of consumption and borrows to meet its expenditures. Our founder's intentions are expressed in a number of the state ratification documents, e.g. see:
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-
JWK
You really need to refrain from unsupportable assumptions.
It diminishes your argument and makes others less inclined to take you or your proposal seriously.
Goodnight.
JWK
That is what you appeared to suggest and why I asked a question.
You really need to differentiate between a question and assumption. Not doing so makes you look silly.
Good night!
JWK
I support Ted Cruz and the flat tax.
:-)
I'm not one of them!
JWK
The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream
Neither am I. ;-)
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.