ALERT: H.J.RES.104 will not end taxes calculated from incomes!

4-15-14 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

 

I am very disappointed to learn that some Tea Party Activists are now promoting Representative Jim Bridenstine’s H.J.RES. 104 as a way to “repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the income tax”.  Additionally, donations are being asked to support this movement.  The problem is, if H.J.RES. 104 was adopted and its proposed wording added to our Constitution, the 16^th Amendment would indeed be repealed, but Congress would continue to have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes”. 

The important wording in Representative Jim Bridenstine’s proposed amendment declares:

`Effective 2 years after the ratification of this article of amendment, the sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, and the Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, except in time of war declared by the Congress.'

If the above wording were added to our Constitution Congress would still have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains salaries and other “incomes” by resorting to its power to lay and collect excises taxes!   For example, before the 16^th Amendment was ratified Congress adopted the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 which was a tax upon the privilege [not upon income] of being a corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid by the taxpayer was measured from income realized under a corporate charter, see, FLINT v. STRONE TRACY CO., 220., U.S. 107 (1911) 

 

As you can see, the above example establishes the wording in H.J. RES. 104 would not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes and it is quite disturbing that Tea Party activists was solicit funds to support H.J.RES 104 which would not end taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

Whether intentional or by an oversight, this is the glaring loophole contained in the wording of H.R. RES. 104!  To correct the uncertainty and accomplish what I believe Tea Party activists want, which is to put an end to taxes calculated from “incomes” and close down the IRS as we know it and end the countless sufferings we now experience under taxes calculated from “incomes”, we must follow Jefferson’s sound reasoning:  "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.”  And this is why I have worked on the following wording which ought to be added to H.J.RES. 104:

 

 

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.

 

It is also important to point out that if the above wording were added to our Constitution, which would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan, and was basically intended to allow Congress to raise its revenue by taxing consumption, if an emergency did develop Congress would still have power to lay and collect a direct tax apportioned among the States which can be used to raise a specific sum needed by Congress.  But to prevent the abuse of this direct taxing power our wise Founders created a fair share formula which they wrote into our Constitution.  Considering subsequent amendments added to our Constitution the formula for the direct tax may be expressed as follows:

 

   States’ Pop.

 

----------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

 

U.S. total Pop.

 

Those who are interested in how our Founders utilized this “direct” taxing power, CLICK HERE and scroll down  for an “Act laying a direct tax for $3 million, August 2, 1813”, and view each State’s share of the tax.  You may also CLICK HERE for Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas of the tax in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions.

Finally, those interested in how our Founders intended to allow Congress to raise its needed revenue ought to study our Nation’s FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT  An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandises imported into the United States, July 4, 1798

Note: use “NEXT IMAGE” at bottom of page to review the Act.

The bottom line is, we need to get back to the wisdom and brilliance of our Founders’ original tax plan which was never intended to allow the federal government to enter the States to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes which H.J.RES. 104 would perpetuate if adopted. 

Regards,

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.

[JOHN W K]

I would still like to know why Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots is supporting H.J.RES 104 and suggesting it would end taxes calculated from incomes when it would not.

Aside from that, what objections do you have regarding our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders?

JWK

[Wuli]

I already said what my objections are. Go back and read the comments I already posted for you.

[Wuli]

Wrongo pongo “tariff lover”, I am not any “income tax lover”, simply because I oppose a supremacy of tariffs on imports as a means of federal tax revenue collection.

And YOU are no “founding father”.

[Mr. Lucky]

Answering someones question by referring him to a thousand page plus document, without any further specification, is to concede your loss.

[JOHN W K]

But the fact is, the specific page number was given, page number 687. What is your point?

JWK

[JOHN W K]

You offered no objections to our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders.

JWK