Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS
1/18/2015 | johnwk

Posted on 01/18/2015 5:23:37 PM PST by JOHN W K

 

SEE: Cruz: Abolish the IRS

January 13th , 2015

”Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said Monday that Republicans should take advantage of their control of Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

“We need to pass fundamental tax reform making our tax code simpler, flatter, fairer,” he said Monday at Heritage Action’s 2015 conservative policy summit. ”And I’ll tell you, the single most important tax reform, we should abolish the IRS.”


What is discouraging is, the above article goes on to say that Senator Ted Cruz ”… acknowledged it’s not really possible to abolish the IRS or adopt a flat tax while Obama is in office …”

Seems to me even if Obama were to agree to adopting a “flat tax” on “incomes” (profits, gains, salaries, interest, wages, tips, etc.) which I believe is what Senator Cruz is in favor of, the IRS would have to remain intact and the American people would continue to suffer all the miseries connected with this hideous form of taxation.

Would Congress not remain in charge of defining what is and is not “taxable income”? Wouldn’t a flat tax in incomes continue to allow taxation to be used by our federal government as a weapon against political foes, and to silence free speech? Is a flat tax on “income” not intentionally designed to place an unequal tax burden on our most productive and hardworking citizens, who are then taxed directly on their earned wages which is then used by corrupted politicians to buy the votes of the unemployed and unproductive who have been made dependent upon “free government cheese”? Would a flat tax on incomes not continue to generate class warfare and divide American Citizens into countless factious groups, each of which attack each other and seek to benefit from this unequal form of direct taxation? And how about the billions of dollars wasted each year by America’s taxpayers and businesses to conform to its regulations and record keeping, and its mandatory divulgence of personal information? Is this not in itself a cause to reject this hideous and oppressive form of taxation?

Moving on, is it really true that it’s not possible to abolish the IRS as we know it and adopt a fairer system of federal taxation while “Obama is in office” as suggested by Senator Cruz? Seems to me that Article V of our Constitution provides a pathway which would remove Obama from an effort to close down the IRS as we know it and adopt real tax reform. But this procedure, sending an amendment to the states for ratification would require the Republican controlled House and Senate to be sincere about wanting real tax reform.

I fully agree with Senator Cruz that "Republicans should take advantage of their control of Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service". And this could be accomplished by the Republican controlled Congress sending the following constitutional amendment to the states for ratification!



The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment, and require an annually balanced federal budget


“SECTION 1. 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

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.

"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population

This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.

"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


_______


The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?


JWK



“…..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



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: abolishirs; cruz; irs; obamataxes; reform; senator; tax; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: All
I wonder why Senator Cruz said we cannot get meaningful tax reform while Obama is president. He probably was referring to the president's veto power. But if the Republican controlled Congress sent an amendment to the states such as the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, it would effectively remove Obama from the process. Is it possible that Senator Cruz may have missed this pathway to real tax reform? Keep in mind that Republican Governors are in control in a majority of the States! Sending an amendment to the states at this point in time which offers real tax reform seems like a good idea!

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.

41 posted on 01/19/2015 6:53:06 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
I'm not thrilled with the amount of income tax I pay either. But the idea that we can fund the government through tariffs is not realistic.

I said an additional consumption tax (NRST) would be needed. Income taxes are evil. Pass it on.

42 posted on 01/19/2015 6:54:16 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

The IRS isn’t about collecting revenue - that comes from the fed reserve’s bottomless credit card. The IRS in its modern configuration exists solely as a hammer to be swung whenever elements within the population become uppity. It’s the Bureau of Law by Whim. Every American is already guilty until proven innocent. Who gets prosecuted is purely a political decision - and the courts go along with this farce.


43 posted on 01/19/2015 7:00:56 AM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Why not go with the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT which would return us to our Constitution's original plan as our founders intended it to operate?

Do you have the text for that?

44 posted on 01/19/2015 7:08:16 AM PST by zeugma (The act of observing disturbs the observed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Okay, let’s crunch the numbers, assuming a 50% tariff, as it was for most goods in the beginning.

The USD value of all goods and services imported into the US in 2013 was $2,770,400,000,000. Let’s say $2.77 trillion.

50% of that would be $1.385 trillion, assuming all exporters could afford to continue to export to the US. If so, that is less than the current (2013) US budget of $2.74 trillion.

On the strongly plus side, most exporters would be unable to sell in the US for 50% more, so would no longer export to the US. This would require that the US rebuild much of its industry to provide us with the goods and services we wanted.

In turn, our export industries would be wiped out because foreign nations would no longer be able to afford our goods. The US would probably have enormous inflation.

The bottom line is that it might be good for the US in the long term, but it would be very painful to us to get to a new state of economic equilibrium. So it would have to be planned very methodically.


45 posted on 01/19/2015 8:47:58 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
In turn, our export industries would be wiped out because foreign nations would no longer be able to afford our goods. The US would probably have enormous inflation.

The foreigners are not buying our stuff now due either to we don't make it anymore or it is tariff'ed by them already(other nations). So this part of your argument holds no water. The rest is ok but the economic stimulus of rebuilding our industries would be like WWII econnomically. It would be fabulous.

46 posted on 01/19/2015 10:06:05 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Second that!!!


47 posted on 01/19/2015 10:09:15 AM PST by Osage Orange (I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: central_va

US exports of goods and services in 2013 were $2.3 trillion. So it was $2.77 trillion in, and $2.3 trillion out.


48 posted on 01/19/2015 10:24:17 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
US exports of goods and services in 2013 were $2.3 trillion. So it was $2.77 trillion in, and $2.3 trillion out.

Everything we export gets tariff'ed. I think the only country that doesn't charge us a duty is Singapore. LOL.

49 posted on 01/19/2015 10:27:07 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
See the OP for a rough draft of the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

JWK

50 posted on 01/19/2015 11:14:47 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
With all due respect and sincerity, a national sales tax is a bad idea. Taxing consumption as our Founders intended is a very good idea.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


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.”



Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.


Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.


Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.


The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?

Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitution’s original tax plan, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and 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. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?



JWK



“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ ___Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

51 posted on 01/19/2015 11:58:42 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson