Posted on 08/03/2005 4:51:43 PM PDT by RobFromGa
What in the hell are you talking about? Are you sober?
I can't seem to find your "American Constitutional Research" proposal or even testimony for direct taxes anywhere in there, nor for your proposed Constitutional amendment to end the 16th amendment and taxation of incomes.
You do have someone in Congress at least interested enough to offer your direct tax proposals for consideration on the floor of the house do you not?
"To bad the other ratification documents failed to support your ideology isn't it. I note that 3 or four states even proposed and amendment that federal taxes be made contigent upon voter approval, strange how it never made it into the Bill of Rights after being rejected by most states."
ANSWER
My ideology? Your funny old man! And too bad that the direct tax ideology as understood and explained by the founding fathers in the ratification documents mentioned was in fact resorted to several times in our nation's history as I documented for you above.
A.G. wrote:
"Bye the way what is the bill number legislation sponsored in Congress that contains your proposals? You do have at least one Congress critter supporting your proposals do you not?"
ANSWER
The bill I support is called the Constitution of the United States, which allows the people to use Article V to repeal the 16th Amendment and return to our Founding Father's original tax plan! How about jumping on board and promote the following: The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, or any other lawfully realized money.
Or, are you suggesting the servant has become the master over those who created a servant, and the people no longer have any say in their government?
JWK
And you figure it's going to change by simply passing the way taxes are collected, while simply calling for a repeal of the 16th Admendment?
A lot sooner when every voter is engaged in actually paying taxes instead of just a minority of American citizens as has been the case for the last century.
The proof is in the pudding. Repeal of the 16th amendment has been on the agenda since its implementation 92 years ago. Strange how it seems to go nowhere as long as a majority of voters are kept of the tax paying roles isn't it?
I guess those that aren't aware of federal tax burdens don't seem to get very excited about ending their apparent gravy train enough to vote the rascals out who are buying thier votes.
Unfortunately the rest of us in the minority position need to deal with its inevitable result:
"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.
The founders had that one hammered to:
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9."Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
"a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage."
---Alan Keyes 1999
Nice quotes. But, you somehow fail to realize we all see the current system is broken and needs done away with.
Strange, I could have sworn that a very large portion of the current system is totally done away with by the legislation. You did recomend going to the proposed legislation to see what it actually does did you not?
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES
TITLE II--SALES TAX ENACTED
TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS
|
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
Fact is, our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population with a national debt which exceeds $50 Trillion. Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant, and the new servant pays tribute to a gangster government which ignores our most basic law…our constitutions, state and federal.
"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."
Having identified the intended functions of the federal government, intended to operate on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce, here is a current A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies, click on any particular listing to find the countless political plum jobs created in that department, many of which have six figure salaries!
Regards, JWK
It will? Seems to me it taxes 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.
Under the your plan poor working people and the less fortunate in our society, are made to shamefully kneel to the iron fist of government to receive their monthly government check___ a family consumption allowance which cleverly creates a new army of voters dependent upon folks in government for their subsistence. Were we not warned by Hamilton in Federalist Paper 79 that “A POWER OVER A MAN’s SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL”?
JWK
"The sales tax violates the principle of ability to pay. It falls more heavily on the poor; it is, in fact, a "spare-the-rich" tax. A sales tax taking 10 percent of income at the $500 level would take 6 percent at $2,500 and 3 percent above $10,000. It is bad economics to increase the tax load on people who have all they can do to feed and clothe themselves and their families. A sales tax would reduce their productive efficiency and might require Federal relief for them." FDR, 14 April 1942
Could the Federal relief he mentioned come in the form of "prebate checks" every month?
Actually not, as FDR rejected the Treasury proposals for a national retail sales tax and chose to implement higher tax rates on upper income, lowing personal exemption levels and the use of federal withholding instead. It is obvious why he chose to do that as it definitely create a privileged voting class of "poor folk" to rely on.
Seeing as sales tax rebate covers the taxes on expenditures upto the povertylevel for every legal resident, not just "the poor", you are abit off base, especially seeing as every one is indeed required to pay the same rates at the cash register as they buy thier stuff making sure all are keenly aware of just how expensive this federal govenment has become for us all.
Judging from your responses I would guess you support maintaining the current income tax but ending the personal exemptions and credits and and deductibility of all sources of income found there then?
Sending a "prebate check" in the mail every month, provided they are registered, have Social Security Cards for everyone and qualify, while having to spend exactly the same dollar amount as everyone else, doesn't sound like "untaxing" to me.
Pages 35 and 36 of the bill outlines the steps families must take in order to receive this "prebate." In it, it states that registering isn't mandatory. That's true, but paying it is mandatory, isn't it?
What with this "Administering Secretary," submission of forms, documents and proof of your family to this new administrative arm of the government, sounding rather Big Brotherish to me, it appears the IRS won't really be eliminated, but rather simply renamed.
We can get to the enforcement and punitive sections of the bill later on
Constitutional powers which you apparently know little, if anything, about. Do you live in this country?
The bill I support is called the Constitution of the United States, which allows the people to use Article V to repeal the 16th Amendment and return to our Founding Father's original tax plan!
What's the bill number, can't seem to find it anywhere on Thomas as introduced legislation.
You do have sppnsors to get it introduced and accepted by 2/3rds of the House and and 2/3rds of the Senate as well as 3/4ths of the states do you not?
Given that the top one percent of wage earners are paying some 50% of income taxes collected, it sounds as if we are to feel sorry for the wealthy 1 % "minority" and they need relief, on the backs of the middle class and the poor.
Strange how you claim this bill does away with so much, yet the constitution outlines a vastly different method of repealing the 16th Admendment. Did you somehow miss that Income Taxes aren't truly eliminated until the Admendment authorizing them is also eliminated?
You did recomend going to the proposed legislation to see what it actually does did you not?
Yes, I did. Now, how about going back and reading more than just the section titles?
What with this "Administering Secretary," submission of forms, documents and proof of your family to this new administrative arm of the government
Strange I don't find the term "Administering Secretary" used in the legislation as regards the Family Consumption Allowence. In fact the term "administering secretary" is nowhere to be found in HR25.
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong legislation?
The Social Security Administration that maintains the SSN that is responsible for adminstering the sales tax rebate funds and assuring validity of SSN information on which the FCA rebate is provided.
You would do good to review Chapter 3 of the bill that addresses the sales tax rebate, its administration and payments.
The only reference to any kind of "Secretary" in HR25 is the Secretary of Treasury that is responsible for administration of revenue matters under the constitution and is designated as the primary administrator for this legislation.
You really should read the bill.
Nope. I support neither the current tax structure nor this proposed structure that just ends up feeding an out of control beast with an insatiable appetite. Odd how you missed the several times I stated that so far.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll state it again, NO TAX REFORM WILL WORK UNTIL UNTIL THE OUT OF CONTROL FEDERAL SPENDING IS BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL.
Instead of simply changing how taxes are collected, we the people, voters, citizens, need to return control of the government to us, where it originally started to be. Higher or different taxes aren't the answer, less spending is. We need to educate voters of both parties and to hold our elected officials feet to the fire and stop letting them control us.
An example that happened here in Washington State: We voted out the outrageous excise tax imposed on our vehicle licensing a few years ago. At the same time, we voted in a requirement that the state could not impose any new taxes until the population voted on it and approved it. It passed by an overwhelming margin. The State took it to court and had it overturned as "unconstitutional." However, they did leave licensing fees lower, but repealed the requirement that we voters approve of new taxes. Nearly everyone of those "representatives" are still holding office, running on promises of making someone else pay the higher taxes, not the ones voting for them. A few of us try to make others see what is happening, but we get drowned out by those who simply want to change the way monies are collected instead of forcing them to reduce spending.
Remember the phrase, a government of the people, by the people and for the people? We don't have that as long as we allow our elected official to mandate to us what we can and cannot do. It's supposed to be the other way around.
My apologies, in my tired state I misidentified it as Administering Secretary. The actual phrase used some 91 times is either Administering Authority or Administering State.
I'll try not to be so foolish from now on
Just as the socialist friendly 16th Amendment had many sponsors, the socialist friendly not so fair tax has many sponsors. Guest you have to be a socialist to get sponsors in Congress.
Strange how you claim this bill does away with so much, yet the constitution outlines a vastly different method of repealing the 16th Admendment.
Ohh, I wasn't aware that the Constitution requires Congress to pass a proposal for an amendment to the constitution to repeal its statutes and end its own laws or to create an excise to take the place of its existing revenue statutes.
Perhaps you will show us just where this is required by the Constitution. You know the government is required to levy some kind of tax to fund its operation according the Article I Section 8 clause one do you not.
Seems quite reasonable to me to assure a revenue source is in place before amending the constitution in a way that destroys the funding method it currently relies on.
It should also be noted that in the 92 years of the income tax, most of that period legislation has been introduced to propose the repeal of the 16th amendment to no effect. I would submitt that as long as the nation relies on income tax statutes for revenue, there will be no repeal of the 16th amendment forthcoming in the next 92 years.
Sorry, I prefer to see the income tax statutes repealled and replaced obsoleting our the govenment reliance on that tax system paving the way for repeal and explicit prohibition of all income taxes whatever form they may come in. The last century of history has made it very clear their will be no repeal of the 16th amendment, nor an explicit prohibition of all taxation of income until the statutes relied upon are indeed removed and replaced by consumption or direct taxes as provided for in Article I Sections 8 & 9 of the Constitution.
Just as the socialist friendly 16th Amendment had many sponsors, the socialist friendly not so fair tax has many sponsors. Guest you have to be a socialist to get sponsors in Congress.
Well guess the founders were socialist friendly then, as any tax revenue can be used to support socialist causes, including your "direct tax" proposal.
Sorry, your poor attempt to attach the FairTax retail sales tax system to socialist intents is plain foolish.
You still haven't answered, where are the sponsors for your direct tax, and your proposed amendment to the constitution. Such is required for any act to be implemented. Who are the sponsors so we know who we are depending on to carry your proposals through.
You do have such sponsors do you not? Surely you have at least one sponsor to introduce your non-socialist proposals for you?
Odd that you should end your posts with the slogan “Don't reform it, Replace it!!”, and yet, your proposal is to reform with H,.R. 25, which is a list of suggestions which no future Congress is bound by and allows a tax calculated from income to raise its ugly head in the future.! How about a real repeal as provided in Article V, rather than the lip service of H.R.25 and its socialist family consumption allowance?
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.