That tax scheme worked so well the first time it ws used that the country abandoned it.
Aside from not being able to raise sufficient revenue to meet present committments, it isn't as fair a manner of taxing people as even the income tax since it relies on population distribution to calculate amounts due and this leaves the poorer states at a phenominal disadvantage, That's an unbelievably poor method that in practice could never work today.
Also, it's hard to understand how you think Congress would send off a constitutional amendment for ratification without having an operational tax bill in place to continue the revenue steam.
But let's see your dream tax system in detailed bill form as well as a few serious economic studies that show how it would do in the revenue neutral requirement as well as a couple of other requirements the President specified. When you have those things, let's see them here - and then we can continue. Until then you have a non-starter.”
pigdog,
My goodness, you really do fear a return to our founding father’s original tax plan. Is it because it contains various checks and balances to control the reckless spending and borrowing habits of Congress? Is that why you like H.R. 25 instead, because it is a big government friendly tax proposal which keeps feeding the beast in Washington without any accountability, or checks and balances to control the actions of Congress?
You are lying when you say the founder’s original tax plan is not “able to raise sufficient revenue to meet present commitments”. Fact is, it was intentionally designed to allow Congress to raise almost unlimited revenue to meet the expenditures of Congress. But it also provided a number of checks and balances to control the actions of Congress, especially if Congress should borrow to meet its expenses rather than tax.
You also lie about the direct tax being unfair. Truth is, it is an equal tax per capita when apportioned among the states, i.e., if the people of New York each pay one dollar to meet New York’s obligation, then the people of Kentucky could likewise each pay one dollar to meet Kentucky’s obligation. I guess you don’t believe in representation with proportional obligation. Neither do socialists and the friends of big government!
You also lie when you wrote about the Founder’s direct tax, “That tax scheme worked so well the first time it ws used that the country abandoned it.”
SEE THE FOLLOWING
An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the united states [1st direct tax July 14, 1789 for $2 million and each state’s share of the $2million being raised.]
APPORTIONMENT OF A DIRECT TAX TO RAISE A TOTAL OF $ 2 MILLION TREASURY DEPARTMENT MAY 25TH 1798
An Act to repeal the internal taxes April 3rd, 1802
And Act for the assessment and collection of direct taxes, July 22, 1813
Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax
Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.
And, as I have previously documented for you, For a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, see HERE and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward to read the legislation.
Truth is, pigdog, the Founding Father’s tax plan worked very well, contrary to what you suggest. As a matter of fact it worked so well that by the close of the year 1835, 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.
You also say “It seems that attack is the only debating tool that remains for FairTax opponents since they cannot defeat it by logic alone.”
I have always preferred the truth in such discussions, something which you ought to try!
JWK
ACRS
The only stinking tax reform we need is for the American People to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution:
“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.”
"I have always preferred the truth in such discussions, something which you ought to try!"
"Truth is, pigdog, the Founding Father’s tax plan worked very welll "
Oh, I see ... we'll have to look into that but I note that, to you, everyone seems to be lying if they don't agree with you. I see that you say:
You also lie about ... You also lie when you ...""You are lying when you say ...
In addition, you make the absolutely odd statement:
"... you really do fear a return to our founding father’s original tax plan ..."
In a word, NO!! Not hardly. In fact I merely asked you to show us a bill you have before congress expressing your "tax plan" in some detail and showing us some economic studies that demonstrate it is revenue neutral as well as meets the ofher few criteria that the Presedent has put forth. Since you seem unable to do that, we'll consider this to be the self-effacing piffle it really is.
Nor was I "lying" about your "plan". The experiences you cite all come from the pre-War-Between-The-States days of this country's history with your most recently cited date being 1861. In fact the U. S. started the first income tax by law in 1863 so it is quite apparent that your wonderful "plan" wasn't all it was cracked up to be and it certainly never came alive after the war even though the income tax was eventually removed and then re-started in 1909 (corporate) and 1913 (individual). Is that, do you suppose, because your favored tax plan was doing such a bang-up job?
In the early days of the country the states and the federal government were always short of funds (sound familiar?) despite your idealized "plan" and the charging of individual states with population-representative taxes is - as I said - far more of a burden of poorer states than richer ones. This is one of the things that helped bring about the War-Between-The-States; the richer Northern states were felt by the Southern states to be getting far too much in the way of trade, voting power and favorable treatment in Congress, etc. all stemming from these Northern states having a greater (richer) industrial and trade base. Adding fuel to this sort of animosity is not something to be casually dismissed - even today.
But FEAR the return of something so obviously impractical??? Not at all. Let's see your bill and economic studies and explanation of how the President's other criteria are met. And I am certainly not lying.