The Constitution is not a revenue bill John -
Exactly so! It’s the supreme law of the land and cannot be changed whenever Congress feels the urge as your big government friendly H.R 25 tax plan may be changed by a future Congress to include, in addition to your 23 per cent tax on America’s productivity, a tax calculated from those evil corporate profits, from salaries, from wages, inheritances, tips, etc.
Fact is, your proposal is nothing more than a con job to tighten the iron fist of big government over the people’s productivity and allow government to expand without any checks and balances as is contained in our founding father’s original tax plan.
pigdog wrote:
.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.
Of course you asked such a silly question. And I responded My plan? What I support pal, is not my plan, but the founding fathers original tax plan and its various checks and balances which were designed to control Congress' actions, and also provides an intended method to extinguish deficits in a manner making every member of Congress immediately accountable to their state legislature for their spending habits while in Congress Assembled.
pigdog wrote:
Apportioning to the states left the scene many years ago ... or perhaps you didn't notice. Stop wasting bandwidth with your nonsense. Show us how your "plan" would raise sufficient funds to run the government and how it would be anything other than oppressive on poorer states (which was one of the reasons for its downfall originally)
. My plan? Still telling fibs? My, my!
Apportioning a direct tax among the states to extinguish an annual deficit created by Congress is only part of the Founder’s Plan. Their plan also provides for impost and duties [taxing at our borders edge], and also provides for an internal tax on specifically chosen articles of consumption, which is far different than your big government friendly across the board 23 percent tax on goods and services, which is a consumption tax idea very different than what the founders intended, and contains no checks and balances to encourage Congress to follow sound fiscal policies beneficial to America’s business, industries and labor, and allows Congress to engaged in reckless borrowing without any moment of accountability
Truth is, our founding fathers also liked the idea of taxing consumption, but never intended such a tax to be laid upon the tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct America’s businesses nor the necessities of life!
See: Federalist #21:
"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. " "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."
Now, what is Hamilton talking about? How may the amounts to be contributed by the rich and poor be determined by their own option? And, how is private oppression of taxes on articles of consumption to be avoided?
Surprise! The answer is to be found in that part of the quote which says, “by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions” which is not the kind of tax an across the board tax on America’s productivity is and would oppress America’s businesses, industries and poor working people.
An across the board consumption tax, in addition to being oppressive upon America’s businesses, is a plan to tax 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!
The words of Hamilton obviously indicate certain articles of consumption ought to be excluded from the list of taxable items___ the necessities of life, tools of production and supplies necessary to conduct American businesses___ thereby removing the oppressive nature of taxation and making the tax a more voluntarily paid type of tax, which is exactly what our founding fathers practiced.
A consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in THE FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT FOR OUR COUNTRY! NOTE: those interested may use the PREV IMAGE and NEXT IMAGE buttons at the above link to study the bill___it is refreshing to study statesmen creating a revenue raising bill beneficial for America’s businesses, industries and labor force, as opposed to politicians acting in their own self interest and on behalf of internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation [the NAFTA - CAFTA CROWD on Capitol Hill].
Limiting the tax to articles of luxury, and requiring each article to be individually selected and having Congress place a specific amount of tax upon each article chosen, as our founding fathers intended, creates a self regulating check and balance upon Congress, just as Hamilton indicates!
If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation’s labor force impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury and thereby defeat an extension of the revenue, just as Hamilton explains above!
For a recent example of how effective the founder's method of taxing consumption works to control the amount of tax on a specific article chosen by Congress see:Fed luxury tax 1990 in which Congress attempted to lay an outrageous 10 percent tax on boats. And then see: 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats
Had the tax been one or two percent rather than the outrageous 10 percent, it probably would have been paid without much resistance and not adversely affect the industries involved which caused Congress to immediately repeal the tax, and prevented an extension of the revenue!
Bottom line, Pal, unlike your establishment big government friendly H.R. 25, our founder's plan grants almost unlimited power to raise essential revenue, but also provides various checks and balances to control the actions of Congress and makes Congress immediately accountable if it should engage in reckless borrowing by the direct apportioned tax___ a tax which makes members of Congress immediately accountable to their State’s Governor and Legislature who are required to raise their state’s apportioned share of the tax, only to then send it off to Washington, D.C.
pigdog wrote:
"Your daydream will never make it before Congress for a vote unless you have it in bill form and it is precisely that we need to see. Until then, you're just continuing to rant and rave only to boost your own ego."
I have confidence the people will see through your tax illusion! 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 which brings us back to our founding father’s plan:
“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“
Just more empty nonsense, John. You still need to bring it before Congress as a tax bill as I said.
Until you do that, it's still piffle.
And all of the comments I've made about the flaws still apply unless you somehow have something in your bill to overcome them.
I look forward to your showing your revenue neurtral calculations, too.
Until then, get lost. Testifying before Congregational committees counts for nothing. Nor does trying to claim you have the only constitutional idea. The FairTax is definitely constitutional also. And it does provide for revenue neutrality which the President has set as one of the requirements. You'll have to figure a way around little things like that. You're just wasting your own time (and mine too) with such nonsense.