Posted on 10/15/2006 2:27:58 PM PDT by JOHN W K
A CHALLENGE TO H.R. 25 [alleged fair tax] SUPPORTERS
What part of our federal Constitution grants power to Congress to lay and collect a “sales tax”? I have been told by some proponents of H.R. 25 to read Article 1, Section 8, but, I do not see “sales tax” in the list of specific taxing powers granted in that part of the Constitution. I guess it’s safe to assume at this point in time the promoters of H.R.25 were pretending that a power was granted to Congress to lay and collect a “sales tax”.
In addition, those who promote H.R. 25 offer nothing as to whether or not H.R. 25 would be considered a direct tax as our founding fathers understood the meaning of the term during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, and thus requiring apportionment. Truth is, supporters of H.R. 25 have neglected to state why the tax described in H.R. 25, a tax unquestionably designed as the primary method by which the states would be called upon to fill the national treasury, is in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
There is no contention that the tax described in H.R. 25 is not imposed upon any particularly selected article of consumption as the excise tax was historically used by the founders with reference to taxing consumption. Instead, H.R. 25 proposes to tax a specifically defined class of financial transactions within each of the various states, and do so as the primary method to fill the national treasury, and, would allow the iron fist of the federal government to enter the states and lay its hand upon the sale of private property, real and personal, within each of the various states. Question is, did the founding fathers contemplate and intend to delegate this type of taxing power to the new government they were creating, and if so, did they also intend certain restrictions to apply and a specific rule to be followed when and if the tax was laid? The answer to both these questions is a resounding YES!
Chief Justice Fuller summarizes the founder’s clear intentions in the following manner: in POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
"The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.
Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language."
A review of historical documents giving birth to our Constitution reveals our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge. But if the need should arise and Congress found it necessary to call upon the states to fill the national treasury in a general tax, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation via a wealth based tax upon assessed land value within each of the states, a new rule would apply! The new rule agreed upon by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury commanded apportionment of the tax in such a manner that those states paying the lions share of the federal tax burden would be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress equal to their contribution, to be exercised when Congress Assembled determine how their money was to be spent.
Under the Articles of Confederation no such rule existed, but during the framing of our existing Constitution the method by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury was a bone of contention and the final compromise reached was “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” , the indisputable intention being an agreement as to how the states may be called upon to fill the national treasury in a general tax, a primary tax, laid by Congress. The new rule, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress
population of U.S.
Those who support H.R. 25 seem to love enforcing the rule of apportionment to gain their representation in Congress and exercise their vote when deciding how to spend federal revenue taken from the states. But when it comes time to paying the tab, those who support H.R. 25 want to subjugate our Constitution’s fair share formula by which the states are to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury, which is also part of the rule of apportionment which gave them their vote in Congress Assembled.
Instead of calculating a tax from “income” . . . without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration", the architects of H.R. 25 are attempting to extend Congress’ iron fist beyond ‘income” and reach property, real and personal, with a new federal tax calculated from its value, and, do so “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration“, even though such a tax [a tax calculated from the value of property] has been struck down by the SCOTUS as being a direct tax and requiring apportionment if laid among the states.
H.R. 25 would subtly defeat this protection and undermine federalism along with state’s rights in that the states contributing the largest share of the tax burden would not receive their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote equal to their contribution when it is determined how their money is spent which was taken from them in a primary tax calculated from a measure of their state’s economic enterprise and success.
H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment!
HERE IS A LIST which includes Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury.
Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution bringing us back to our Constitution's original tax 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
John William Kurowski, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]
Well, isn’t this special? The personal attacks never end! Seems that when the supporters of the socialist friendly, big government friendly H.R. 25 proposal are incapable of defending their proposal, they attack those who correctly identify H.R. 25 as being socialist and big government friendly. But heck, isn’t that to be expected when one cannot defend their position, attack the messenger…a very, very well known stupid debating trick.
Guess they are not up to accepting the CHALLENGE!
Regards,
JWK
Oh kind of like all the studies and reports put out by fairtaxers. They never disclose who funded them, instead present them as if they are independant research. Also kind of like posters on FreeRepublic, who never disclosed financial ties with AFFT.
Thank you for your response and definitions of “excise” which includes:
In the U.S. constitutional law sense, an excise includes gift taxes, estate taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, miscellaneous excise taxes, and income taxes on any income other than income from property, etc. -- in short, any tax that is not a direct tax. In the U.S. statutory sense, however, only the "miscellaneous excise taxes" are denoted as "excises." . . .
H.R. 25 states the following:
SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.
`(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
b.
Rate-
(1) FOR 2005- In the calendar year 2005, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.
We all know that the SCOTUS has repeatedly struck down attempts by the federal government to lay a general across the board tax calculated from the value of property, and has reminded Congress that such taxes must follow the fair share formula stated in Art.1, Sec.2, Cl.3.
As a matter of fact, the SCOTUS eloquently explained the intentions of our Constitution’s fair share formula and its application in the following words:
“The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.
Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language.
See: POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
H.R. 25 is the same type of socialist and big-government-friendly tax pig we now have, but in a different dress.
Instead of calculating a tax from “income . . . without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration", the architects of H.R. 25 are attempting to extend Congress’s iron fist to reach property, real and personal, with a new federal tax calculated from its value, “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration“, even though such a tax [a tax calculated from the value of property] has been struck down by the SCOTUS as being a direct tax and requiring apportionment if laid among the states.
H.R. 25 does not contain language to apportion the mentioned tax among the states as required by our Constitution. It is another attempt, as was intended by the 16th Amendment with regard to income, to have the people of the most productive states pay the lion’s share of the federal tax burden, but without the Constitutional guarantee that those states paying the lion’s share of the federal tax burden would also receive a vote in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution!
I know socialists and the friends of big government love the one man one vote idea when it comes to deciding how to spend money from the federal treasury. But when it comes to filling the national treasury, they run and hide from the constitutional rule requiring one vote one dollar if a general tax is laid among the states to fill the national treasury.
And as for me supporting a “capitation” tax, I don’t, and our Constitution’s fair share formula, which I support when a primary tax is laid among the states to fill the national treasury, is not a capitation tax but merely determines each state’s share of an amount to be raised. So, you’re fear mongering is just that, empty fear mongering. But what can one expect from those who support a socialist idea which seeks to reach private property, real and personal?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Take your Tax Protest rhetoric elsewhere. You are well known here (and becoming so elsewhere I see - and for you that spells bad news).
It's a consumption tax, not a property tax. So when you tell us "we all know that the SCOTUS has repeatedly struck down attempts by the federal government to lay a general across the board tax calculated from the value of property," you are not presenting any argument which impunes the FairTax. Look at the bold print in my excerpted quote just above this paragraph. It is a tax calculated on the use or consumption of taxable property or services. And by the way, the addition of the remaining language implies that the use or consumption of some types of property or the use or consumption of some types of services will not be taxable; it has nothing to do with taxing the property or service itself. It is the event of consumption which is taxed, not the property itself.
You’re funny! It is irrelevant what you want to call the tax if it violates the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. See: POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (April 8, 1895 )
Your beloved socialist tax proposes to extend the iron fist of the federal government, which now taxes “income” within the States, to also reach the property of citizens, real and personal, and do so in a general tax among the states without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration!
We all know socialists worked very hard to have the 16th Amendment adopted to gain access by taxation to the financial wealth of individuals within the various states and do so without having to observe the rule of apportionment in laying the tax. Seems that our socialist friends are now back and want to extend their reach to property, real and personal, with a new primary tax to fill the national treasury, and once again want to do so without observing the rule of apportionment!
But the SCOTUS has told you guys, and has done so in crystal clear language in POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
It is said that a tax on the whole income of property is not a direct tax in the meaning of the constitution, but a duty, and, as a duty, leviable without apportionment, whether direct or indirect. We do not think so. Direct taxation was not restricted in one breath, and the restriction blown to the winds in another.
We are not here concerned with the question whether an income tax be or be not desirable, nor whether such a tax would enable the government to diminish taxes on consumption and duties on imports, and to enter upon what may be believed to be a reform of its fiscal and commercial system. Questions of that character belong to the controversies of political parties, and cannot be settled by judicial decision. In these cases our province is to determine whether this income tax on the revenue from property does or does not belong to the class of direct taxes. If it does, it is, being unapportioned, in violation of the constitution, and we must so declare. Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
The decrees hereinbefore entered in this court will be vacated. The decrees below will be reversed, and the cases remanded, with instructions to grant the relief prayed
Aside from the fact that the tax is calculated from the value of property, real and personal, and is therefore considered direct by the SCOTUS and requires apportionment if laid, there is yet another irrefutable reason the tax described in H.R. 25 is un-constitutional. It violates the new rule the founding fathers intended by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury.
BIRTH OF THE RULE OF APPORTIONMENT
Under the Articles of Confederation a general across-the- board tax to fill the national treasury was agreed upon. The amount to be contributed by each state was to be calculated from each state’s assessed land value.
Article VIII. of the Articles of Confederation states:
“All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.”
NOTE: each state was to make its contribution into the common treasury based upon the value of land within the state, and the value of land included an estimate of the “buildings and improvements thereon”. Hence ___ personal property is taken into account in the assessment of land when taxed.
The various reasons for which a Constitutional Convention was called are well known. One of the reasons being, the existing Congress under the Articles of Confederation had no authority to enforce the collection of and payment of taxes from the states, nor had power to tax the people and their property directly.
‘This imperatively demanded a remedy; but the opposition to granting the power of direct taxation in addition to the substantially exclusive power of laying imposts and duties was so strong that it required the convention, in securing effective powers of taxation to the Federal government, to use the utmost care and skill to so harmonize conflicting interests that the ratification of the instrument could be obtained.” See: POLLOCK,157 U.S. 429
On July 2nd of the Convention there was an impasse concerning how the states would be represented in Congress. The Convention adjourned till July 5th.
The following quotes from Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787 tells us how and why the rule by which the states agreed to contribute into the common treasury in a general tax was changed.
On July 5th, a proposition for fixing the representatives in the 1st branch , one member for every 40,000 inhabitants, was taken up.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS … thought property ought to be taken into the estimate as well as the number of inhabitants. Life & liberty were generally said to be of more value, than property. An accurate view of the matter would nevertheless prove that property was the main object of Society. . . . These ideas might appear to some new, but they were nevertheless just. If property then was the main object of Govt. certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due to those who were to be affected by the Governmt. … He thought the rule of representation ought to be so fixed as to secure to the Atlantic States a prevalence in the National Councils….”
Mr. RUTLIDGE. The gentleman last up had spoken some of his sentiments precisely. Property was certainly the principal object of Society. If numbers should be made the rule of representation, the Atlantic States will be subjected to the Western. He moved . . . "that the suffrages of the several States be regulated and proportioned according to the sums to be paid towards the general revenue by the inhabitants of each State respectively.”
July 6
Mr. DAVY, was for committing the clause in order to get at the merits of the question arising on the Report. He seemed to think that wealth or property ought to be represented in the 2d. branch; and numbers in the 1st. branch.
July 9
Mr. Govr. MORRIS “…the Legislature shall possess authority to regulate the number of Representatives in any of the foregoing cases, upon the principles of their wealth and number of inhabitants."
Mr. BUTLER urged warmly the justice & necessity of regarding wealth in the apportionment of Representation.
Mr. KING had always expected that as the Southern States are the richest, they would not league themselves with the Northn. unless some respect were paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect those preferential distinctions in Commerce & other advantages which they will derive from the connection they must not expect to receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of 13 of the States had agreed to consider Slaves in the apportionment of taxation; and taxation and Representation ought to go together.
July 10
Genl. PINKNEY dwelt on the superior wealth of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the Government.
July 11
Mr. WILLIAMSON was for making it the duty of the Legislature to do what was right & not leaving it at liberty to do or not do it. He moved that Mr. Randolph's proposition be postpond. in order to consider the following "that in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population & wealth of the several States, a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants and 3/5 ths. of those of other descriptions on the 1st. year after this Government shall have been adopted and every year thereafter; and that the Representation be regulated accordingly."
Mr. RUTLIDGE contended for the admission of wealth in the estimate by which Representation should be regulated. …. He moved that "at the end of years after the 1st. meeting of the Legislature, and of every years thereafter, the Legislature shall proportion the Representation according to the principles of wealth & population"
Mr. SHERMAN thought the number of people alone the best rule for measuring wealth as well as representation; and that if the Legislature were to be governed by wealth, they would be obliged to estimate it by numbers. He was at first for leaving the matter wholly to the discretion of the Legislature; but he had been convinced by the observations of [Mr. Randolph & Mr. Mason,] that the periods & the rule, of revising the Representation ought to be fixt by the Constitution
Mr. MADISON, Future contributions it seemed to be understood on all hands would be principally levied on imports & exports. …He could not agree that any substantial objection lay agst. fixig numbers for the perpetual standard of Representation…It was said that Representation & taxation were to go together; that taxation and wealth ought to go together, that population & wealth were not measures of each other.
July 12
Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to add to the clause empowering the Legislature to vary the Representation according to the principles of wealth & number of inhabts. A "proviso that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."
Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."
From the preceding documentation and the ratification of the Constitution, the following facts are drawn:
The Convention intentionally made an attempt to agree, and did in fact agree, upon a new rule by which the various states would contribute into the federal treasury. In agreeing upon the new rule, the subject of the varying and superior wealth between the states including land value and property, was a bone of contention and carefully considered in establishing the new rule by which the states agreed to contribute in a general tax among the states.
A general agreement was understood that future contributions into the common treasury would be principally levied on imports & exports.
The new rule by which the various states agreed to contribute into the federal treasury is stated in our Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, part of which states:
“Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…”
In view of our Constitution having been amended, the formula by which to determine each state’s contribution in a general tax among the states may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
The language contained in H.R. 25 seeks to allow Congress to enter the states to impose a tax in such a manner as would defeat the intentions and beliefs under which the states agreed to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury.
H.R. 25 would specifically subjugate, if adopted and enforced, the protection the states agreed upon to fix contributions with respect to the “varying and superior wealth between the states” ___ the protection being, that those states contributing the major portion into the common treasury, would also exercise a proportionate voting strength in Congress when determining how their money would be spent equal to their contribution ___ a rule which socialists and the friends of big government dread!
Regards.
JWK
ACRS
To show you just how ridiculous your argument is, consider this. According to what you write, all consumption taxes, statutory excise taxes, sales taxes, and duties on everything but services are property taxes because tax rates are set in light of the fact that there is taxable property in question. I don't think you'll get very far with that argument John.
StJacques
You just don’t get it do you? You don‘t want to get it, do you?
But just in case you do want to get it, I believe you need to study the POLLOCK DECISION which references the Hylton Case describing a constitutional use of the excise taxing power.
An excise tax may be laid upon a particular use of a particular piece of property and the tax would in fact be considered as being indirect and not requiring apportionment.
In Pollock quoting Hylton the Court summarizing the House debates on the carriage tax:
Mr. Sedgwick said that "a capitation tax, and taxes on land and on property and income generally, were direct charges, as well in the immediate as ultimate sources of contribution. He had considered those, and those only, as direct taxes in their operation and effects. On the other hand, a tax imposed on a specific article of personal property, and particularly if objects of luxury, as in the case under consideration, he had never supposed had been considered a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution."
So, the taxed article was consider luxury and luxury was the subject matter of the tax . . . an indirect excise tax upon luxury!
Here is a recent example of Congress taxing a specific article of consumption using its excise taxing power as intended by the founding fathers ___ see: Fed luxury tax 1990
Also see:
1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats
Had the tax only been 2 or 3 percent, it probably would have been paid without much resistance. But 10 percent was outrageous and so, the people avoided the article [boats] just as our founding fathers predicted!
"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." See Federalist #21:
The beauty of requiring Congress to select specific articles of consumption and limiting it to articles of luxury, as opposed to an across the board tax on the sale of property, is this___ 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, just as Hamilton explains above___ it prevents “an extension of the revenue”, a self regulating feature which socialists and the friends of big government hate.
H.R. 25 circumvents the self-regulating feature of taxing consumption___ allowing the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected, as the founding fathers intended. In addition, the kind of tax described in H.R. 25, [a general tax among the states based upon the value of property] which was practiced under the Articles of Confederation, was debated during the framing of our Constitution and a rule was adopted required such a tax to be apportioned among the states, basing each state’s share of a total being collected upon its number of votes in Congress Assembled___ a rule which boils down to representation with proportional obligation, another rule which the friends of big government, and socialists dread with a passion!
H.R. 25 is an attempt to do indirectly that which the Constitution was intended to forbid directly!
Regards,
JWK
Since the person you're attempting (lamely) to attack is deceased long ago, How is it you claim to know so much? Just to demonstrate that you are so truly well-informed, post the amount he was paid and the time period you believe he worked for AFFT (and if never disclosed - how do you know). All you have is spurious hearsay information trying to cast aspersions on a dead man.
Of course, what will transpire is that you "hear" this or read it on someone's post (therefore hearsay) and that you have no idea how much (if anything) he might have been paid), by whom, or for what!!
!n IOW - a sheer character assassination attempt on someone who can no longer contest your BS. That is TRULY despicable!! Perhaps you have some goodies on Thomas Jefferson, too???
Take your Tax Protester stuff and stuff it!! People here know who and what you are.
"You just don’t get it do you? You don‘t want to get it, do you?"
Nope - YOU'RE the one who doesn't get it ... and never have ... and never will. Your TP rhetoric makes no sense.
A freaken-men!
H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment!
Here is real reform:
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
See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship, keep the tools of tax oppression alive in Congress's hands, and entrench our nation with more socialism and big government…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our Founder’s original plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!
Regards,
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment.
Regards,
JWK
The fair share formula, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
JWK
Seems the founder’s plan is well received by thinking people! One thing seems to be in agreement…change is wanted by the people!
Flat, H.R. 25., current, or Constitution`s original tax plan?
At present the results are:
Current system______________________0
Forbes flat tax______________________14
H.R. 25 [asserted ``FairTax``]_________15
Constitution`s original tax plan________14
Other [explain]_______________________2
Regards,
JWK
The 16th Amendment fixed that and added income taxes to those allowed.
What about Property Tax?
There are no federal property taxes.
What about the stupid obsolete Phone Tax that still exists? That one covered by the Constitution?
That's an excise tax.
The tone of your reply is one reason why I do not wish to discuss it. Your silly and incorrect assumptions are yet another. I have in fact read all 133 pages of HR 25 and also SB 25.
Yet another reason is that I don't care to waste time on a topic in a venue which can influence no real change on this issue. If you become a policy maker, then get back to me. Otherwise, your wasted comments are only valued by the ISP that you pay to access the Internet. Most of the rest of us don't care.
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.