Replies

StJacques

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.

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).

You wrote:

"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 . . ."

after quoting H.R. 25, to wit, and I'll keep your bold print emphasis:

"There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services."

Now; take a very close look at the language from H.R. 25 quoted just above. It very clearly states that this is not a property tax. Read it! I'll put it up again with the pertinent language describing the type of tax it is in bold print:

"There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services."

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.

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.