Posted on 06/28/2012 10:25:00 AM PDT by Hostage
I pointed out in extensive discussions after March 21, 2010 and throughout 2011 that the democrats were following the FDR playbook on Social Security in pushing Obamacare.
I tried my best to point out that regardless of the Commerce Clause or any uniformity provisions of constitutional law, that the 16th Amendment would be used to characterize Obamacare as a tax.
Our enemy are those that impose on us and acquiesce to the 16th Amendment.
If you are for appealing the 16th Amendment, it does not mean you are a tax protester, it does not mean you are not wanting to pay your fair share of taxes, it means you are against the federal government gaining more and more power over your life.
The FairTax is a substitute tax code that operates without the 16th Amendment and is legal and constitutional under the original tax provisions of the US Constitution.
The FairTax is not an additional tax, it is not a tax on top of existing tax. It is a 'replacement' tax that replaces all the taxes currently in the supply and production chains of goods and services and bundles them all together as one retail sales tax.
The FairTax cannot coexist with an income tax and has a provision to sunset if the 16th Amendment is not repealed.
The FairTax will take power away from the ruling class to social engineer and tinker with our freedoms.
The FairTax will be easier to enforce and easier to administer.
The FairTax will boost GDP over 10% and eliminate a half trillion dollars in compliance costs to satisfy the income tax code.
The FairTax has far more sponsors in Congress than any other tax reform. The number of sponsors has recently increased.
The FairTax can be adopted by your local congressional representative if there are on average 3000 FairTax activists in your district. You need to get busy.
In Title 9 Revenue Provisions of the Obamacare Act, there are income taxes on Employer Sponsored Health Plans (ESHPs).
The ESHPs will be evaluated and computed in dollar amounts and considered as ‘income’ from employer to employee. Above a certain threshold of ESHP value, a 40% tax will be levied. The Threshold value is arbitrary and can be set by Congress whenever and however they want. Eventually this arbitrary form of income taxation will force ESHPs out of the market.
Individuals with incomes more than 200k will be taxed directly on their incomes. And as we know the 200k will change over time so that everyone is taxed directly on their incomes.
All of these taxes are constitutional under the 16th Amendment because legislators have the power to define the word ‘income’. The word ‘income’ was never defined in 1913 and left open for Congress to create mischief.
We need to repeal the 16th Amendment period.
I’m not going to lose any sleep over it since it’ll never be a reality anyway.
The so-called “Fair Tax” is not
It is a National Sales tax- which I would support - with some provisions I will NEVER support
1) The ‘prebate’ - What do you want to do- make it even EASIER for dems to get elected? “Vote for me and next year your ‘pre-bate’ will be $4000 instead of $3000
2) 27% rate? huh? seriously? a third of everything you spend?
3) “tax-inclusive” calculation. I swear I will beat to death the next person who tries to explain to me that this complicated, hidden, and deceptive tax calculation method is “better”
Get rid of those three things, and make it a 10% national sales tax and I’m in- I am just NOT infavor of what is given the nice Orwellian label: “The Fair Tax”
There is also the highly relevant issue that a specific amendment is not proposed via convention. The potential for a “runaway convention” is quite real.
You’ve completely evaded my question. How is not having health insurance interpreted to be income? that is the tax referred to in the individual mandate that has now been deemed to be a tax, which is not authorized by the 16th amendment.
>”The potential for a “runaway convention” is quite real.”
I have heard that canard before many times and it is simply not true.
It’s not true because it takes 2/3s of ‘states’ to create an amendment for ratification. Note that it is ‘states’, not delegates and not population.
If you look at a map of our USA, you will see that conservatives easily control most of the states. To block any amendment requires only 17 states. To create any amendment for ratification requires only 34 states.
Conservatives are much much stronger at the state and county levels than at the federal level.
There is no real concern with a runaway convention that favors the left. There is plenty of concern for the left to see a runaway convention by conservatives.
>”How is not having health insurance interpreted to be income?”
I did not evade your question and I am not any obligation to answer your questions except to show your ignorance to those reading.
If you don’t have health insurance, then your income will be taxed.
If you have health insurance that meets federal guidelines, then you will receive a tax credit against the tax imposed on your income.
It’s clear as can be.
If you can’t understand the above, not much of anyone is going to be able to help you.
Clear as mud. It’s not your income that gets taxed if you don’t have health insurance. It’s just a tax on your lack of insurance.
You are seriously misinformed and I do not blame you because those that have vested interests in the Income tax have invested in a lot of propaganda to get people like you to think the same.
Let’s take your list one item at a time:
1) The ‘prebate’ - What do you want to do- make it even EASIER for dems to get elected? “Vote for me and next year your ‘pre-bate’ will be $4000 instead of $3000
THE REBATE IS A MEANS OF MAKING IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE SHALL BE NO FEDERAL SALES TAX ON EVERY AMERICAN FOR THE ESSENTIALS OF LIVING. LET’S EMPHASIZE THAT:
“AMERICA UNDER THE FAIRTAX CODE WILL NOT HAVE ANY FEDERAL SALES TAXATION FOR THE ESSENTIALS OF LIVING”.
NOW FACTS:
1. CONGRESS CANNOT VOTE FOR ANY REBATE UNDER THE FAIRTAX ACT.
2. THE REBATE IS DETERMINED BY A WELL-SEASONED LONG USED FORMULA FOR THE POVERTY LINE BY DHHS.
3. THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS DIFFERENT REBATES. EVERYONE GETS THE SAME FROM WARREN BUFFETT TO GRANDMA ON SOCIAL SECURITY. BUT GRANDMA LIVES TAX FREE WHEREAS WARREN WILL PAY MUCH MORE IN RETAIL TAXES, MUCH MORE THAN HIS SECRETARY FOR SURE AND MUCH MORE THAN HE DOES NOW.
4. CONGRESS UNDER THE FAIRTAX LAW CAN ONLY CHANGE THE NATIONAL RETAIL SALES TAX (NRST) RATE.
4. FOR CONGRESS TO CHANGE REBATE AMOUNTS, THEY MUST CHANGE THE FAIRTAX LAW.
5. IF REBATE AMOUNTS ARE RAISED, AMERICANS INCLUDING ME WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE IT MEANS LESS TAXATION.
6. IF CONGRESS TRIES TO RAISE THE NRST RATE, I AND TENS OF MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS WILL HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH IT.
SO TO RECAP:
RAISE THE REBATE—> GOOD, THIS IS A TAX CUT.
RAISE THE NRST RATE—>BAD, THIS IS A TAX INCREASE.
2) 27% rate? huh? seriously? a third of everything you spend?
WHEN WE TOTAL ALL OF THE INCOME AND PAYROLL TAXES THAT ARE IMPOSED ON SUPPLY CHAINS AND SERVICES TO GET PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO THE RETAIL CONSUMERS, WE HAVE 23% AVERAGE EMBEDDED TAXES IN THE PRICES OF EVERYTHING WE BUY AS A CONSUMER, BE IT A PLUMBING SERVICE, A CART OF GROCERIES OR AN AIRLINE TICKET. IN OTHER WORDS, WITH OUT FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, PRICES OF EVERYTHING WE BUY WOULD BE 23% LESS ON AVERAGE.
UNDER THE FAIRTAX, ALL OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION IS ABOLISHED. THEREFORE, ALL CONSUMER PRICES WILL BE ON AVERAGE 23% LESS.
THE FAIRTAX LEGISLATION HAS A 14% NRST RATE AND A 9% FOR BUDGET BLOAT LEAVING PLENTY OF INCENTIVE TO CUT SPENDING WHICH MUST BE DONE. THE TOTAL INCLUSIVE NRST PERCENTAGE WILL BE 14+9=23%.
IF A 2 X 4 AT HOME DEPOT COSTS $2.00 TODAY, IT WILL COST $1.54 ON THE SHELF UNDER THE FAIRTAX. WHEN THE 2 X 4 IS TAKEN TO THE RETAIL CHECKOUT, AN NRST OF 46 CENTS WILL BE APPLIED AND THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE INCLUDING FEDERAL SALES TAX WILL BE $2 OUT THE DOOR. THIS IS WHY THE FAIRTAX IS A REPLACEMENT TAX. IT TAKES ALL THE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES OUT OF THE SYSTEM AND REPLACES WITH ONE FEDERAL SALES TAX.
JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN’T SEE THE EMBEDDED TAXES DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE NOT THERE. THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY THERE. BUT THE FAIRTAX BRINGS THEM OUT INTO THE OPEN, INTO THE SUNLIGHT AND POLITICIANS THAT LOVE TAXES DON’T LIKE SUNLIGHT ON TAXES.
THE FAIRTAX SPEAKS TRUTH TO FEDERAL TAXATION!
3) “tax-inclusive” calculation. I swear I will beat to death the next person who tries to explain to me that this complicated, hidden, and deceptive tax calculation method is “better”
IF YOU ARE HAVING THOUGHTS OF BEATING SOMEONE TO DEATH, I RECOMMEND YOU TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND START THERE.
It may not be clear to you because you don’t want to see it.
But it is very clear that the tax will be imposed on IRS Form 1040 Federal Income Tax and a tax credit will be given if it can be shown that a qualifying health plan is in place.
Without the 16th Amendment the IRS form 1040 does away and so does the Obamacare tax.
Sounds like you will be asleep even when your tagline is activated.
Oh it has everything to do with it. To think otherwise means you are are not informed about the tax provisions of Obamacare and you are not informed of how the taxes of Obamacare are constitutional under the 16th Amendment.
First, the Obamacare taxes are administered on IRS form 1040, the Federal Income Tax form. Everyone will be required to have their paychecks withhold an Obamacare tax that can receive a tax credit on April 15 if they can show they have a qualified health plan.
Second, there are tax provisions of Obamacare on incomes and on Employer Sponsored Health Plans which are converted to dollar compensation as income.
Third, the FairTax abolishes all Federal Income Taxation, all of it and requires the 16th Amendment to be repealed.
Fourth, under the FairTax the IRS form 1040 goes away and so do Obamacare taxes.
A convention to propose amendments has never been held, and the Constitution does not spell out procedures.
So it is at the very least premature to get all definite about how it would work.
“The states” can presumably limit the scope of what such a convention can address, but what reason do any of us have for expecting “the states” to agree on specific language for such limitation. Does such agreement by the states have to be unanimous, simple majority, 2/3 or what? If 26 states want to address X at the convention, but 24 states want to deal with Y, on what basis do you decide between them?
I would expect any such attempt to deteriorate into a mass of lawsuits.
>”A convention to propose amendments has never been held, and the Constitution does not spell out procedures.”
Not true. In 1913 there was a very large state constitutional convention movement, so large in fact that Congress acted to get take up the amendment (17th) process lest they lose face as being out of touch with the electorate.
The procedures are known and defined. There is no chance of a runaway convention. See in this thread previous posts by Publius.
34 ‘states’ (2/3s) are required to pass an amendment and 3/4s are required to ratify.
Notice the word ‘states’ in the previous sentence. It does not mean delegates or population. It means that Rhode Island and Wyoming have as much say as New York and California.
Now break out a political map of which groups control which states and you will see that Tea Party conservatives control the most ‘states’.
Next recall that in 2010 the victories of the Tea Party in Congressional elections were nothing compared to the victories of TP organizations in statehouses.
The Left fears TP conservatives at the state level and even more a movement to hold state conventions for amendments.
Not true.
Actually what I said is precisely true. A convention was never held because Congress headed it off.
Now break out a political map of which groups control which states and you will see that Tea Party conservatives control the most ‘states’.
By my admittedly imprecise math there are around 20 blue states and 30 red states. That's not even a 2/3, much less 3/4, majority.
Actually, there are probably more like 25 red states, 15 blue states and 10 purple states.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Congress feared that an Amendments Convention addressing the issue of direct election of senators would write an amendment that would require the election of the full Senate all at once, on a one-time basis, under the new paradigm. The Senate wrote the 17th Amendment on a phased-in basis, where each of the three classes of senators would be elected under the new paradigm over the next three electoral cycles. The House piled on. This was the version that went to the states for ratification. Then Congress subtracted the petitions from states that used the language I enumerated in a previous post and thus avoided calling an Amendments Convention to address this topic.
The procedures are known and defined.
Sort of. The document from that website is in disagreement with the American Bar Association's 1973 report, which is why there are gray areas. But 90% of that document agrees with the ABA report.
There is no chance of a runaway convention.
Sort of. Both the document from the website and the ABA report agree that the states define the purview of an Amendments Convention via the language of their petitions to Congress. The question is the enforcement procedure. The website document makes an invalid assumption about that, handing it off to the Supreme Court. The ABA report states straightforwardly that the only enforcement proedure is the fact that three fourths of the states are needed to ratify the product of a "runaway" convention.
It does not mean delegates or population. It means that Rhode Island and Wyoming have as much say as New York and California.
Not necesarily. The website document takes this position, but this is an unwarranted assumption. The author noted that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was based on "one state/one vote". But that was under the Articles of Confederation. The ABA report argues that Reynolds v. Sims, aka "one man/one vote", would apply to an Amendments Convention. The ABA suggested that an Amendments Convention should consist of 435 delegates, with each delegate elected by each congressional district.
I should note that the ABA report identified all gray areas connected with the amendatory process and suggested laws that Congress should pass to turn those gray areas into black and white.
>”Actually what I said is precisely true. A convention was never held because Congress headed it off.”
It was I that pointed out to you that Congress headed off the state conventions because they feared a loss of control. But you are still imprecise. In the post I responded to you said:
>”A convention to propose amendments has never been held, and the Constitution does not spell out procedures.”
A states convention process to propose amendments was certainly in work but never finalized passage of amendments because the convention activity of the states shocked Congress into acting.
>”By my admittedly imprecise math there are around 20 blue states and 30 red states. That’s not even a 2/3, much less 3/4, majority.”
Yes, I agree you are imprecise but not only imprecise but also inaccurate. In 2010, republicans with heavy surges of Tea Party support won the most statehouses in history:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111302389.html
The 2010 elections were a referendum on profligate spending AND OBAMACARE.
In 2012, the 70 million people that supported the Tea Party will be galvanized against the implementation of Obamacare.
This is the time to call for state constitutional conventions. They may need only go so far as to force Congress to act.
The first order of business should be to repeal the 16th Amendment and to enact the FairTax tax code.
Obamacare has been been more than 75 years in the making. Obamacare was spawned by FDR socialists in the 1930s and was taken off the table as being premature. Socialists have Obamacare as a stated goal since the New Deal. And there is more. Once Obamacare has control of the USA healthcare, the socialists will move to curtail you freedom to travel, to associate, to speak and to arm yourself.
>”It does not mean delegates or population. It means that Rhode Island and Wyoming have as much say as New York and California.”
>”Not necesarily. The website document takes this position, but this is an unwarranted assumption. The author noted that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was based on “one state/one vote”. But that was under the Articles of Confederation. The ABA report argues that Reynolds v. Sims, aka “one man/one vote”, would apply to an Amendments Convention. The ABA suggested that an Amendments Convention should consist of 435 delegates, with each delegate elected by each congressional district.”
A state convention process that acts as ‘one state/one vote’ is a republican process that serves to protect states from central control imposed by the larger states such as New York and California.
A state convention process that acts as a ‘one man/one vote’ is a democratic process that leads to mob rule and statism by imposing on diverse states a code of governance that stems from majorities residing in the larger states.
I would fight for the one state/one vote process. The original constitutionalists had it right. They knew the perils of mob rule that is brought about by democracy.
Elections are democratic but governance is republican where Rez Publica connotes “Rule of Law”.
I would rather be subject to a rule of law state than one driven by a mob. But of course I would prefer elections to be democratic.
How can I say this delicately. The convention was not held. As I said. The process to call a convention was started.
But the convention was never held.
If I start on a trip to Denver, but don’t arrive, I did not go to Denver.
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.