Posted on 03/04/2002 2:19:12 PM PST by Dementon
We would do well to remember those occasions in modern history when democratically elected governments have violated their citizen’s most basic rights to life, liberty and property because a MAJORITY of the population found it acceptable. In America, there are only two things that stand between the people and government tyranny---those are our Constitution and our will as a free people to protect and defend it.
All ringing with fervor but lacking in one little detail, precisely what do these folks really intend to do about it. For the reality is, most people do not pay income taxes and in many cases actually receive what appears to be a handouts, via the personal exemption, allowed deductions and EITC of the individual income tax. To make changes, you had better factor in reaching those folks.
Right now the bottom 60% tax filers perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% of voters continue to clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% to pay. That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating even more participants from the Individual Income Tax rolls as proposed in the current tax reduction proposals currently on board through changes in personal exemption limits and other mechanisms such as the EITC.
Remember:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Alan Keyes refers to the income tax as the slave tax that should be abolished as a moral imperative, and replaced with a National Sales Tax:
Keyes on Taxes & Government Spending:
Alan Keyes Interview with Des Moines Register:
The intent of the structure of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy.
Considering those factors, it is always good to remember the philosophical roots of the left which can be found here: Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. Among their recommendations are these:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.
But that will not come about by mere words, or saying no more taxes. The alternative to no more taxes is merely government cranks up the printing presses, or increase the tax burden out of sight through the corporate VATs that are in place. Neither is an answer to the problem of Too Much Government, and Too many voters perceiving freebees.
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of RepresentativesTHURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
12:00 noon"In 1996, Congress passed a historic welfare reform law that has dramatically reduced the number of Americans who depend on welfare. In spite of this positive development, Representative DeMint is concerned about the steady growth of a welfare/entitlement state that extends well beyond the poor and is forcing millions of middle income Americans into dependency.
There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."
To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal taxes are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
I don't mind you being misled by the TP crowd W/G since you richly deserve it judging from the "positions" you've taken, but I really hope that not too many lucid people are likewise duped. Have you donated money to their cause as they have been repeatedly been soliciting?? Hunger strikers gotta' eat, too, ya know.
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
As this boards resident scholar, would you argue that the EITC is a constitutional use of the taxing power? It can hardly be called a tax to promote the general welfare. It seems more like a tax to promote the specific welfare.
Can Congress return tax dollars to selected portions of the taxpayers under the constitution? You tell me? How does one gain standing, as an individual, in the Courts to overturn what in the minds of Congress amounts to the return of an "overpayment".
In my own opinion, the EITC is improper because it does not treat all taxpayers equally. It favors one segment of the population over another. But the same can be said of every credit, special deduction or exemption in the tax code, including the laying of import duties and sin taxes or specific excises on any product of commerce and not others.
The Constitution states:
Constitution for the United States of America:
The founding fathers established the rule of "uniformity" to prevent states from being treated differently under the tax law. That was done to prohibit the use of indirect taxes as defacto Tarriffs benefitting or acting to the detriment of commerce in one state or group of states in regard to the rest.
The rule of uniformity imply only that a common rule will be applied regardless of where the tax is levied.
The Courts make it clear as to where the resolution of such problems lay:
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
- "The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. 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."
Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
- 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax." "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."
The limits of taxation?:
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
No. Congress can lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, only for the common defense or general welfare according to the constitution. The EITC should be found unconstitutional on its face. The taxing power was intended to be (thus) limited.
Not any more it seems. Now with great swelling of words, the 'courts' declare that public policy trancends rights to property. Anyone claiming his property becomes a kind of enemy of the State. I regret to say Dershowitz is right. The Constitution is dead letter. Public policy has so colored the actions of government, that it rules now. Wouldnt you agree?
No. Congress can lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, only for the common defense or general welfare according to the constitution. The EITC should be found unconstitutional on its face.
So should all specialised exemptions and deductions in the IRC and tax only on gross on a basis of receipts. If you accomplished that, the Individual Income tax would become a true Flat Tax, with a rate of 13%, the SS/Mediscare income tax would drop to 8% paid on all wages not just the first $80k.
Fine, now file your law suit if you can find standing and grounds and get it done. I haven't figured out away to accomplish that myself.
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
If you can get over the bar, you'll do us all a favor.
Personally I would like to get rid of the IRS, legal jeopardy and political control of the income/payroll tax system myself and banish it all replacing it with a flat single rate tax at point of retail sale. That way we could scrap the IRS intrusion into our personal finances as well.
Public policy has so colored the actions of government, that it rules now. Wouldnt you agree?
Public policy is legislative intent and always has been, or didn't you realize that? You want a different policy, you had better figure out a way of replacing the numbskulls in Congress.
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
FLETCHER v. PECK, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)
"The question, whether a law be void for its repugnancy to the constitution, is, at all times, a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative, in a doubtful case. The court, when impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station, could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes. But it is not on slight implication and vague conjecture that the legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and its acts to be considered as void. The opposition between the constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other."
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
There is certain inevitability in bringing any tax matter. 100-percent of the time, the judicial mind finds in favor of the government. A remarkable record dont you agree? Either 100 percent of petitioners have meritless claims or 100 percent of outcomes are pre-ordained.
The courts say to take the tax problem down the hall to the legislative branch. You can vote em out if you dont like it. Well--in spite of taxes being the subject of every election since 1900, the Tax Foundation finds taxes have risen steadly. In 1900 5 percent of property was expropriated by government. Now its 30+ percent and rising.
The NRST you advocate is revenue neutral, so we can expect no relief there. In fact, Laurence Kotlikoff predicts that the NRST will increase government revenues because it so effectively taps retirement accounts.
The war between the states (Civil War) was fought over property rights, not slavery. Ten states objected to tariffs imposed by the Union. Finding no relief in the courts or from Congress, the 10 states said thanks but no thanks. Tax protesters all of them. We all know how that tax protest turned out. So if I object to the taking of 30 percent of my property--I must put up a better fight than 10 states did. Alternatively I can do what Lewislynn accuses you of doing. That is join em. Exploit the Leviathan if you cant defeat it, right?
Either 100 percent of petitioners have meritless claims
Bingo! Guess what, if someone keeps bringing back previously failed claims to the court they loose. Amazing how that works isn't it?
That by the way is the definition of a frivolous claim. Already ruled upon and lost many times.
Here's the Department of Justice's written position on 16th amendment and other common tax protest positions:
DOJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE MANUAL, Section 40 TAX PROTESTORS
And a comprehensive FAQ compiled by a lawyer of all the Tax Protest arguments that have failed repeatedly and why:
And there are of course the many Court cases from the Article III Courts, (i.e. federal district, appellate, & Supreme Court) that support all the above, a blow by blow of the judgements of more current cases:
Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery
The ultimate place to go for the answers, is Congress. They, afterall are the ones ultimately responsible for the condition of the Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders. It is Congress in the end the enacts the enabling legislation and accepts or rejects the content of all Regulations and E.O.s.
The Courts have made it abundantly clear that the arguments presented in the above texts are failed and decided, and provide no relief to the defendant. Infact they have also made it very clear as to where to turn for relief from the very beginning as regards the income tax law.
Kotlikoff also predicts:
The Economic and Civil Liberties Case for a National Sales Tax, May 11 '95
Stephen Moore
Director
Fiscal Policy Studies
Cato Institute
Economic Impact of a National Sales Tax
In 1993 the Cato Institute commissioned a study by economist Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University to examine the economic impact of replacing federal income taxes with a national sales tax.(20) The sales would apply to all consumption purchases-- including services. Only real estate and securities would be exempted. The purpose of the Kotlikoff study was to determine a) What would be the impact of the sales tax on economic variables such as savings, wages, and output? and b) What is the necessary sales tax rate to completely replace on a revenue neutral basis the federal personal income, corporate income, and estate tax?
Kotlikoff discovered that to completely replace federal income taxes would require an
- initial sales tax rate of 17.4 percent.
- After five years the rate could be reduced to 15.4 percent, and
- after ten years the rate could be lowered to 13.9 percent.
The reason the rate can be lowered is that the study finds a very positive economic feedback from the tax change. Specifically, the Kotlikoff study finds that after ten years, a national sales tax would:
1) More than double the national savings rate.
2) Increase the capital stock by 8 percent above the level attained under the current tax system.
3) Raise income and output by 6 percent more than would be achieved under the current tax system. That would increase national output by almost $400 billion per year.
4) Lift the real wage rate by 3 percent.
5) Reduce interest rates by 8 percent.Kotlikoff concludes the study by issuing the following endorsement for a sales tax: "A shift to a national sales tax has the potential for dramatically improving incentives to save. The distortion to save is so great under our current system of income taxation, that it appears we could switch to consumption taxation...and end up with much higher rates of saving and capital accumulation and a higher level of per capita income."
That's not counting the fact that a National Retail Sales Tax would remove the IRS as a factor in the daily lives of all americans. It would assure the proportional participation of all voters in the tax burden so Congress Critters would have a much more difficult time in playing rich vs. poor games by hiding taxes behind inflation as it does today.
When politicians loose there primary lever, hiding taxes from view of most of the electorate, do you think folk are going to push, for more taxes? If so why are you bitching now?
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.