Basically, the Fairtax creates a fatal confrontation between the Federal and State/Local governments over the proposed unconstitutional taxation by the federal government of State/Local government consumption.
hbvg3,
Let me give you another argument concerning the un-constitutional nature of H.R. 25. The fact is, the alleged fair tax runs afoul of the very intentions for which our Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned.
Our founders intended for Congress to finance its expenditures from imposts and duties at our water‘s edge, and, as a second means to fill the national treasury miscellaneous excise taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption (indirect taxes) were permitted. But if these taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures and a shortfall was created, then and only then was a general tax among the states to be laid to equal and extinguish the shortfall (deficit)!
Our Constitution’s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the states, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
In fact, the rule of apportionment was specifically adopted so the people of those States paying the lion’s share of the general tax would be guaranteed a vote in Congress proportionately equal to their financial contribution!
Keep in mind our progressive crowd gave us the 16th Amendment which they intended to use to circumvent the rule of apportionment as applied to raising revenue. Socialists, “progressives”, RINOs and the friends of big government, are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states they run and hide from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave them their one man one vote.
The alleged fair tax, just as the progressive income taxation now does, is designed to subjugate the rule of apportionment so that the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share under the alleged fair tax are not given their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote in Congress equal to their financial contribution. And this is what Mike Huckabee, Neal Boortz and Herman Cain hide from their listening audience___ our founding fathers intended rule requiring representation with proportional obligation! But, instead of me telling you what our founders intended with regard to any general tax laid among the States, let them speak for themselves!
With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment __ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And see Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”__ 3 Elliot’s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ 3 Elliot’s, 244 Mr. George Nicholas
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot, 255 And Mr. PENDLETON makes it crystal clear what evil is being addressed with regard to the rule of apportionment. He says: The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion ___ 3 Elliot’s 41 Bottom line is, H.R. 25 would violate the agreed upon rule that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are to be guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution. But what can we expect when fair.tax.org is proud to announce their proposed tax is a “progressive” tax.
JWK
John, I understand the founders intent, but as a practical matter, there would be no way now for the States and the Fed to agree on the “sum to be raised”.
As a matter of interest, when Washington sat down at the first cabinet meeting, there were five persons there in addition to George and his VP. (War, State, Treasury, postmaster, and attorney general.) When Obama sat down, there were fifteen cabinet members plus a whole slew of independent agency heads, I guess.
Until the size and scope of the Federal government is reduced, no way can excise taxes and a State levy fund the darn thing. By the way, there is a Tennessee guy promoting “My share” a plan similar to the founders plan, except that the formula is the amount to be raised divided by the total population. He assumes that the cost of the federal government might be reduced to $600 billion, so the cost per person would be $2,000 annually. How to get the cost down to $600B is the sticky wicket!
I raised the constitutional issue simply to point out an issue no Fairtax advocate seems to want to talk about. Assisted by a couple of Yale constitutional scholars, my focus was on the long held Supreme Court doctrine of “intergovernmental tax immunity”, which has guided the court decisions for a couple of hundred years. I have no clue what the present Court might decide should the Fairtax ever get a hearing, but I am sure the Founders would turn over in their graves at the idea of their creation taxing the creators.