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”.
Hbvg3
I’m a bit puzzled by your post since the States, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, are not authorized to agree on the “sum to be raised” by Congress. Our Constitution’s original tax plan grants power to Congress to raise existing levels of revenue without the State's approval! Keep in mind that if imposts and duties do not provide sufficient revenue, Congress also has the authority to lay internal excise taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption. And if these taxes are insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, e.g., if an emergency such as war developed and a shortfall is created by Congress borrowing, then and only then is the apportioned tax to be laid to extinguish the deficit created by Congress‘ borrowing. But the apportioned tax, as you must fully be aware of, creates a very real moment of accountability for each States’ Congressional Delegation who must then return home with a bill in hand for their Governor and State’s Legislature to deal with. And it is this movement of accountability which, if practiced today, would encourage Congress while in Washington to shrink the size of the federal government and live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes to avoid the apportioned tax!
Bottom line is, our founding fathers original tax plan creates a very real incentive for Congress to shrink the size of the federal government, which you and I seem to be in agreement on.
In regard to your argument that “… 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.” I understand your argument and the constitutional conflict which the alleged fairtax would create. The Court in the Pollock decision put it this way, and with regard to apportionment:
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. ___ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601
Since the tax described in H.R. 25 is essentially an across the board tax upon “property” both real and personal, it does create the constitutional conflict you mention and infringes upon the States’ resources under which to raise their revenue.
Unfortunately, Taxman approaches this issue in a manner that rejects productive criticism and truth and facts take a back seat to promoting the alleged fair tax.
Regards,
JWK
Are we really to believe the founder of fairtax.org., Leo E. Linbeck Jr., who was a former ringleader of the federal reserve banking cartel which plunders our national treasury?
Repeal the seventeenth Amendment, and return Senators to the position of elected officials wholly responsive to their own State government and I would agree with your scenario. It may also be instructive to read policy papers provided by the 50 Governors through the National Governors Association. For instance, the Governors are strongly opposed to any kind of federal consumption tax such as the Fairtax.
As for Taxman, I’m disappointed with his stance which basically is, “don’t bother me with any more facts, my mind is made up and the Fairtax is fair.” I have spent eight years reading and studying/debating this scheme, and have concluded there are too many moving parts and too many rice bowls being gored to ever get any serious consideration. My suggestion for tax reform draws on the many mistakes I believe the Houston group made. It’s called Fairtax-Lite, and is basically a 10% consumption tax that replaces just the income tax. And, I would prefer that the consumption tax selected be the VAT, a much maligned and misunderstood tax plan.
LOL. You’d tell someone suffering from a dreadful illness to refrain from taking the needed medicine because the shot would hurt. You’d copy-n-paste volumes from medical journals asserting the debilitating effects of pain and so on.
...all without providing an alternative.
See, anyone [a 6 year old, even an 0bama voter] can memorize, copy-n-paste, and name call. Anyone. But very few have the knowledge or ability to develop a realistic alternative to a problem.
If you want readers to get something [besides a laugh] from your novels [which nobody reads - but i’m sure you read and re-read them to impress yourself with your copy-n-paste and memorization “skills”] then put forth a realistic alternative. I say you don’t have one. If you can remember what someone else gave as an alternative, copy-n-paste it for discussion.