PDA

View Full Version : Do real ``conservatives`` support the alleged fair tax ?




johnwk
02-15-2009, 06:30 AM
If one considers a “conservative” as one who supports and defends abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from the recorded debates during the framing and ratification process our Constitution, [each article, section, clause and amendment], then the alleged Fair Tax (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.25:), which has been proposed in the House, is anything but a “conservative” tax reform proposal! Indeed, the alleged fair tax is comparable to the principal under which the Marxist income tax is based --- from each State according to its ability.


Under the AFT (alleged fair tax) although profits, gains, salaries and other forms of “incomes” are not the primary target of this tax, the AFT targets the value of the sale of people’s property, real and personal, which is another type of wealth based tax, and one which our founding fathers specifically objected to during the framing of our Constitution! [1]

Our founding father’s resistance to a wealth based tax eventually led to a specific rule --- that if Congress found imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes insufficient to meet Congress’s exigencies, and Congress determined it was necessary to call upon the people within the various states in a general tax among the states, Congress would be required to determine a specific sum to be raised under the tax and then send a bill to each state to remit its share of the total sum being raised by Congress. In addition, each state’s share of the total sum being raised was not left to Congress’s discretion, but was to be determined by the same fixed formula used to determine each state’s number of Representatives. In view of our Constitution having been amended, the formula by which to determine each state’s contribution under a general tax among the states may be expressed as follows:


State`s population

------------------------------ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The fairness of this tax is that it is an equal tax! For example, if the tax were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And although New York’s total share of the tax would be substantially greater than that of Idaho’s, New York would be compensated by its larger representation in Congress, a principle which commands --- representation with proportional obligation!


The intended protection was those states carrying the lion’s share of a general tax among the states___ a primary tax to meet Congress’s expenditures laid within the various state borders which fell directly upon the people and their property ___ would be compensated by a vote in Congress Assembled proportionately equal to their financial contribution___ a vote to be exercised in determining how their money would be spent by Congress!

Socialists 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 tax which reaches income and/or real and personal property, 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 AFT is designed, just as income taxation now does, to subjugate the great compromise arrived at during the Constitutional Convention, and the intentions repeatedly expressed during the ratification process of our Constitution. For example, Mr. George Nicholas said: with regard to a general tax "the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil ___ Each State will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled." 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked 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.


If the architects of the AFT were sincere about tax reform which would benefit the people rather than folks in government, they would be promoting an amendment to our Constitution, which would bring us back to our FOUNDING FATHER’S ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate ___ a plan created by tax rebels which was designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than having Congress control the people. Returning to our Constitution ’s original tax plan requires nothing more than the following words to be added to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


JWK



[1]
For verification see Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787, July 5th (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_705.asp) beginning with:


Mr. Govr. MORRIS … thought property ought to be taken into the estimate as well as the number of inhabitants. Life & liberty were generally said to be of more value, than property. An accurate view of the matter would nevertheless prove that property was the main object of Society. . . . These ideas might appear to some new, but they were nevertheless just. If property then was the main object of Govt. certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due to those who were to be affected by the Governmt. … He thought the rule of representation ought to be so fixed as to secure to the Atlantic States a prevalence in the National Councils….”

Truth Warrior
02-15-2009, 06:52 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative)


"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

johnwk
02-15-2009, 07:33 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative)


"By their fruits, ye shall know them."


Did you have a point to make?

Regards,
JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Truth Warrior
02-15-2009, 07:59 AM
Did you have a point to make?

Regards,
JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Only the one I made. :)

Thanks!

TastyWheat
02-15-2009, 10:45 AM
If you're saying the federal government should tax states [when necessary] and not people then I agree. The fair tax may be a good transitionary form of taxation, but the federal government has no business directly taxing its citizens.

torchbearer
02-15-2009, 10:47 AM
the federal government has no business directly taxing its citizens.

Are you a federal citizen? I'm not.

Danke
02-15-2009, 11:44 AM
Returning to our Constitution ’s original tax plan requires nothing more than the following words to be added to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


JWK



No, they can leave the 16th alone. Just properly apply it. We had an income tax before the 16th, and we can still have one if it is removed.

But if so many people believe the income tax will be abolished with it's removal, then, however deceitful, I guess that is one way. Would save the government's ass for misapplying it all these years and the potential backlash if the sheeple found out and sued.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1883564&postcount=49

johnwk
02-15-2009, 11:54 AM
Originally Posted by johnwk
Did you have a point to make?

Regards,
JWKOnly the one I made. :)



And what was that?


JWK

johnwk
02-15-2009, 11:55 AM
If you're saying the federal government should tax states [when necessary] and not people then I agree. The fair tax may be a good transitionary form of taxation, but the federal government has no business directly taxing its citizens.

As a matter of fact, even when the direct tax was found necessary to be resorted to, the intention of our founders was to allow the states to determine how they would meet their share of the tax in a time period set by Congress. For example see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)




Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

The same above language is repeated in a number of other State Ratification documents, in addition to the same idea being expressed during the framing of the Constitution!

JWK

johnwk
02-15-2009, 11:58 AM
No, they can leave the 16th alone. Just properly apply it. We had an income tax before the 16th, and we can still have one if it is removed.

But if so many people believe the income tax will be abolished with it's removal, then, however deceitful, I guess that is one way. Would save the government's ass for misapplying it all these years and the potential backlash if the sheeple found out and sued.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1883564&postcount=49

Apparently you did not read the suggested wording of the repeal:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


JWK

Conservative Christian
02-15-2009, 12:18 PM
I'm a "real" conservative, i.e. limited government at all levels and a non-interventionist foreign policy, and I support the Liberty Amendment:


The Liberty Amendment

Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

http://www.libertyamendment.org/

Danke
02-15-2009, 12:20 PM
Apparently you did not read the suggested wording of the repeal:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


JWK

Yes, but it is implied with the inclusion of the 16th in the wording.

How is congress going to raise revenue with any form of taxation if "Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from ... or any other lawfully realized money."?

Truth Warrior
02-15-2009, 01:37 PM
And what was that?


JWK

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative)



"By their fruits, ye shall know them."


Which part confuses you?

johnwk
02-15-2009, 02:53 PM
I'm a "real" conservative, i.e. limited government at all levels and a non-interventionist foreign policy, and I support the Liberty Amendment:

My definition of a real conservative is one who supports and defends abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from the recorded debates during the framing and ratification process our Constitution, [each article, section, clause and amendment].


You support the Liberty Amendment?

Support for the Liberty Amendment, as it is worded, tells me you may not be serious about ending taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other income. Repealing the 16th amendment does not repeal Congress’s power to lay and collect excises taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes. See Flint vs. Stone Tracy .


In addition, the Liberty Amendment, as worded, would allow our one world crowd [ring leaders at the world bank, international monetary fund, and the NAFTA/CAFTA Global Governance Crowd, to purchase our land from under our feet as well as seize control over many federally operated infrastructures such as our dams, highways, parks, etc. All the properties mentioned in the Liberty Amendment should be returned to the various states in which they are located, and should be so stipulated by the wording of the Amendment.

I just thought I would mention these points as a blind support for proposed legislation may embarrass you if it were to pass.


JWK



"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen 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).

johnwk
02-15-2009, 02:57 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative)



"By their fruits, ye shall know them."


Which part confuses you?

I guess you never did have a point to make.


JWK

heavenlyboy34
02-15-2009, 02:58 PM
Yes, but it is implied with the inclusion of the 16th in the wording.

How is congress going to raise revenue with any form of taxation if "Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from ... or any other lawfully realized money."?

Imposts, duties, tariffs on imports. Outside these, the government has no legitimate "revenue-gathering" authority (IMHO).

Truth Warrior
02-15-2009, 02:59 PM
I guess you never did have a point to make.


JWK Interesting guess. Incorrect however. Have a cookie anyway. ;) :)

johnwk
02-15-2009, 03:03 PM
Imposts, duties, tariffs on imports. Outside these, the government has no legitimate "revenue-gathering" authority (IMHO).


Thank you! You saved me the trouble in answering the question. Too bad few people bother to study our Constitution's original tax plan.


JWK

johnwk
02-15-2009, 03:04 PM
Interesting guess. Incorrect however. Have a cookie anyway. ;) :)


You confuse "interesting" with "factual".


JWK

Truth Warrior
02-15-2009, 03:19 PM
You confuse "interesting" with "factual".


JWK Hardly ever, and certainly NOT in this instance. :) What's a conservative? And can you know them, by their fruits?

heavenlyboy34
02-15-2009, 03:27 PM
Thank you! You saved me the trouble in answering the question. Too bad few people bother to study our Constitution's original tax plan.


JWK
y/w! :D Glad I could help people understand it.

Primbs
02-15-2009, 03:58 PM
Here is what Walter Williams said.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/nationalcolumns/article_1380973.php
The Fair Tax has much to recommend in its favor, such as being a more efficient form of taxation. It would go a long way toward protecting our privacy and preventing Congress from using the tax code to micromanage our lives. The Fair Tax is an excellent idea, but only under three conditions: first, the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax; second, a provision fixing the tax at, say, 23 percent; and third, a constitutional amendment mandating that a tax increase requires a three-fourths vote of Congress. Notwithstanding any provisions within the Fair Tax, if the 16th Amendment weren't repealed, down the road we'd find ourselves with a national sales tax and an income tax.

You say, "Williams, it sounds as if you don't trust Congress." I don't trust Congress any farther than I can toss an elephant. During the debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, congressmen said that only the rich would ever pay income taxes. In 1917, one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply propaganda to dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.

johnwk
02-15-2009, 05:20 PM
Hardly ever, and certainly NOT in this instance. :) What's a conservative?

I gave a working definition at the top of the thread.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution in such a manner as to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Danke
02-15-2009, 07:06 PM
Returning to our Constitution ’s original tax plan requires nothing more than the following words to be added to our Constitution:

Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden ... or any other lawfully realized money [/I][/B]


JWK





Imposts, duties, tariffs on imports. Outside these, the government has no legitimate "revenue-gathering" authority (IMHO).


Thank you! You saved me the trouble in answering the question. Too bad few people bother to study our Constitution's original tax plan.


JWK

Alright you ignorant fucks. I have "bother[ed]" to study the Constitution and particularly the Tax provisions a long, long time. Heavenlyboy, I handed you your ass debating you on the income tax. Remember you did not even know about apportionment?!?!

Should we bring that up again?


johnwk, you [Insult redacted]. Read what you wrote and the question pertaining to that. I underlined it this time for you.

A little reading comprehension would be helpful, try it.

So what's next, now your changing your tune once again after I have pointed out your ignorance?

Truth Warrior
02-15-2009, 07:49 PM
I gave a working definition at the top of the thread.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution in such a manner as to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

I like these MUCH better. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative)


Why should I buy yours?

heavenlyboy34
02-15-2009, 07:51 PM
Alright you ignorant fucks. I have "bother[ed]" to study the Constitution and particularly the Tax provisions a long, long time. Heavenlyboy, I handed you your ass debating you on the income tax. Remember you did not even know about apportionment?!?!

Should we bring that up again?


johnwk, you stupid fuck. Read what you wrote and the question pertaining to that. I underlined it this time for you.

A little reading comprehension would be helpful, try it.

So what's next, now your changing your tune once again after I have pointed out your ignorance?

No, I got bored of proving you wrong and moved on. :p I seem to remember apportionment and all that jazz better than you. ;)

side note: Your ad hominem remarks don't bolster your argument at ALL.

johnwk
02-15-2009, 10:41 PM
johnwk, you stupid fuck. Read what you wrote and the question pertaining to that. I underlined it this time for you.

A little reading comprehension would be helpful, try it.

So what's next, now your changing your tune once again after I have pointed out your ignorance?

Ignorance? Please explain.

If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, please do so in clear language.

JWK

Danke
02-17-2009, 01:13 AM
No, I got bored of proving you wrong and moved on. :p I seem to remember apportionment and all that jazz better than you. ;)

side note: Your ad hominem remarks don't bolster your argument at ALL.

Dude, you didn't even think direct taxes were allowed in the Constitution! "ad hominem " Hardly, just pointing out ignorance, as I stated. "Fuck" added as to your agreement to what followed.


Thank you! You saved me the trouble in answering the question. Too bad few people bother to study our Constitution's original tax plan.


JWK


y/w! :D Glad I could help people understand it.

That's not an ad hominem? Response to you and johnwk in kind.

Danke
02-17-2009, 01:15 AM
Ignorance? Please explain.

If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, please do so in clear language.

JWK

I did a few times, very politely until you added " Too bad few people bother to study our Constitution's original tax plan.

JWK"

You don't answer my questions. To elaborate, Do you know what an excise tax is?

Danke
02-17-2009, 01:42 AM
No, I got bored of proving you wrong and moved on. :p I seem to remember apportionment and all that jazz better than you. ;)


Haha, I tired way before you in that thread, check it out.

Just to refresh your memory of your ignorance:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1774193&postcount=67

reduen
02-17-2009, 10:10 AM
Well, I am a real Conservative and I support the Fairtax. It is a far better system than the one we currently have in place so....

Your answer is yes.