Chuck Norris KO’d by alleged fair tax (H.R.25)!

[johnwk]

See:

Time for T.E.A. and a Fair Tax (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94752)
Chuck Norris
World Net Daily Exclusive Commentary
Posted: April 13, 2009
1:00 am Eastern


It is so sad to see Chuck Norris comment on our founding fathers feelings regarding federal taxation, and then go on to promote a tax plan, the alleged fairtax, which would establish the very kind of tax which our founding fathers object to.

Mr. Norris makes the claim:



The Fair Tax does away with all taxes and puts in place a single consumptive (fair) tax, which is the closest, practical, modern proposal to the taxation system favored by the founders.

But the truth is, the alleged fair tax does not propose to do away with “all taxes” and put in their place a single tax! That is the fairy tale version of H.R.25! What the alleged fair tax proposes to do is create an “Excise Tax Bureau” “to administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms!” And, this “Excise Tax Bureau” would be in addition to the “Sales Tax Bureau“ which is the other federal taxing collecting agency proposed to be created under the alleged FT, and would administer the H.R. 25 tax in any state Congress may arbitrarily decide to administer the tax in.

In other words, many existing taxes remain under the alleged fair tax, especially “excise” taxes, and the people, under the alleged fair tax, would have to answer to three federal tax collecting agencies in paying federal taxes: the Excise Tax Bureau, the Sales tax Bureau, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms! In addition, there is no suggestion in the text of H.R. 25 to forbid Congress from laying excise taxes which may be calculated from profits and gains as was done under the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909! This leaves the door wide open for our “progressives” in Congress to lay and collect a windfall profits excise tax on those “evil” corporations.

Mr. Norris goes on to write:


If the Founding Fathers were here today, I believe they would support the Fair Tax. As James Madison said, "Taxes on consumption are always least burdensome, because they are least felt, and are borne too by those who are both willing and able to pay them; that of all taxes on consumption, those on foreign commerce are most compatible with the genius and policy of free States."

It is true our founders agreed taxes on consumption to be the least oppressive in raising a federal revenue, but each article was to be “judiciously selected” [see Federalist No.21] allowing the tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct business, and the necessities of life to be excluded from the list of taxables! Our founder’s method for taxing consumption did not call for putting every American family on the public dole with a ‘family consumption allowance” to be used to pay the 23 percent tax upon a limited quantity of necessities of life and make the majority of voters in America dependent upon a monthly government check. Indeed, we warned in the Federalist Papers that “ …control over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will. Do you really believe our founding fathers would approve of putting every American family on the public dole?


Let us also establish the alleged fair tax would totally trash part of the great compromise which our founders arrive at during the framing of our Constitution … the rule of apportionment… which is now trashed under existing “progressive” taxation!

Under our Constitution’s original tax plan and if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to borrow to meet its expenditures, the deficit thus created was to be extinguished by a general tax among the states and each state was to be held responsible to contribute a share in extinguishing the deficit based upon its voting strength in Congress…. representation with proportional obligation!

Our Constitution's fair share formula for this tax may be expressed as follows:



State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX
Total U.S. Population


Upon computing each state’s apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit created by borrowing, each state’s congressional delegation was to return home with a bill and the various state governors and legislatures were left with the responsibility of transferring such money from the state’s treasury into the Treasury of the United States or raising additional taxes within the state and then transferring that money into the Treasury of the United States which would extinguish the deficit created by Congress.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if New York should receive a bill from Sen. Chucky-boy-Schumer for its apportioned share of the 2009 federal deficit which Chucky helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect they would meet him at the border of N.Y with tar and feather parties as they rightfully should!

Here is an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) using the Founder’s rule of apportionment and showing each state’s share of the tax.

Also see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


I can assure you Mr. Norris, our founding fathers would have rejected the alleged fair tax because they did so during the Convention, and demanded that any general tax among the states would be subject to the rule of apportionment!


Socialists, “progressives”, 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 architects of the alleged fair tax, and socialists who worked very hard to adopt the 16th Amendment, both have something very much in common ___ the subjugation of the rule of apportionment by which the people of the various states agreed they would contribute into the common treasury if imposts, duties [external taxes] and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures.

But the difference between the socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment and the ringleaders behind the alleged fair tax is this, the socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment were up front and promoted exactly what they wanted:

[I]The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But the ringleaders behind the alleged fair tax will not say what it is they want, and then promote it by the required constitutional amendment which would state:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from property, real and personal, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Bottom line is Mr. Norris, we only need 32 words to be added to our Constitution to achieve real tax reform:


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


These words, if added to our Constitution, would bring us back to our Constitution’s original tax plan, force Congress to raise its primary revenue from taxes on articles of consumption and would end the miseries we now experience under taxes calculated from “incomes”, which is what I thought the ringleaders of the alleged fair tax wanted!
.

Regards,
JWK

If we can make the majority of voters dependent upon a federal government check, [the fair tax family consumption allowance]we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills

[torchbearer]

The only good thing about the fair tax is that the 30%-40% sales tax will let people feel the tax burden more than the withholding tax, plus it will finish off what is left of our economy.
I say go for it. Let's bring this house of cards down.

[ItsTime]

The only good thing about the fair tax is that the 30%-40% sales tax will let people feel the tax burden more than the withholding tax, plus it will finish off what is left of our economy.
I say go for it. Let's bring this house of cards down.

I never understood the push for the fair tax now. It would destroy what is left of the retail market. No tax is best, but a flat tax (To those making less than say 40,000) would be better. WITH NO TAX CREDITS, EARNED INCOME CREDITS! grrr lol

[He Who Pawns]

Anything is better than the current invasive nightmare.

Some kind of a national sales tax is just fine with me. As torch points out, at least that way people would realize how badly their wallets are are being raped by Uncle Sam.

[torchbearer]

I just finished up my vegetable/fruit garden today.
This summer I will be selling vegetables 50% less than you can get them at other produce, and it will be tax free. (this state has a tax on everything)
Long live agorism. Long live local markets!

[ItsTime]

I just finished up my vegetable/fruit garden today.
This summer I will be selling vegetables 50% less than you can get them at other produce, and it will be tax free. (this state has a tax on everything)
Long live agorism. Long live local markets!

MMMM local farm stand produce.

I am lucky enough in the summer time to buy my produce from a Ron Paul/Liberty farmer. :D

[johnwk]

No tax is best, but a flat tax (To those making less than say 40,000) would be better. WITH NO TAX CREDITS, EARNED INCOME CREDITS! grrr lol


The problem with a “flat” income tax is, it keeps the present miseries of taxes calculated from “incomes” alive:

1. filing federal tax returns under the penalty of perjury;

2 keeping endless records for the federal government;

3 Keeps in place federal audits which are not only used for compliance purposes, but also used as a weapon by folks in government against political enemies;

4 And let us not forget it keeps in place the power of Congress to manipulate the meaning of “income” so those who work for a living pay the tax while those who have money working are excluded from paying taxes by clever definitions of what is and what is not considered to be “taxable” incomes.

Our founding fathers got the tax system right, and that is the tax plan we must work to get reestablished. The problem is, not one in ten thousand people fully understand how our Constitution’s original tax plan worked.


Regards,

JWK

[johnwk]

Anything is better than the current invasive nightmare.

Some kind of a national sales tax is just fine with me. As torch points out, at least that way people would realize how badly their wallets are are being raped by Uncle Sam.

National sales tax or taxing consumption as our founding fathers intended?

JWK

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Sadly, Chuck is a douche.

[bossman068410]

I never understood the push for the fair tax now. It would destroy what is left of the retail market. No tax is best, but a flat tax (To those making less than say 40,000) would be better. WITH NO TAX CREDITS, EARNED INCOME CREDITS! grrr lol

FAIR TAX IS A SCAM

1) WE WILL LOOSE privacy and any cash type of transactions
2) They will keep the ss tax
3) then we will be taxed on BOTH ENDS

remember

NEOCONS are pushing this

[silverhawks]

Our founding fathers got the tax system right, and that is the tax plan we must work to get reestablished. The problem is, not one in ten thousand people fully understand how our Constitution’s original tax plan worked.

Ok then, let's do their work for them.

Is there a simple way to come up with some examples to illustrate how it worked?

For example:

a) Purchases under the current tax system
b) Purchases under the Fairtax
c) Purchases under Constitutional Tax

Use real-world examples that people would easily understand: like buying a car, buying groceries, etc.

Anyone want to give it a shot?

[Brian4Liberty]

National sales tax or taxing consumption as our founding fathers intended?

JWK

Flat, across the board, un-targeted tariff on goods and services.

[Roxi]

this thread is a scam... the only person that can KO chuck norris is Chuck norris himself... who is so fast that he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head :D

[TastyWheat]

Our founding fathers got the tax system right, and that is the tax plan we must work to get reestablished. The problem is, not one in ten thousand people fully understand how our Constitution’s original tax plan worked.
I agree. Direct federal taxation needs to end. The states will no doubt impose their own taxes to meet federal obligations, but at least we can have competitive systems to see what works best. This should be coupled with a repeal of the 17th Amendment though, so the states have a say when new federal "taxes" are proposed.

[Carole]

So you need to send this to Mr. Norris. :D

[silverhawks]

Appropriate quote I think:


"For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens."

~Thomas Jefferson

[Indy4Chng]

How would the fair tax be any different from current. Certain products would be determine politically correct and have lower taxes, other would have higher. Can't there be some sore to a VAT that is flat across the board on all products?

[johnwk]

Ok then, let's do their work for them.

Is there a simple way to come up with some examples to illustrate how it worked?



I don't know about simple, but, in effect, our founding fathers intended, as a first method to raise a federal revenue, was to have Congress lay imposts and duties at our water’s edge, which included taxing specifically selected articles of consumption, preferable those considered to be luxury. The logic and fairness of these taxes on consumption is explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21:



The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


Under our founding father’s method of taxing consumption (see our nation’s first revenue Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)) note that each article is judiciously selected and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax.

In addition to the above mentioned tax on specifically chosen articles of consumption, an across the board tonnage tax on imports was also laid by our founding fathers as a way to help raise a national revenue from foreign business owners wishing to sell their products on American soil --- sort of like an entry ticket fee into a flea market.

However, if insufficient revenue was raised from the above mentioned “external taxes” then internal taxes on articles of consumption were intended to be imposed to raise additional revenue. But once again, each article was to be carefully selected and judged for the appropriate amount of tax. It seems to be self evident that articles necessary to conduct business and expand our nation’s domestic industrial base ought to be excluded from the list of taxables to encourage a healthy and vibrant manufacturing capability on American soil, and was thought essential to the survival of America’s independence by our founding fathers, in addition to providing needed employment!

Our founders also believed that articles of necessity, such as food, clothing, shelter etc., ought not be taxed to avoid an oppressive burden upon the poor and working classes which is also pointed out in Federalist No. 21.

But there is still another reason for selecting each specific article for taxation and judging the amount of tax to be laid upon each article, and that reason is to allow the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article taxed.
As Hamilton correctly points out:



It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which can not be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue

The wisdom of limiting Congress’ power to taxing specifically chosen articles of luxury is this. If Congress performs its constitutional functions properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the federal treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are oppressive and its regulatory impositions upon business and industry impede a flourishing economy, which unquestionably is now the case, or any particular article of consumption is excessively taxed by Congress because of Congress’s greed, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and this would be a poetic and justified self inflicted punishment upon Congress!

And finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to borrow to meet its expenditures, the deficit thus created was to be extinguished by a general tax among the states and each state was to be held responsible to contribute a share in extinguishing the deficit based upon its voting strength in Congress…. representation with proportional obligation!

Our Constitution's fair share formula for this tax may be expressed as follows:



State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX
Total U.S. Population


Upon computing each state’s apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit created by borrowing, each state’s congressional delegation was to return home with a bill and the various state governors and legislatures were left with the responsibility of transferring such money from the state’s treasury into the Treasury of the United States or raising additional taxes within the state and then transferring that money into the Treasury of the United States which would extinguish the deficit created by Congress.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of N.Y. and the N.Y. State Legislature if N.Y. should receive a bill from Sen. Chucky-boy-Schumer for its apportioned share of the 2009 federal deficit which Chucky helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect they would meet him at the border of N.Y with tar and feather parties as they rightfully should!





The bottom line is, We don’t need 134 stinking pages of legal mumbo jumbo [H.R.25] to reform our federal tax system. We only need 32 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


This would bring us back to our founding father’s original tax plan and excise taxes on consumption as our founders intended them to be laid, and are explained in Federalist No. 21.

JWK

If we can make the majority of voters dependent upon a federal government check, [the fair tax family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills

[noxagol]

The way we are taxed is irrelevant, the amount we are taxed is all important. I don't think anyone would through a real fit over a 1% flat tax on all, or a 1,2,3% progressive tax, or a 1% national sales tax. However, if it were all 100%, we would be outraged, and rightfully so. Arguing over the way they steal 40-70% of our income is dumb when we should be arguing over the AMOUNT they steal from us, not how they do it. Do you care if the burglar robs you at gun point or if he sneaks into your house at night or if he steals your identity? No, you only care that he robbed you.

[ChaosControl]

Income tax is an invasion of privacy and anti-American and anti-Liberty at its core.
A "flat" tax is still an income tax and still an invasion of privacy.

This "fair" tax is screwed up though. I do think a small sales tax is the best, but not some ridiculously high one like the "fair" tax.

Some states run purely on sales tax and they do fine. We could run the country on a small sales tax and start returning more things to the state level. Although I'd prefer we find another form of taxation, a sales tax is preferable to an income tax simply for privacy reasons.

[He Who Pawns]

It's bogus to say, "It's the amount that matter, not the way it's levied."

I call BS. I would much rather have my federal taxes taken in a national sales tax that I can see with my own eyes, and that does not require me to file a bunch of personal information every April 15th under the threat of jailtime.

[mczerone]

While we have this massive government, it doesn't matter one bit how they tax us.

The current method is more costly and tangled than any new tax-scheme because politicians have been writing loopholes into it for 80 years. Any other tax will end up the same way in 80 years of politicking.

Further, while they hold a legal monopoly on currency, they can tax us by creating more money and just devaluing our notes: Instead of a medieval system taking a few pieces of silver from each person's bag of money as the income or consumption taxes would, the government just makes our notes contain less value from their central perch.

Until we can control the value of our own labor and production, it doesn't matter one iota what percentages of that value the government takes by hand: it takes whatever it wants by fiat anyway.

In this light, the best we can hope for in our taxation system, then, is that it remains as conspicuous to the general public as possible. The inflation tax, the wage tax, the SS tax all are obfuscated taxes - you can get by without knowing how they work, you just pay a little each week, or a small percent each year loss in the value of your money and savings.

To this end, I propose a repeal of wage-withholding and paying a yearly "equity tax", a mandatory equity meeting with an IRS agent on an annual schedule. You would have to say what you do, what you spend, what you earn. They would factor in how much personal profit you've made, how much reinvestment you've made, and whatever else the IRS wants. Think of all the bureaucratic overhead that could be sold as "creating jobs"! ;)

This yearly tax-man meeting would be so abusive, confrontational, and inefficient that people would very easily see what a waste taxes really are.

[johnwk]

While we have this massive government, it doesn't matter one bit how they tax us.

.

It does make a difference, a very big difference!

Our founders intended Congress to raise its everyday revenue from taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. Tax any article too high and it reduces the consumption of the particular article in question. In other words, our founder plan allows the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected.

And then there comes the general tax among the states to make up any shortfalls. Keep in mind this tax is only to be used if Congress cannot raise sufficient revenue from taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But under this tax, a general tax among the states, each state’s congressional delegation has to bring home a bill to their state governor and legislature for its apportioned share of the total being raised and the money is to then be transferred from the state’s treasury into the treasury of the United States or the state legislature and governor have to raise additional taxes in the state and then deposit that money into the treasury of the united States instead of using it to meet state functions.


Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if New York should receive a bill from Sen. Chucky-boy-Schumer for its apportioned share of the 2009 federal deficit which Chucky helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect they would meet him at the border of N.Y with tar and feather parties as they rightfully should!

Here is an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) using the Founder’s rule of apportionment and showing each state’s share of the tax.

Also see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


JWK

[noxagol]

OK, well while you bicker to the thieves to not take part of your income but to increase the cost of goods, I'll work on avoiding the thieves all together. You people are pleading for a more pleaseant way to be stolen from while not fighting the real issue, being stolen from.

[sratiug]

Flat, across the board, un-targeted tariff on goods and services.

Coupled to elimination of all other federal taxes, this is the best answer to federal taxation. This is the only way to ensure free trade. Free traders must realize this. Internal taxes not being shared by foreign producers subsidize imports.

A constitutional amendment should be passed for this phazing it in over 10 years while phazing out all other federal taxes. The rate could be adjusted each year by language in the amendment to maintain a balanced budget.

[johnwk]

The amazing thing about the ringleaders behind the alleged fair tax is, fairtax.org is happy to declare at its web site that the alleged fairtax is a “progressive” tax. Not an apportioned tax among the states guaranteeing representation with proportional obligation, but a “progressive” tax, meaning ---- from each state according to its ability! Now where else have we heard that very principle stated?


As I correctly stated before, I know socialists, “progressives”, 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. Why do supporters of the alleged fair tax oppose representation with proportional obligation?


JWK

If we can make the majority of voters dependent upon a federal government check, [the fair tax family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills