johnwk
12-04-2009, 11:44 PM
As much as I admire Glenn Beck I was dumbfounded when he suggested on the Bill O'Reilly show this evening [12/4/09] a 2 percent VAT tax to be adopted that would go directly to pay down the national debt. Why on earth would Glenn Beck, or any sane and freedom loving person, promote increasing federal taxes by 2 percent, which is exactly what the Washington Establishment wants ___ a new way to get their grubby fingers on more of America’s productivity? Wouldn’t it be more in line with prudent thinking to demand a reduction in the federal government’s spending by 2 percent, and dedicate that 2 percent reduction toward paying down the national debt? Why promote a new tax which is exactly what our Marxists in Washington want? What is wrong with Glenn?
Beck also seems to favor a “flat” taxing system which, like existing income taxation, is a progressive tax idea and is contrary to our founding fathers rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the states!
For those unfamiliar with our Constitution’s original tax plan, our founding fathers agreed that if imposts and duties [taxes at our water’s edge], and miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury, were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures, and a general tax among the states were found necessary for additional revenue, [for example, to extinguish a deficit] Congress would first determine the total sum needed, and then determine each State’s share of the total sum being raised based upon each state’s number of Representatives as required under the rule of apportionment stated in Article 1, Section 2, Cl. 3, of our Constitution. The idea behind the rule of apportionment was, representation with proportional obligation, something which progressives and Marxists hate with a passion.
In any event, after determining each states share, each State’s Congressional Delegation was to return home with a bill for their State’s share and the State’s Governor and Legislature was to be given the bill and given a time period to raise its share in its own chosen way and then remit the sum into the Treasury of the United States. Keep in mind our founder’s method creates a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation must return home with it State’s bill.
The founder’s fair share formula for an general tax among the states may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
Glenn also said he wants a “balanced budget amendment”. Well, the fact is, our founding father’s above mentioned apportioned tax was specifically put into the Constitution to be used to extinguish deficits and made each states Congressional Delegation immediately accountable to their Governor and state Legislatures should Congress spend more than was brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes, which would then require the apportioned tax to be laid to make up the difference.
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 Chucky Boy would be introduced to one of our founding father’s CREATIVE REMEDIES (http://www.historywiz.com/didyouknow/tarringandfeathering.htm) for dealing with his kind.
As much as I like Glenn, before he offers tax solutions, he needs to study our founding father’s original tax plan which was based upon a number of “principles” and proved to set the stage for America to become the economic marvel of the world when it was followed. We don’t need any new stinken tax to pay down the debt, we need to follow our founder’s plan and its various build in checks and balances.
BTW, does anyone here know how to get in touch with Glenn. I have tried to email him countless times without success.
For those interested in follow up documentation:
CLICK HERE (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) for an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million, August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax
CLICK HERE (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) for Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas of the tax and be entitled to certain deductions.
Also, check out 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 was judiciously selected and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax upon the article. Also see how our founding fathers used tonnage taxes to encourage our nation’s ship building industry.
Regards,
JWK
“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act
Beck also seems to favor a “flat” taxing system which, like existing income taxation, is a progressive tax idea and is contrary to our founding fathers rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the states!
For those unfamiliar with our Constitution’s original tax plan, our founding fathers agreed that if imposts and duties [taxes at our water’s edge], and miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury, were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures, and a general tax among the states were found necessary for additional revenue, [for example, to extinguish a deficit] Congress would first determine the total sum needed, and then determine each State’s share of the total sum being raised based upon each state’s number of Representatives as required under the rule of apportionment stated in Article 1, Section 2, Cl. 3, of our Constitution. The idea behind the rule of apportionment was, representation with proportional obligation, something which progressives and Marxists hate with a passion.
In any event, after determining each states share, each State’s Congressional Delegation was to return home with a bill for their State’s share and the State’s Governor and Legislature was to be given the bill and given a time period to raise its share in its own chosen way and then remit the sum into the Treasury of the United States. Keep in mind our founder’s method creates a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation must return home with it State’s bill.
The founder’s fair share formula for an general tax among the states may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
Glenn also said he wants a “balanced budget amendment”. Well, the fact is, our founding father’s above mentioned apportioned tax was specifically put into the Constitution to be used to extinguish deficits and made each states Congressional Delegation immediately accountable to their Governor and state Legislatures should Congress spend more than was brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes, which would then require the apportioned tax to be laid to make up the difference.
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 Chucky Boy would be introduced to one of our founding father’s CREATIVE REMEDIES (http://www.historywiz.com/didyouknow/tarringandfeathering.htm) for dealing with his kind.
As much as I like Glenn, before he offers tax solutions, he needs to study our founding father’s original tax plan which was based upon a number of “principles” and proved to set the stage for America to become the economic marvel of the world when it was followed. We don’t need any new stinken tax to pay down the debt, we need to follow our founder’s plan and its various build in checks and balances.
BTW, does anyone here know how to get in touch with Glenn. I have tried to email him countless times without success.
For those interested in follow up documentation:
CLICK HERE (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) for an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million, August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax
CLICK HERE (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) for Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas of the tax and be entitled to certain deductions.
Also, check out 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 was judiciously selected and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax upon the article. Also see how our founding fathers used tonnage taxes to encourage our nation’s ship building industry.
Regards,
JWK
“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act