johnwk
02-25-2010, 06:29 AM
On yesterday’s [2/24/10] radio show, a caller had called Glenn Beck and the subject drifted to changing the federal tax system. Glenn touted a flat income tax while the caller correctly pointed out income taxation is one of the planks of the communist manifesto. Glenn went on to challenge the caller as to what change he proposed. The caller suggested going back to our Constitution’s original tax plan.
At this point Glenn and his in-house sock puppet started berating the caller with laughter and mocking remarks, one remark being a suggestion we would have to hold “bake sales” to fund the cost of the federal government. The implication being our founding fathers were incompetent in the creation of our Constitution’s original tax plan, that it could not raise sufficient revenue, and we would need to have “bake sales” to supplement our founding father’s inadequate tax plan. Glenn and his sock puppet continued for several minutes with their disparaging remarks and a filibuster precluding the guest caller from responding and defending what he had suggested.
Well Glenn, let me be the first to inform you that our founding father’s original tax plan does provide sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue. But unlike your misplaced fascination with a flat income tax, our founding fathers tax plan, in addition to providing sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue, also provides mechanisms to encourage Congress to immediately reduce spending, which I thought was one of your stated goals.
The founder's taxing plan does this by having Congress, as a first means of raising a federal revenue, lay imposts and duties at our water’s edge ___ an example would be a nondiscriminatory tonnage tax on imported articles which eventually filters down to those who purchase the imports. In addition, our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. Finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes are found insufficient to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government and a shortfall is experienced, then a direct tax is to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and each State’s share is to be apportioned, just as each state’s number of representatives are now apportioned. Our founding father’s fair share formula for this tax, 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
After computing each States apportioned share of the tax, each state’s Congressional Delegation is to return home with a bill in hand and place this burden in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with this unwanted financial responsibility. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature are to then transfer the state’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state does not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government is to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due.
The unavoidable truth is, our founder’s tax plan provides sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue, but does so by creating a very real moment of accountability if members of Congress should have to bring home a bill because of their profligate spending habits, and this would encourage members of Congress to drastically cut spending in order to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax.
Keep in mind, the apportioned tax also encourages every state Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid having to deplete the State’s treasury.
I know Glenn has a couple “advisors” feeding him all sorts of information, one of which has probably panhandled the flat income tax as a solution. I suggest Glenn research and take note of our founding father’s solutions, and have confidence in them, as their tax plan created the economic circumstances for America to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet when it was followed! We don’t need no stinking income tax which keeps the federal government’s iron fist around the necks of America’s businesses, industries and working class people.
Check out this brief summary of our founding father‘s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)
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 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)
At this point Glenn and his in-house sock puppet started berating the caller with laughter and mocking remarks, one remark being a suggestion we would have to hold “bake sales” to fund the cost of the federal government. The implication being our founding fathers were incompetent in the creation of our Constitution’s original tax plan, that it could not raise sufficient revenue, and we would need to have “bake sales” to supplement our founding father’s inadequate tax plan. Glenn and his sock puppet continued for several minutes with their disparaging remarks and a filibuster precluding the guest caller from responding and defending what he had suggested.
Well Glenn, let me be the first to inform you that our founding father’s original tax plan does provide sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue. But unlike your misplaced fascination with a flat income tax, our founding fathers tax plan, in addition to providing sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue, also provides mechanisms to encourage Congress to immediately reduce spending, which I thought was one of your stated goals.
The founder's taxing plan does this by having Congress, as a first means of raising a federal revenue, lay imposts and duties at our water’s edge ___ an example would be a nondiscriminatory tonnage tax on imported articles which eventually filters down to those who purchase the imports. In addition, our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. Finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes are found insufficient to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government and a shortfall is experienced, then a direct tax is to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and each State’s share is to be apportioned, just as each state’s number of representatives are now apportioned. Our founding father’s fair share formula for this tax, 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
After computing each States apportioned share of the tax, each state’s Congressional Delegation is to return home with a bill in hand and place this burden in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with this unwanted financial responsibility. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature are to then transfer the state’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state does not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government is to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due.
The unavoidable truth is, our founder’s tax plan provides sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue, but does so by creating a very real moment of accountability if members of Congress should have to bring home a bill because of their profligate spending habits, and this would encourage members of Congress to drastically cut spending in order to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax.
Keep in mind, the apportioned tax also encourages every state Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid having to deplete the State’s treasury.
I know Glenn has a couple “advisors” feeding him all sorts of information, one of which has probably panhandled the flat income tax as a solution. I suggest Glenn research and take note of our founding father’s solutions, and have confidence in them, as their tax plan created the economic circumstances for America to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet when it was followed! We don’t need no stinking income tax which keeps the federal government’s iron fist around the necks of America’s businesses, industries and working class people.
Check out this brief summary of our founding father‘s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)
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 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)