johnwk
09-20-2011, 07:25 AM
See: Obama: Rich should pay 'fair share' to reduce debt (http://www.11alive.com/news/article/205954/166/Obama-Rich-should-pay-fair-share-to-reduce-debt)
“WASHINGTON (USA Today) -- President Obama called Monday for up to $1.5 trillion in new taxes on "the wealthiest citizens and the biggest corporations," the major part of a debt reduction plan designed to cut more than $3 trillion over the next decade.”
In response to Obama’s call for additional taxes on the “rich”, the Republican Party leadership has responded with a charge of “class warfare“!
But to the astute observer who understands the Washington Establishment’s good-cop bad-cop routine, which the leadership of both political parties have learned to play in concert and to perfection, a staged brawl is in the making to distract and confuse the American People while their pockets will continue to be picked to feed the beast in Washington.
The irrefutable fact is, if the Republican Party leadership were sincere in calling out the President to expose his class warfare game, they would point to Obama’s remark that "This is not class warfare, it's math", and then provide our Constitution’s fair share formula math which is intended to pre-determine each person’s “fair share” if Congress decides to tax the people directly!
But the Republican Party leadership, including those who want Obama’s job, will never mention our Constitution’s fair share formula because if it were put back into operation and enforced, it would remove Congress’ iron fist from the necks of the American people which it has worked so hard to establish, and Congress would once again be forced into being the servants of the people and not their masters!
And just what is our Constitution’s fair share formula? Our founding fathers agreed by the adoption of our Constitution that if Congress was unable to raise sufficient revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes laid upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, all of which were intended to be Congress' primary means of raising a federal revenue, then and only then was Congress intended to lay and collect a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum to make up the shortfall or deficit. However, to prevent abuse of this direct taxing power, and especially the class warfare game which Congress now uses to divide the people, our founders thoughtfully established a fair share formula which tied this tax and representation in Congress by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by each state’s population size! The two agree upon FAIR SHARE formulas being:
State`s Pop.
___________ X Total House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps.
Total U.S. pop.
State`s Pop.
_____________ X deficit or shortfall = STATE`S SHARE OF DEFICIT
Total U.S. pop.
In fact, the tax boils down to an equal per capita tax if the tax is laid directly upon the people! For example, if the tax were laid today and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress to extinguish an annual defict, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were divided evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California is compensated by the Constitution with a larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula and gives California a greater say in how federal revenue is spent!
Does this not answer one of the reasons why California’s Congressional Delegation is infested with big spending “progressive” pinkos? They get to exercise their enormous voting strength in Congress when spending from the federal treasury. But are no longer compelled, as intended by our founding fathers and the rule of apportionment, to bring home a bill for their State to pay a “fair apportioned share” of the tab when deficits occur. And you can bet your boobee California’s Congressional Delegation will be the first to join hands with Obama’s class warfare game which is designed to do nothing more than divide and confuse the people, and which California’s few Republicans in Congress will be more than happy to join, rather than point to the rule of apportionment which our founders intended to apply across the board without distinctions based upon political party partisanship.
But let our founding fathers speak for themselves with regard to the importance of applying the rule of apportionment:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)
And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink),“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)
Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
And then 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.
As to meaningful tax reform, that which would actually remove the iron fist of government from the necks of America’s businesses and working class people, and re-establish a moment of meaningful accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’ appetite and a deficit occurred, the following 32 words fills the bill and would re-establish our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)
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
So, which of our Republican presidential hopefuls will take up the cause and defend our founding father’s original tax plan, and work to put an end to the class warfare game?
JWK
Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay income taxes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get
“WASHINGTON (USA Today) -- President Obama called Monday for up to $1.5 trillion in new taxes on "the wealthiest citizens and the biggest corporations," the major part of a debt reduction plan designed to cut more than $3 trillion over the next decade.”
In response to Obama’s call for additional taxes on the “rich”, the Republican Party leadership has responded with a charge of “class warfare“!
But to the astute observer who understands the Washington Establishment’s good-cop bad-cop routine, which the leadership of both political parties have learned to play in concert and to perfection, a staged brawl is in the making to distract and confuse the American People while their pockets will continue to be picked to feed the beast in Washington.
The irrefutable fact is, if the Republican Party leadership were sincere in calling out the President to expose his class warfare game, they would point to Obama’s remark that "This is not class warfare, it's math", and then provide our Constitution’s fair share formula math which is intended to pre-determine each person’s “fair share” if Congress decides to tax the people directly!
But the Republican Party leadership, including those who want Obama’s job, will never mention our Constitution’s fair share formula because if it were put back into operation and enforced, it would remove Congress’ iron fist from the necks of the American people which it has worked so hard to establish, and Congress would once again be forced into being the servants of the people and not their masters!
And just what is our Constitution’s fair share formula? Our founding fathers agreed by the adoption of our Constitution that if Congress was unable to raise sufficient revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes laid upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, all of which were intended to be Congress' primary means of raising a federal revenue, then and only then was Congress intended to lay and collect a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum to make up the shortfall or deficit. However, to prevent abuse of this direct taxing power, and especially the class warfare game which Congress now uses to divide the people, our founders thoughtfully established a fair share formula which tied this tax and representation in Congress by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by each state’s population size! The two agree upon FAIR SHARE formulas being:
State`s Pop.
___________ X Total House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps.
Total U.S. pop.
State`s Pop.
_____________ X deficit or shortfall = STATE`S SHARE OF DEFICIT
Total U.S. pop.
In fact, the tax boils down to an equal per capita tax if the tax is laid directly upon the people! For example, if the tax were laid today and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress to extinguish an annual defict, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were divided evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California is compensated by the Constitution with a larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula and gives California a greater say in how federal revenue is spent!
Does this not answer one of the reasons why California’s Congressional Delegation is infested with big spending “progressive” pinkos? They get to exercise their enormous voting strength in Congress when spending from the federal treasury. But are no longer compelled, as intended by our founding fathers and the rule of apportionment, to bring home a bill for their State to pay a “fair apportioned share” of the tab when deficits occur. And you can bet your boobee California’s Congressional Delegation will be the first to join hands with Obama’s class warfare game which is designed to do nothing more than divide and confuse the people, and which California’s few Republicans in Congress will be more than happy to join, rather than point to the rule of apportionment which our founders intended to apply across the board without distinctions based upon political party partisanship.
But let our founding fathers speak for themselves with regard to the importance of applying the rule of apportionment:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)
And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink),“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)
Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
And then 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.
As to meaningful tax reform, that which would actually remove the iron fist of government from the necks of America’s businesses and working class people, and re-establish a moment of meaningful accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’ appetite and a deficit occurred, the following 32 words fills the bill and would re-establish our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)
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
So, which of our Republican presidential hopefuls will take up the cause and defend our founding father’s original tax plan, and work to put an end to the class warfare game?
JWK
Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay income taxes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get