johnwk
01-06-2012, 06:45 AM
During Iowa’s recent State Fair, presidential candidate Romney was asked: "Do you support scrapping the social security cap on payroll taxes so rich people pay their fair share into the trust fund?" Romney correctly associated the question with class warfare and went on to indicate that half of the people in the United States are currently not paying any income taxes. See The Iowa State Fair: Romney's Showing Strong (http://www.giftwrappingair.com/Iowa_State_Fair_Romney_Strong_8-11-11.html), August 11, 2011.
The unfortunate truth is, there is no better way to agitate a class warfare event in America than to bring up the issue of federal tax reform. And during federal elections it becomes quite disheartening to see how politicians have adapted to using tax reform and class warfare to distract and divide the American people while advancing their own personal political careers and fortunes.
While the American People are at each others throat and distracted in a fight demanding each other pay their “fair share” into the federal treasury, our politicians cleverly work behind the scene to loot and plunder that treasury in the commotion. A recent fleecing being the Solyndra swindle (http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/29/goodnight-solyndra-12-billion-swindle-de), or how about the Chevy Volt rip off (http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192)? You can bet your last dollar that those who were politically well connected did very well under both of these taxpayer funded flimflam deals, even after kickbacks changed hands!
But getting back to the “fair share” question, past generations understood “fair share” to mean an equal share when the people were taxed directly! This is exhibited in in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”
And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.
To be sure, our founding fathers when framing and debating our existing Constitution, also understood and advocated equal taxation as being a fair share, if and when Congress ever found it necessary to enter the States and tax the people directly.
Our founders intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. But if a shortfall was experienced and Congress found it necessary to enter the States and tax the people directly, each State’s share of a total sum being raised would be in proportion to its representation in Congress [See, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our Constitution]. This rule of apportionment corrected an evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation‘s population may vote away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population if left unchecked. The founding father’s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the States is as follows:
States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.
And note that the tax boils down to an equal per capita tax if it were laid directly upon the people! For example, if Congress laid the tax direct on the people of New York and each resident of New York had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s 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 far greater then that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend from the federal treasury, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!
It should also be noted that after determining each state’s share of a total sum being raised, our founders intended that each State ought to receive a bill and a time period in which its share of the tax must be paid, thereby allowing the people of each state to raise its State’s share in its own chose way, which is in compliance with federalism, our Constitution‘s plan.
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 each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with. 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 raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
So why is it that Mitt Romney, who is well aware of the class warfare game being played by our Washington Establishment, avoids advocating the enforcement of our founding fathers rule requiring equal taxation if and when Congress decides to enter the States and tax the people directly? Why is it that Mr. Romney complains that half of the people in the United States are currently not paying any income taxes, but omits mentioning our founder’s intended rule of apportionment, which was specifically intended to insure equal taxation if an when Congress decided to tax the people directly?
JWK
“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.
The unfortunate truth is, there is no better way to agitate a class warfare event in America than to bring up the issue of federal tax reform. And during federal elections it becomes quite disheartening to see how politicians have adapted to using tax reform and class warfare to distract and divide the American people while advancing their own personal political careers and fortunes.
While the American People are at each others throat and distracted in a fight demanding each other pay their “fair share” into the federal treasury, our politicians cleverly work behind the scene to loot and plunder that treasury in the commotion. A recent fleecing being the Solyndra swindle (http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/29/goodnight-solyndra-12-billion-swindle-de), or how about the Chevy Volt rip off (http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192)? You can bet your last dollar that those who were politically well connected did very well under both of these taxpayer funded flimflam deals, even after kickbacks changed hands!
But getting back to the “fair share” question, past generations understood “fair share” to mean an equal share when the people were taxed directly! This is exhibited in in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”
And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.
To be sure, our founding fathers when framing and debating our existing Constitution, also understood and advocated equal taxation as being a fair share, if and when Congress ever found it necessary to enter the States and tax the people directly.
Our founders intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. But if a shortfall was experienced and Congress found it necessary to enter the States and tax the people directly, each State’s share of a total sum being raised would be in proportion to its representation in Congress [See, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our Constitution]. This rule of apportionment corrected an evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation‘s population may vote away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population if left unchecked. The founding father’s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the States is as follows:
States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.
And note that the tax boils down to an equal per capita tax if it were laid directly upon the people! For example, if Congress laid the tax direct on the people of New York and each resident of New York had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s 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 far greater then that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend from the federal treasury, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!
It should also be noted that after determining each state’s share of a total sum being raised, our founders intended that each State ought to receive a bill and a time period in which its share of the tax must be paid, thereby allowing the people of each state to raise its State’s share in its own chose way, which is in compliance with federalism, our Constitution‘s plan.
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 each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with. 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 raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
So why is it that Mitt Romney, who is well aware of the class warfare game being played by our Washington Establishment, avoids advocating the enforcement of our founding fathers rule requiring equal taxation if and when Congress decides to enter the States and tax the people directly? Why is it that Mr. Romney complains that half of the people in the United States are currently not paying any income taxes, but omits mentioning our founder’s intended rule of apportionment, which was specifically intended to insure equal taxation if an when Congress decided to tax the people directly?
JWK
“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.