PDA

View Full Version : Will Senator Ted Cruz and “conservatives” offer real tax reform this coming election?




johnwk
12-31-2013, 10:11 PM
.

With the 2014 election just around the corner “conservatives” have the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of the American people by offering real tax reform. Have most Americans not witnessed the progressive’s disastrous and slavish experiment associated with the 16th Amendment and taxes levied on incomes without apportionment? Have we not recently seen how this very tax has been used during election time to punish and harass those who dare to speak out and against our despotic federal government? Have we not also witnessed for generations how this despicable tax is used by our federal government to not only redistribute the paychecks of America’s hard working productive citizens to fund Washington’s “free cheese wagon”, but how it is also used to tighten the regulatory iron fist of government around the necks of Americans labor, businesses and industries?


Our founding fathers were well aware of the slavish and oppressive nature of taxes which are levied directly upon the people. In speaking of this kind of tax and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose direct taxes, Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=006/llac006.db&recNum=191) warns his colleagues:


"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."


Unfortunately progressives were able to con the American People in the early 1900s and convinced them to adopt the 16th Amendment. At the time progressives made their appeal to the average working person who was not to be taxed under the proposed Amendment. It was fraudulently sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their “fair share” in taxes.


During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitated the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.

And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).


But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a taxing power to allow the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to also squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and eventually make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But the progressives, after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, patiently waited for one generation to pass when the intentions for which the amendment was adopted would be forgotten and a war to begin before completing their mission, which was the imposition of the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942!


FDR’s class warfare tax unconstitutionally expanded taxes on “gains, profits and unearned income” to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s “earned wages”. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income”, the temporary tax on working people’s “earned wages” was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort.


And here we are today, 70 years later, and this thieving tax, which robs the bread which poor working people have earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then into a dependency upon government for their subsistence ___ an outcome which is needed by our corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive, dependent voting block!


Now, with this in mind the question is, with another election upon us, will Senator Ted Cruz and “conservatives” step forward and offer real tax reform, or will they do a Mark Levin “fan dance” in order to keep alive a tyrannical tax which every despotic government loves? And how may this type of taxing power be withdrawn from Congress’ reach? It can begin with “conservatives” who run for office in 2014 to propose a 32 word amendment to our Constitution which declares:


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 end taxes calculated from incomes and return us to a consumption based taxing system, which is what our founders intended, and which proved to pave the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world because it held Congress’ greedy taxing appetite in check! Hamilton stresses this in Federalist No 21 with regard to taxes on articles of consumption:


“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. 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 counter balanced 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.


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 cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”


I suspect if “conservatives” running for office this coming election unite in an agreement to send the above 32 word amendment to the States for ratification if they are elected, it will not only verify they are true conservatives who want to return to our nation’s founding principles which includes its original tax plan, but they are willing to confront the existing Washington establishment head on which now thrives from and worships the socialist/progressive inspired tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.


JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

Rocco
12-31-2013, 11:50 PM
http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/A%20Platform%20to%20Revitalize%20America.pdf

"For example, if a business wished to finance the construction of a new plant, they would no longer be able to deduct the interest paid on that financing. However, that would be more than offset under a flat tax system because the financing of that plant would be cheaper as interest rates would be lower. Second, the entire cost of the inputs and expenses with regard to building the plant would be fully deductible and expensed immediately. Finally once operations are up and running, that business would be subject to tax rates of 17 percent, as opposed to the 35 percent liability today. It should be evident that under such a tax system, businesses operate in a much more efficient system, and are provided incentives to expand and increase operations."


This is THE tax reform plan of the conservative movement. Freedomworks called it the best budget out there. It is the solution to our fiscal mess!

johnwk
01-01-2014, 07:48 AM
http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/A%20Platform%20to%20Revitalize%20America.pdf

"For example, if a business wished to finance the construction of a new plant, they would no longer be able to deduct the interest paid on that financing. However, that would be more than offset under a flat tax system because the financing of that plant would be cheaper as interest rates would be lower. Second, the entire cost of the inputs and expenses with regard to building the plant would be fully deductible and expensed immediately. Finally once operations are up and running, that business would be subject to tax rates of 17 percent, as opposed to the 35 percent liability today. It should be evident that under such a tax system, businesses operate in a much more efficient system, and are provided incentives to expand and increase operations."


This is THE tax reform plan of the conservative movement. Freedomworks called it the best budget out there. It is the solution to our fiscal mess!

If that is what "conservatives" are offering, they are socialists dressed up in drag, or just plain stupid.

The fact is, if all taxes calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money were ended, investors from around the world would flock to America to open new businesses and industries which in turn would provide countless jobs and begin to restore the American dream.

Those who promote any form of tax system which taxes "incomes" is working to keep the government's iron fist around the American people's necks.


JWK





Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes?

matt0611
01-01-2014, 08:06 AM
If that is what "conservatives" are offering, they are socialists dressed up in drag, or just plain stupid.

The fact is, if all taxes calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money were ended, investors from around the world would flock to America to open new businesses and industries which in turn would provide countless jobs and begin to restore the American dream.

Those who promote any form of tax system which taxes "incomes" is working to keep the government's iron fist around the American people's necks.


JWK





Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes?



Yeah, taxing income and profits is a terrible idea.

enhanced_deficit
01-01-2014, 08:45 AM
Ted Cruz and his fellow Christian Zionists priority seem to be not reforming taxes or cutting spending but rather funding "patriotic" wars and foreign occupations/domestoc spying spending. I don't have much trust in that school of thought.

Peace&Freedom
01-01-2014, 09:06 AM
For those of us seeking solace in these dark times of phony conservatives, behold, there is an answer:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/assets/2013/12/CruzCover_front-236x300.jpg

/sarcasm

erowe1
01-01-2014, 09:11 AM
The answer to the thread title is no.

otherone
01-01-2014, 09:13 AM
"For example, if a business wished to finance the construction of a new plant, they would no longer be able to deduct the interest paid on that financing. However, that would be more than offset under a flat tax system because the financing of that plant would be cheaper as interest rates would be lower. Second, the entire cost of the inputs and expenses with regard to building the plant would be fully deductible and expensed immediately.

Ok. Like our Bankster overlords would be on board w/ this? The IRS tax code is designed to reward debt.

johnwk
01-01-2014, 02:50 PM
Ted Cruz and his fellow Christian Zionists priority seem to be not reforming taxes or cutting spending but rather funding "patriotic" wars and foreign occupations/domestoc spying spending. I don't have much trust in that school of thought.

And what would you propose in the way of real tax reform?



“He has erected a multitude of new offices (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

enhanced_deficit
01-01-2014, 03:21 PM
And what would you propose in the way of real tax reform?



“He has erected a multitude of new offices (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

I don't know the answer and would leave that to fiscal/economic policy experts. But I do know it is impossible to cut taxes and spiking defcit while supporting $10 Trillion and counting foreign interventions/occupation projects abroad and crippling police state at home.

johnwk
01-02-2014, 07:16 AM
I don't know the answer and would leave that to fiscal/economic policy experts. But I do know it is impossible to cut taxes and spiking defcit while supporting $10 Trillion and counting foreign interventions/occupation projects abroad and crippling police state at home.

Seems to me you do not take into account the cutting of countless programs which would allow taxes to be lowered. Adding the 32 words I suggested to our Constitution would actually encourage Congress to start living within the means brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. And why do I claim this? Because annual deficits would have to then be immediately extinguished by the apportioned direct tax levied among the states.

I suggest you take some time and study our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.us/?p=1360) as our founders intended it to operate. I suspect it would gain an overwhelming support among most of America’s working people in addition to business owners and international investors who would flock to America to participate in a rebirth of the free enterprise system if the founder's tax plan were put back into place.

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)

Anti-Neocon
01-02-2014, 08:27 AM
Cruz is too busy trying to oppose diplomatic efforts with Iran, so doubt it.

Sonny Tufts
01-02-2014, 09:16 AM
.But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a taxing power to allow the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to also squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and eventually make them dependent upon government for their subsistence!

Congress already had the authority to tax wages, per I.8.1 of the Constitution. The sole reason for the 16th Amendment was to avoid the result in the Pollock case, which had held that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.

johnwk
01-02-2014, 05:12 PM
Congress already had the authority to tax wages, per I.8.1 of the Constitution. The sole reason for the 16th Amendment was to avoid the result in the Pollock case, which had held that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.


I see nothing about taxing wages in our Constitution. And your comment about the 16th Amendment is not true. That is the propaganda version put out by the establishment. Go to the first post in the thread and read the stated purpose of the 16th Amendment by those who promoted it.




JWK

Sonny Tufts
01-02-2014, 06:20 PM
I see nothing about taxing wages in our Constitution. And your comment about the 16th Amendment is not true. That is the propaganda version put out by the establishment. Go to the first post in the thread and read the stated purpose of the 16th Amendment by those who promoted it.

You don't see anything about taxing whiskey or carriages in the Constitution, either, but that didn't stop the early Congresses from taxing them. In fact, aside from the 16th Amendment and the prohibition on taxing exports, the Constitution is silent on what can and can't be taxed. And surely you're not suggesting that wages aren't income, are you?

Unapportioned taxes on personal earnings and upon corporations were authorized before the 16th Amendment, having been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1881 and 1911, respectively. What the 16th was aimed at was investment income (referred to as unearned income in your original post), which the 1895 Pollock case said couln't be taxed without apportionment.

The only reason most wage earners didn't pay income taxes in 1913 was due to the generous exemption amounts ($3000 for a single taxpayer and $4,000 for a family, which translate to $70,000 and $94,000 in today's dollars). Of course, these were purely arbitrary since the constitution doesn't require that any particular amount be exempted.

Hamilton, whom you cited in the OP, argued in his brief in the 1796 Hylton case (which upheld the 1794 Carriage Tax) that direct taxes under the Constiitution were limited to "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes." The brief was cited with approval in the 1881 Springer case, which upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War income tax against a claim that it was a direct tax.

enhanced_deficit
01-02-2014, 06:28 PM
Seems to me you do not take into account the cutting of countless programs which would allow taxes to be lowered. Adding the 32 words I suggested to our Constitution would actually encourage Congress to start living within the means brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. And why do I claim this? Because annual deficits would have to then be immediately extinguished by the apportioned direct tax levied among the states.

I suggest you take some time and study our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.us/?p=1360) as our founders intended it to operate. I suspect it would gain an overwhelming support among most of America’s working people in addition to business owners and international investors who would flock to America to participate in a rebirth of the free enterprise system if the founder's tax plan were put back into place.

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)

I admit I am quite ignorant on economic policy intracacies/taxing and have a lot to learn. Except that I know taxes are too high as is big government wastage. But my point was that if a "conservative" like Ted Cruz or a Foreign Policy neocon while defending $Trillions in wastage abroad is a poor,unconvincing messenger for a message of reducing taxes by "cutting spending".

johnwk
01-02-2014, 07:20 PM
I admit I am quite ignorant on economic policy intracacies/taxing and have a lot to learn. Except that I know taxes are too high as is big government wastage. But my point was that if a "conservative" like Ted Cruz or a Foreign Policy neocon while defending $Trillions in wastage abroad is a poor,unconvincing messenger for a message of reducing taxes by "cutting spending".

Look, my advice is that the people need to unite in real tax reform, meaning a return to our Constitution's original tax plan, and, they must unite in demanding that the wording on federal reserve notes which declare "this note is legal tender for all debts public and private" must be removed which would end the monopoly of a private bank's notes to circulate as a "legal tender" which is exactly what our founders specifically intended to forbid!


JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.