Sen. Ted Cruz is ok with the socialist/progressive’s tax on incomes?

[johnwk]

.

SEE: Conservative firebrand Ted Cruz launches political convention with crowd-pleasing demand to abolish the IRS (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574773/We-need-abolish-IRS-Conservative-firebrand-Ted-Cruz-launches-political-convention-direct-assault-U-S-tax-authority.html)

March 6th 2014

”Ted Cruz, the rock-ribbed conservative Texas senator who figures to be a factor in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, told thousands of conservatives Thursday morning that the IRS should go the way of the dodo.

'We need to abolish the IRS,' he said, calling instead for a flat income tax rate and a user-friendly tax return that can be filed on a postcard.”

This is very disturbing, that Senator Cruz wants to keep alive the socialist/progressive's tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, which in turn keeps the IRS alive and the Washington Establishment's iron fist around the necks of America’s productive citizens. A “flat income tax” does nothing to remove the jackbooted heel of oppression from the necks of the American People, nor will it end this corruptible taxing power from being used as a weapon to silence and threaten political opposition which is now done with impunity.

I thought for sure that Senator Cruz would take the lead in encouraging an end to this poisonous tax and he would take the lead in promoting a return to our Constitution's original tax plan. If Senator Cruz is sincere in wanting real tax reform, and ending the tyranny carried out under the guise of raising a federal revenue, that goal can start by supporting and defending the wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution’s original tax plan and introducing the following resolution.


House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: 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.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.

This proposal, if adopted, would return us to our Constitution's original tax plan and would give America’s working people and business owners something concrete to unite under, and inspire them to work to elect members to Congress this coming election who will make the adoption of this proposal part of their campaign.


We already know the terrible damage the socialist tax calculated from “incomes” has done to America, and selling the repeal of this horrid tax, which is a primary source of power used to enslave the American people, is not a difficult task. Forcing Congress to once again raise its revenue from imposts, duties, excise taxes and an apportioned tax among the states if found necessary, would once again make Congress our servant and not the masters they think they are.


Why perpetuate the experiment and flirtation with taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” which has proven to be a destructive force and a tool used to enslave the American People? Why not offer a return to our Founder’s original tax plan which is based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, and paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world which has been reversed by the socialist/progressive’s tax calculated from “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.

[Keith and stuff]

General sales and personal income taxes are evil. I cannot support them, nor politicians that support them.

[ctiger2]

All income, property & capital gains taxes should be outlawed and banned.

There should be a (voluntary) consumption tax on all goods and services minus certain essential foods (vegetables, meats, fruits/nuts)

Any junk foods or foods that have sugar in it should be taxed. ie Donuts TAX, Chips TAX, Cookies TAX, Soda Pop TAX, Chocolate Bars TAX.

[Cabal]

Where's the abolition of taxation (aka legalized robbery) option?

[mad cow]

Not that I am in favor of his plan,although I do like it more than what is currently in force,but how do you call a flat tax progressive?

[Keith and stuff]

All income, property & capital gains taxes should be outlawed and banned.

There should be a (voluntary) consumption tax on all goods and services minus certain essential foods (vegetables, meats, fruits/nuts)

Any junk foods or foods that have sugar in it should be taxed. ie Donuts TAX, Chips TAX, Cookies TAX, Soda Pop TAX, Chocolate Bars TAX.

You want to tax donuts? Aren't you afraid police might shoot you?

As for chocolate bars, that's health food. It would make sense to tax vegetables like potatoes first. Of course, why tax anything?

[Brett85]

A flat tax would be a huge step in the right direction.

[Brett85]

It seems like some people here would oppose a bill which cut taxes from 30% to 15% just because the bill didn't completely eliminate the income tax.

[Keith and stuff]

It seems like some people here would oppose a bill which cut taxes from 30% to 15% just because the bill didn't completely eliminate the income tax.

Why pay income taxes in the first place? There are no national, state or local income taxes that apply to me.

[erowe1]

The goal has to be to reduce revenues, not get them with different taxes.

[TaftFan]

Why pay income taxes in the first place? There are no national, state or local income taxes that apply to me.

You don't earn an income or you don't report it?

[TaftFan]

The goal has to be to reduce revenues, not get them with different taxes.

I think simplification and reduction are both excellent goals.

[mad cow]

The goal has to be to reduce revenues, not get them with different taxes.

I don't think it is fair to call me a proponent of the Virginia sales tax simply because I appreciate the fact that I can buy a carton of cigarettes and a 12 pack of beer in 30 seconds rather than the 3 or 30 hours it would take me if they asked me what is your income,how many dependents,what's yer mortgage,any charity donations,new storm doors or windows this year and on and on and on...for how many pages is the US tax code these days?I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and I have had to pay someone else to fill out my tax-forms for over 35 years.

The goal is also to simplify the process,hell,I would pay 1% more a year if it was as simple as a trip to 7-11 and I would get over half of that back by not having to hire an accountant.

[osan]

All income, property & capital gains taxes should be outlawed and banned.

So far, so good.


There should be a (voluntary) consumption tax on all goods and services minus certain essential foods (vegetables, meats, fruits/nuts)


"voluntary tax" == oxymoron

From Webster's 1898:

tax n.

1. A charge, especially a pecuniary burden which is imposed by authority. Specifically :-

a. A charge or burden laid upon persons or property for the support of a government
...
c. A sum imposed or levied upon the members of a society to defray its expenses


Any junk foods or foods that have sugar in it should be taxed. ie Donuts TAX, Chips TAX, Cookies TAX, Soda Pop TAX, Chocolate Bars TAX.

SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH....

You win today's arbitrary nonsense award.

By what authority would you see such impositions placed upon people?

Seems you need a little rethink.

[osan]

The goal has to be to reduce revenues, not get them with different taxes.

BINGO and possible thread winner.

It matters not whence the tax, but that it exists in any form. Have we forgotten that taxation = theft?

[Danke]

Maybe first learn what and to whom the tax applies.

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf

[Noob]

How about no taxes..

[erowe1]

To nitpick the most popular answer, there isn't a tax plan in the Constitution.

[cajuncocoa]

Where's the abolition of taxation (aka legalized robbery) option?
^^This.

[LibertyEagle]

The goal has to be to reduce revenues, not get them with different taxes.

^^^ this!!

[Weston White]

My option, which is not included in the poll, would be to return the federal income tax (which includes state piggybacking of the same) to its constitutional construct (as originally designated in 1913), and subsequently repeal all the Internal Revenue Codes progressivist complexities, be they credits, exemptions, deductions, and the like. And in following implement new stringent balanced budget requirements, open accountabilities, and cease the circulation of all inconvertible monies and issue in its place precious metal backed monies that is not just limited to silver or gold bullion.

The honest realization is that income taxation—when properly applied—is actually a very prudent and just form of streaming supplement revenue for the public’s treasury.

As to notion of a national sales tax, that is unconstitutional, the federal government has no lawful powers to tax purely intrastate transactions or contracts. While on the other hand it may tax the businesses’ profits and imports, but may not tax locally at its point-of-sale—which is in actuality a tax upon consumers (and potentially indirectly upon exports) for purchasing largely items of necessity.

The so-called “fair tax” is really just a stripped down version of the present income tax scheme that only further perpetuates modern status quo misconceptions surrounding appropriate methods of taxation in general. It will be nothing more than a stepped system of income taxation based upon preset sums determined by (covertly) adjusted percentages (just as a generic example, rather than stating annual incomes between $30,000 and $45,000 is taxed at 25%, it will in likeness be annual incomes between $30,000 and $45,000 upon splitting the difference is taxed at $5,625)—and should the “fair tax” be imposed upon individuals it finds itself wanting constitutionality as a class of capitation or personal tax.

Also the VAT is a horrid means of taxation, which multiplies tax fees throughout the entire process of each crude item being manufactured, transported, and purchased; making double-taxation appear as nothing less than a godsend.

Lending any serious consideration to either the national sales tax or the fair tax is highly dangerous, to both state and individual autonomy.


ETA:

Senator Cruz’s suggestion is in-line with Dr. Paul’s own logic; one cannot outright terminate something so pretentiously imbedded throughout such a vastly large and dependent society. Its winding-up progress needs to be done graciously until it has been inchmealed right into its grave.

[osan]

My option, which is not included in the poll, would be to return the federal income tax (which includes state piggybacking of the same) to its constitutional construct (as originally designated in 1913)

If the income tax is "constitutional", then the Constitution is wrong, plain and simple. Unlike many, I have not elevated the Constitution onto an altar of worship. Given its designed intent the maximum benefit of doubt, at best it can be said that it is not a document well suited to human nature, given the ostensible goals of said intent. At best, it is naive beyond belief - something I find "interesting", given that the Framers were so very apparently not naive men. This, of course, leads one to wonder about the acutal intent behind its design, specifically whether it differed greatly from that which common wisdom asserts.

That question is, of course, moot. The relevant point is that it does not work. The US Constitution is a demonstrated failure as it has not preserved freedom, as Lysander Spooner so pointedly made clear, well over a century ago. The greater point here is that no constitution can save a people from tyranny and destruction. Such salvation can come only from the individuals themselves and only when their numbers and the individual wills are sufficient to the goal. Constitutions are no substitute for strong principles and attitudes of zero-compromise on the fundamentals, something that people have long forgotten and apparently could give a damn about these days.

But if we are going to employ constitutions, we should at least compose them properly. Ours was a pretty good first cut, despite its fatal shortcomings, but it should be given the heave-ho in favor of a document that, all else equal, makes the job of the perverts far more difficult to manage. Given the current state of intellect and attitude, it is difficult to tell whether a constitution better contrived to preserve liberty would be of help, but I would not see it as being in any way harmful. This, of course, will never happen given the status quo of our political reality.


The honest realization is that income taxation—when properly applied—is actually a very prudent and just form of streaming supplement revenue for the public’s treasury.


Oh yes? And what is your basis for this assertion? Taxation is theft, BY DEFINITION. Look it up and it is unmistakably apparent. Taxes are always forcibly taken under the ultimate threat of bodily injury up to and including death. Therefore, even those who agree with payment are still forcibly expropriated of their property, their willing compliance notwithstanding. As they used to say in the old Wendy's ads, "one choice is no choice". Taxation is never just. Justice in taxation is a material impossibility because one is given no choice but to comply or face severe penalty. Taxation is one of the penultimate crimes against the individual because it foists upon him harm at the point of the sword, calling it "just". Such lies and open hypocrisy can only originate in the minds of pathological criminals and the impossibly ignorant and unintelligent man, IMO. Regarding taxation as just and legitimate shares the same truth value and !-factor as so declaring rape.


The so-called “fair tax” is really just a stripped down version of the present income tax scheme that only further perpetuates modern status quo misconceptions surrounding appropriate methods of taxation in general.

In the context of a free land there are no appropriate methods of taxation. Taxation is for serfs.


Senator Cruz’s suggestion is in-line with Dr. Paul’s own logic; one cannot outright terminate something so pretentiously imbedded throughout such a vastly large and dependent society. Its winding-up progress needs to be done graciously until it has been inchmealed right into its grave.

On a practical note and assuming we do not want a few millions of people dying precipitously, I may agree with this. Personally, I don't give a shit about those people who have willingly become dependent, but the resulting chaos and stench of corpses might make for a sufficient reason to back out with less of a jerk. However, I would not agree with any such measures without a roadmap moving forward, the attendant in-stone schedule of not a day beyond 3 years to finish, and no possibility of extension no matter what happens. If in 3 years people start dying as the result, tough shit. This bullshit has gone on far too long and I do not care what the world does beyond our borders. I am sick to death of watching hundreds of millions of hard working people have their prosperity and freedom sapped from them through the various instruments of taxation including currency inflation. It is all theft. It is all backed with violence. It is all unjust. It is all immoral. It is all criminal. Period.

[johnwk]

The goal has to be to reduce revenues, not get them with different taxes.

And that is why I support a return to our Constitution's original tax plan!


JWK

[MRK]

To nitpick the most popular answer, there isn't a tax plan in the Constitution.

Sounds like the best plan to me.

[pcosmar]

A tip jar. not a poll option.

[Weston White]

The greater point here is that no constitution can save a people from tyranny and destruction. Such salvation can come only from the individuals themselves and only when their numbers and the individual wills are sufficient to the goal.

This is an outstanding observation; you hammered that nail squarely into its frame. And I would only further add that our Nation’s constitution, including our charter document (i.e., Declaration of Independence), serve merely as an empirically based template—a foundation—for which to achieve those ends. However, it is for its people to ever-vigilantly vanguard against the wants of imbeciles, poseurs, and tyrants; in reality these are but documents that when forgotten and left unstudied are better used as kindle to rage about destruction, corruption, or contempt.

As a matter that has been so ominously foretold:


Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
—John Adams


The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
—Patrick Henry


It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail.
—Samuel Adams



Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the Constitution of his country... By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.
—John Jay


If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
—Alexander Hamilton


Without getting into a debate about the fallacies of anarchism, as to the constitutionality of income taxation, the XVI Amendment and supporting common law both establish it constitutionality.

A tax is defined as a public charge demanded upon certain transactions, privileges, events, assessments, actions, and the like. And while it might be reasonably arguable to assert that direct taxation is a type of theft, but that is not so much the case for indirect taxation.

While it is true that any direct means of taxation is effectively levied upon serfs, all indirect means of taxation however are not.

And to proffer what is correctly constitutional under income taxation, I would include that this persisting oversight lay in that the federal income tax is not in actuality imposing taxes directly upon the valuation of labor, investment, or estate; rather however, and correctly so, it is imposing taxes indirectly upon the income acquired though each’s (positively) increased valuation between the time first possessed (or controlled) and thereafter transferred, sold, or exchanged; be it profited strategically either by an estate or one’s labor, or gained fortuitously through investment or opportunity.

The underpinning distinction hinges between what is tangible capital or principal, being the determinable basis as to whatever contract, arrangement, or other such agreement, and what is actual gain or profit—from those very sources—ascending upon the receipt of financial wealth, success, prudence, or excess.

Without exception, all else (i.e., intangible capital or principal) is entirely precluded from consideration of the individual federal income tax, and as a consequence is wholly external to its legislated scope.

And in perhaps more unequivocally poetic terms, constitutional incomes are the ripening corollaries blossoming throughout the enlivening conversion of corpora.

[johnwk]

When it comes to tax reform both Senator Cruz and Mark Levin promote keeping alive the socialist tax on incomes! What also troubles me is that Senator Cruz as well as Mark Levin, when it comes to talking tax reform, there is a failure by them to inform their audience to our founder’s wisdom regarding the rule of apportionment as it was intended to apply to both representation and taxation.


The brilliance of the rule of apportionment is that the larger a state’s population size is, it is granted a larger number of representatives in Congress. However, in exercising its larger voice in Congress, especially when spending federal revenue, our wise founders commanded that its share of the cost of government would be proportionately equal to its large voting strength in Congress, i.e., Representation with a proportional financial obligation!

To give an example of the consequences resulting from a disobedience in following the rule of apportionment being applied when electing our president, according to recent numbers, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the State of California has an overwhelming 55 Electoral College votes compared to any of these states!


For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be a $9,036.74 tax per capita. And Wyoming, under the rule of apportionment is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 tax per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 17 other States? It violates the very intentions of the rule of apportionment which guarantees that representation and a State’s financial obligation is to be apportioned by its population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.



State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
U.S. Pop


In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 Electoral College votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California in spite of the fair share formula mandated by our Constitution which requires an equal per capita tax.

In 2007, if the rule of apportionment were applied to taxation and representation as intended by our Founders, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. Although California’s total share of the tax under the rule of apportionment would be far greater than that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger Electoral College vote in the last election which is also part of the rule of apportionment and gives them a greater say when spending federal revenue!

As things are California got to exercise 55 Electoral College votes in our last presidential election and voted for a socialist president promising to spread the wealth, but did not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive Electoral College vote as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purpose and wisdom for which the rule of apportionment was adopted!

Having said that, Mark Levin and Senator Cruz do express many of the concerns I have, especially with regard to closing down the IRS’s power as it is applied directly to every American Citizen. But when it comes to offering a remedy, Mark Levin and Sen. Cruz would keep that power alive with a flat tax, and they avoid introducing our founder’s wisdom as applied to taxation. Neither Mark Levin or Sen. Cruz, to the best of my knowledge, has outlined our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders. As a matter of fact, I do not know of one “conservative” talk show host who has, in recent times, expounded upon the wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution’s original tax plan, and this would include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain. Why do they ignore the brilliance of our Founders when it comes to taxation which if followed would end many of the miseries we now suffer as applied to raising a federal revenue?




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)

[Quark]

I don't believe taxation is moral. So, the fewer taxes the better.

[HOLLYWOOD]

There's 100,000 employees serving the IRS and terrorizing the people.

I would like to see the IRS shutdown in it's entirety and every one of the them force into a public perp walk. They have stolen and terrorized and destroyed this country while personally enriching themselves(bonuses paid by the taxpayers too).

PS: It will also takes away the control and enslavement power from the waiters and prostitutes that sit and engorge themselves on Capital Hill.

[Weston White]

Still, direct taxation is only ever intended to be used during desperation—which is a serious issue concerning the individual income tax, as it has become incorrectly accepted by government officials and the populace as a perpetual direct tax on capital without apportionment, so being the case renders it unconstitutional on that point alone.

And even more than that though the larger issue is that the federal government desperately needs to keep the juice flowing on its $2.3-trillion a year spending addiction, which under apportionment would allot every one of its 315-million citizens about $7,301.59 each year. Clearly that is not feasible.

[Weston White]

I had an additional thought concerning the egregious sum we as individuals are taxed annually, and just wanted to post it. I think it would aid in forging a stern realization amongst those stilly sleepy from our cold realities:

The respective adult population of United States is 230-million and the aggregate they are presently taxed every year as laborers is around $2.3-trillion, which indicates that the federal government expects each adult to make good on $10,000 worth of its virtual paper promises per year, year after year after year.

[Sonny Tufts]

To nitpick the most popular answer, there isn't a tax plan in the Constitution.

True enough. The Constitution gave Congress a broad authority to tax (only exports were placed off limits) and left the details up to the legioslative process.

[Weston White]

True enough. The Constitution gave Congress a broad authority to tax (only exports were placed off limits) and left the details up to the legioslative process.

When viewed as a whole, there is in fact a “tax plan” that is to be fully realized within the U.S. Constitution (e.g., a penalty provided statutory cover as a so-called “tax” does not henceforth obviate its unconstitutional nature).