PDA

View Full Version : Kevin Brady and Congress promises the same old kabuki dance on tax reform!




johnwk
07-31-2017, 09:04 AM
.



See: Trump may get tax reform bill by year's end, Rep. Brady says (http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/07/30/trump-may-get-tax-reform-bill-by-years-end-rep-brady-says.html)

”On Thursday the “Big Six,” top GOP tax reform leaders in Congress and the Trump administration -- including Brady, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senate Finance Committee chairman Orrin Hatch from Utah, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin -- issued a joint statement on their strategy for changing the U.S. tax code. Most notably, the group agreed to drop the proposed border adjustment tax -- which would have allowed the government to slap fees on companies importing goods -- from the new plan.”

As long as these scoundrels keep alive a “tax code” allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, wage, tips and other lawfully earned “incomes”, there is no “tax reform”!

Is it not a fact the taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages, tips, and other lawfully earned “incomes” are used to generate class warfare and to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets? Is it not a fact that our current system of taxation is specifically used to redistribute wealth from the productive to a government created dependent voting block which prostitutes its vote for free government cheese? Is the power to tax “incomes” not used as a political weapon to punish those who dare to speak out against the Washington Establishment and flagrantly used by our Washington Establishment to reward political friends and punish its enemies?

If there was ever one thing which could actually bring America’s businesses, investors and hardworking wage earners together in a unified political movement it would definitely be tax reform, but only if it is designed to remove the iron fist of government from the necks of the American People, provide sufficient taxing power to meet Congress constitutionally authorized functions, and the “reform” would hold members of Congress immediately accountable when it engages in deficit spending. Is there such a tax plan? You bet there is and it was created by our Founding Fathers. So, let us review tax reform, our Founders’ way.

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.us/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that the people of each state, whenever Congress lays a direct tax, shall contribute a share of a total sum being raised which is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution, is also determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Sonny Tufts
07-31-2017, 01:50 PM
Since taxes “calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money” account for over 90% of federal revenues, it’s a certainty that excises, imposts, and duties will be insufficient, and that huge borrowings (and therefore direct taxes) would be necessary each year.

The Founders’ “Original Tax Plan” never anticipated all of the things the government currently spends money on, and it’s naïve to assume that the people who would be voting on the ratification of the amendment would be willing to eliminate federal programs to the extent required in order not to have to resort to direct taxes.

Section 4 doesn't take into account the political reality that there will need to be certain exemptions from such an assessment on land (e.g., land owned by the federal and state governments, churches, charities, and educational institutions). Who gets to make that determination – Congress or the States?

The States vary in population density, so that an assessment based on land will result in huge differences in the tax rate. For example, in 2015 New Jersey had a population density of 1,215 people per square mile, while Maine’s was only 43. Assuming that only privately-owned land is to be taxed, and assuming the percentage of such land in each state is the same, the tax rate in New Jersey will be 28 times that of Maine. While it's true that unlike imposts, duties, and excises, direct taxes needn’t be geographically uniform. But such a disparity in tax rates is grossly unfair, and I would lay odds that a constitutional amendment proposing such a result would have a hard time getting ratified.

Even if the States paid their shares on time and Section 4 never came into play, the States would in all likelihood have to increase their current income taxes (or if a State doesn’t have an income tax, it’d have to impose one), so the oppression of America‘s economic engine and theft of the bread that working people have earned when selling their labor will simply be shifted from the federal government to the States.

johnwk
07-31-2017, 03:14 PM
Since taxes “calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money” account for over 90% of federal revenues, it’s a certainty that excises, imposts, and duties will be insufficient, and that huge borrowings (and therefore direct taxes) would be necessary each year.



Let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their own Governor and State Legislature, and it would deplete their own State’s treasury.

Do you not think this would create a very real moment of accountability under which each state's congressional delegation would have to explain to their Governor and State Legislature why they spent more that was brought in from indirect taxes?



Under our founder's plan, it seems quite clear each state's congressional delegation would be encouraged to spend less to avoid the apportioned direct tax.


JWK

Sonny Tufts
07-31-2017, 04:46 PM
Under our founder's plan, it seems quite clear each state's congressional delegation would be encouraged to spend less to avoid the apportioned direct tax.

If you were starting from scratch and everything stayed the same as it was in 1789, the "founders' plan" might work for a few decades, but it's unrealistic to expect that the voters of today would stand for a 90% cut in federal programs, especially Social Security, the payroll taxes for which account for about a third of federal revenues. Would you like to be a member of the congressional delegation that had to explain to the Governor and State legislature why their citizens wouldn't be getting Social Security benefits or why you voted to eliminate 50,000 federal jobs in the state? Or why a Toyota Prius and other foreign-made products cost five times as much as they once did and why local farmers and manufacturers can't sell their goods in Japan because you voted to increase tariffs on foreign products, thereby setting off a trade war?

If a congressional delegation were encouraged to cut federal spending by 90%, I guarantee you that the voters would be encouraged to replace them.

johnwk
07-31-2017, 05:17 PM
If a congressional delegation were encouraged to cut federal spending by 90%, I guarantee you that the voters would be encouraged to replace them.

Not if those voting were tax payers as intended by our founders, and not tax getters!

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 when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

Origanalist
07-31-2017, 05:23 PM
.
Kevin Brady and Congress promises the same old kabuki dance on tax reform!
.


No way.

johnwk
07-31-2017, 05:42 PM
No way.

Are they proposing to withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages and other lawfully earned "incomes"? If not, then they are proposing to keep the socialist inspired tax on incomes alive which is a primary source of power used by our Washington Swamp Creatures to enslave and plunder wealth created by America's businesses and labor.


JWK

johnwk
08-01-2017, 05:45 PM
.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer is already babbling on about taxing the rich, allegedly because he cares for the middle class. But has the "middle class" already forgotten how the Democrats have taken their doctors from them; have taken the health-care plans from them which they wanted to keep; and have used the force of federal taxation to transfer their paychecks to able bodied government cheese eaters who are too lazy to work to meet their own economic needs? And this doesn't even include how Chucky-boy Schumer under Obama taxed America's middle class to pay for the economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America's borders.

Chucky-boy Schumer needs to keep his lying trap shut.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

johnwk
08-02-2017, 07:44 AM
.

SEE: Senate Dems spell out conditions on bipartisan tax reform (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-democrats-cuts-rich-gop-tax-plan-48963426)


”In a letter to Republican leaders, including President Donald Trump, 45 of the 48 Senate Democratic caucus members said they won't support any upcoming GOP effort to overhaul the tax system that delivers cuts to the top 1 percent or adds to the government's $20 trillion debt.”


President Trump should take the Democrats up on their determination to not add to the federal government’s $20 trillion debt. What President Trump should do is propose his budget with a proviso that if a deficit should occur at the end of the year under it, that deficit would be immediately extinguished with an apportioned direct tax laid among the States. I’m sure Chucky boy Schumer, our new fiscal conservative, would be thrilled with bringing home a bill to his pinko State and withdrawing his State’s share from his State’s Treasury to extinguish the deficit as our Founders intended.


The only problem I see with such a plan is that Chuck boy Schumer would probably be lynched on his return to his State with a bill for his state legislature to pay. And that is the wisdom of our Founder’s original tax plan ___ a very real moment of accountability for our big spending pinkos in Congress.


JWK



Are we 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 when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

TheCount
08-02-2017, 08:01 AM
Seems to me that the conservative states which would be the most ideologically supportive of such an amendment are also the states which would lose the most from a direct apportionment of taxes. Getting people to support this would be incredibly difficult.