President Trump gives up on tax reform and embraces income tax manipulation

[johnwk]

.

See Trump Hails 'Big Win' For Tax Reform--13 GOP Reps Disagree (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/11/17/trump-hails-big-win-for-tax-reform13-gop-reps-disagree-n2410835)

”President Trump on Thursday praised the House GOP’s passage of their tax reform plan, calling it a “big win” for reform.”

The fact is, President Trump's support for the House Bill does absolutely nothing to reform the manner in which Congress raises its federal revenue!

Does President Trump’s tax reform end unequal direct taxation and restore our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxation? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury? Hell no!


Seems crystal clear that President Trump has joined our Washington Swamp Creatures in their ongoing Kabuki Dance called tax reform, which never ends in real tax reform. Real tax reform is found in The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would restore our Constitution’s original tax plan, as our Founders intended it to operate, and it would withdraw the notoriously evil powers associated with the communist/socialist inspired income tax which President Trump has now embraced.


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”?

[EBounding]

It's still not the worst thing in the world. Amash and Massie voted for it.

https://www.facebook.com/justinamash/posts/1597483136957753


I voted yes on #HR1, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

This bill is the House's effort to significantly reform the tax code. For individuals' income taxes, it changes some tax rates, doubles the standard deduction, eliminates or limits many deductions and credits, and repeals the estate tax (or "death tax"). For corporate taxes, it lowers the rate, eliminates or limits many deductions and loopholes, and changes our international tax system to a territorial tax system, allowing American companies that earn profits overseas to bring that money into the United States without facing an additional tax on it.

The major benefits of this bill come from the fact that it lowers taxes and reduces the complexity of the tax code.

Lowering rates and eliminating deductions and credits will likely result in less time and money spent on filing taxes, fewer resources wasted on designing and executing strategies to avoid taxes, less social engineering through the tax code, and a fairer tax code overall.

For individuals, the increase in the standard deduction will allow many taxpayers to avoid needing to itemize their deductions. This means many taxpayers will no longer need to spend the time and money to find and claim each of their deductions and, coupled with some of the lower rates and the elimination of deductions and credits, also reduces the relative advantage for those who have the resources to afford better tax advice. This will also result in fewer people being subject to the coercive incentives of itemized deductions, which encourage people to make choices they otherwise would not make.

For corporations, the elimination of deductions and loopholes, and the change to a territorial system, will reduce the opportunities and incentives to avoid taxation and may help to limit corporations' massive efforts to do so. Billions of dollars are wasted each year when corporations hire tax attorneys and accountants to find contrived ways to structure transactions to avoid taxes. Our current tax code gives large companies an advantage over smaller competitors who do not have the resources to use those strategies. This bill simplifies the corporate tax code, reducing the opportunities to manipulate it.

I believe firmly in limited, constitutional government. That means, among other things, support for less government spending and lower, fairer taxes.

This bill will probably result in additional borrowing in the short run—but only because my Republican and Democratic colleagues continue to vote for higher spending. Republicans and Democrats recently voted along party lines for separate budgets (both of which I opposed) that increase spending and grow our debt by many trillions of dollars. Since entering Congress, I have voted for the least spending of any member of Congress:

https://spendingtracker.org/rankings…

The tax cuts in H R 1 won't directly benefit every taxpayer, and it's likely some people will even see tax increases. This is not the bill I would have written, but the cuts in this bill are very broad, and the substantial reduction in the complexity of the tax code will benefit even those who do not see direct cuts to their income taxes.

It passed 227-205.

[johnwk]

It's still not the worst thing in the world.




It is not "tax reform". It is income tax manipulation which keeps alive the notoriously evil and arbitrary powers associated with the communist/socialist income tax. It is an ongoing attack on our free market system and allows our Washington Swamp Creatures to use the power of taxation to subvert and undermine our nation's founding principles.

Real tax reform is found in 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 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 those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is 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

[johnwk]

See: The Constitution’s financial terms, part IV: The apportionment rule (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/the-constitutions-financial-terms-part-iv-the-apportionment-rule/)

OCTOBER 23RD, 2015

”Behind the apportionment requirement was this unifying principle: At least in the lower legislative chamber, taxation should be coupled with representation. This principle had been a justification for the Revolution, and no one active in the debates over the Constitution seems to have overtly disagreed with it. The framers saw the practical application of this principle in an apportionment rule that tailored each state’s tax burden to its congressional representation.”

The article goes on to emphasize the rule of apportioning direct taxes was ”…designed to assure impartial federal treatment of the several states. Without the apportionment rule, a congressional majority from one group of states might vote to extract a disproportionate share of revenue from the rest.”

Today, our socialists, communists, liberals and progressives in Congress are using the power of direct taxation to enter each state and seek out the most productive hard working citizens and businesses in each state who are then taxed directly, and forced to contribute an unequal tax burden than a State’s lazy and unproductive citizens, even though our Constitution specifically requires any direct tax upon individuals, requires apportionment ___ a rule which works out to be an equal per capita tax.

Like I have been saying for over thirty years, real tax reform begins with the following 32 words which are found in 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.



Has anyone in this forum ever heard Rush Limbaugh, 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. Eric Bolling, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, Juan Williams, Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto, John Stossel, Lou Dobbs, Charles Krauthammer, Tucker Carlson, Lisa Kennedy, or any media personality discuss our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxes or the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

JWK





If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

[dannno]

It is not "tax reform". It is income tax manipulation which keeps alive the notoriously evil and arbitrary powers associated with the communist/socialist income tax. It is an ongoing attack on our free market system and allows our Washington Swamp Creatures to use the power of taxation to subvert and undermine our nation's founding principles.

Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment!

Ya we all want the income tax to end, but I think we would also all prefer it to be lower than it is currently.

[Zippyjuan]

Step One: Fair Share Debt: Get rid of the debt. Take debt divide by number of people in the country- that is your bill. You are responsible for it plus any interest it may incur. $20 trillion. Send your $60,000,000 to the US Treasury, Washington DC. This will free future generations from this problem.

Next- Fair Share balanced budget. Current is $4 trillion. Send your $12,000 to the US Treasury, Washington, DC.

Now I realize that most of you owed little to no taxes last year, but this is the only fair way to do things! Everybody pays the same regardless of assets or income. You only made $12,000 last year? Too bad. Send it in. We need that money more than you do. Real tax reform that everybody can support and so easy you can do it on a single post card! Think of all the time and money you will save by getting rid of all those complex forms we currently have!

[johnwk]

Ya we all want the income tax to end, but I think we would also all prefer it to be lower than it is currently.

What are you talking about? 45% of our population pay no income tax! How "low" can you go? That 45% have a vested interest in voting for communists, socialists, progressives, "liberals", and anyone who promises to keep their free government cheese coming.


JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Republican/Democrat Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has produced.

[johnwk]

.

See Our abominable income tax system (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/15/our-abominable-income-tax-system.html)
By Ken Hoagland Published April 15, 2015 Fox News

”Taxing income itself was originally specifically banned by the Founding Fathers as immoral. Only the ratification of the 16th amendment in February 1913 allowed our federal government to legally apportion direct taxes. The legislation itself began as a dare to Congressional Republicans, many of whom who voted for it believing states would never ratify such an expansion of federal powers.”

Contrary to the above mentioned article, our original Constitution actually required, and still requires to this very date that “direct taxes” are to be apportioned. See Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . “

The first apportioned direct tax was laid 1798, well before 1913. See, the Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 which imposed an apportioned direct tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

It should also be emphasized that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that “direct taxes” are still, in spite of the 16th Amendment, still required to be apportioned!


In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an "excise" tax. but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


And let us not forget what Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called "The shared responsibility payment". He wrote: ”"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

Perhaps someday FoxNews will have someone on to clear up many of the misconceptions and myths concerning the rule of apportionment, direct taxes, and explain why the Founders were united in requiring “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States.”

JWK​

[Sonny Tufts]

”Taxing income itself was originally specifically banned by the Founding Fathers as immoral."

What ignorant nonsense. There's nothing in the original Constitution forbidding income taxation. To the contrary, it banned the taxation of only one thing: exports.


It should also be emphasized that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that “direct taxes” are still, in spite of the 16th Amendment, still required to be apportioned!

SCOTUS has also repeatedly confirmed that the only direct taxes under the Constitution requiring apportionment are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property. The income tax is neither of these.


In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment.

Because the Court felt that a stock dividend wasn't income in the first place.


And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an "excise" tax. but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Bromley's definition of an excise is exceedingly broad and is clearly broad enough to encompass an income tax:


...this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.

Under this definition it's obvious that a tax on income, regardless of the kind of income involved, is an excise that needn't be apportioned, as it's a tax on the exercise of a power over property -- i.e., its receipt. As the Court said in a later case, "If the gift of property may be taxed we cannot say that there is any want of constitutional power to tax the receipt of it, whether as the result of inheritance [citation omitted], or otherwise, whatever name may be given to the tax... Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property." Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 353 (1945).

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
”Taxing income itself was originally specifically banned by the Founding Fathers as immoral."




What ignorant nonsense. There's nothing in the original Constitution forbidding income taxation. To the contrary, it banned the taxation of only one thing: exports.



What is disingenuous as well as “ignorant” is your suggestion that the words you quoted are my conclusion. In fact the words are those of the author of the article which you omitted from your post.

Having said that, your misunderstanding of our Constitution does not advance your conclusion that our original Constitution did not ban Congress from taxing “income”. In fact, taxing “income” was banned by the limited taxing powers granted to Congress. There is no provision in our original Congress granting a power to Congress to tax “income”.

Try reading our Constitution someday and study its documented legislative intent, before posting your personal opinions concerning the meaning of our Constitution.

JWK

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
It should also be emphasized that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that “direct taxes” are still, in spite of the 16th Amendment, still required to be apportioned!



SCOTUS has also repeatedly confirmed that the only direct taxes under the Constitution requiring apportionment are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property. The income tax is neither of these.


My statement is factual. Direct taxes are still, to this day, required to be apportioned. As to the claim that the only direct taxes under our Constitution are “capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property”, that assertion is not sustainable when researching historical fact, and researching what were considered to be “direct taxes” during the time period our Constitution was being framed.

To broaden you knowledge, you may want to research the Stamp Act of 1765 which was considered to be a direct tax because it was levied internally by the British Parliament as opposed to being a tax levied on imports.

Additionally, a wealth based tax was also considered to be a direct tax, and then there was a “poll” or “head” tax which in some instances was also called and “income tax”. Likewise, “general assessments” were also considered to be a “direct tax”. And in the Wealth Of Nations, we find a tax imposed on the wages of labor was contemporarily considered to be a “direct tax”.


Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says:

'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, 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.'

But it is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical contemporary documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, there is one thing I can say with certainty. Taxes considered to be direct were those assessed to the individual by government such as a poll tax, head tax, a tax upon property, while indirect taxes were costs added by government to things and activities which individuals were free to acquired or reject.

For example, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)



JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

What is disingenuous as well as “ignorant” is your suggestion that the words you quoted are my conclusion. In fact the words are those of the author of the article which you omitted from your post.

There was no such suggestion. Note the quotation marks around the statement, which mean that you were quoting someone else. Had the words been your own there would have been no quotation marks.


Having said that, your misunderstanding of our Constitution does not advance your conclusion that our original Constitution did not ban Congress from taxing “income”. In fact, taxing “income” was banned by the limited taxing powers granted to Congress. There is no provision in our original Congress granting a power to Congress to tax “income”.

There is no specific language granting Congress the power to tax anything in particular, so by your reasoning it had no authority to enact the whiskey and carriage taxes in 1791 and 1794, respectively, since whiskey and carriages aren't mentioned in the Constitution. The Framers knew how to prohibit Congress from taxing something, as they specified with respect to exports. Incomes weren't included in the ban.


Try reading our Constitution someday

I suggest you read it and see if you can discover any language that even remotely suggests that the taxing power in I.8.1 didn't extend to incomes.

[Sonny Tufts]

To broaden you knowledge, you may want to research the Stamp Act of 1765 which was considered to be a direct tax because it was levied internally by the British Parliament as opposed to being a tax levied on imports.

You are making the unsupported assumption that the Framers intended to adopt the British definition of a direct tax into the Constitution.


Additionally, a wealth based tax was also considered to be a direct tax, and then there was a “poll” or “head” tax which in some instances was also called and “income tax”. Likewise, “general assessments” were also considered to be a “direct tax”. And in the Wealth Of Nations, we find a tax imposed on the wages of labor was contemporarily considered to be a “direct tax”.

No argument about wealth taxes or poll taxes -- they are both direct taxes, as the former is a tax on the ownership of property and the latter is a capitation. But we've already addressed the error in construing Smith as saying that an income tax is a capitation. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?443685-Senator-Cruz-keep-income-tax-lower-top-rates


Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says:

'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, 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.'

Fine. An income tax is none of these, so by Hamilton's definition it is an indirect tax. This was pointed out by SCOTUS in the Springer case, in which it upheld the Civil War income tax against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax:


He [Hamilton] suggests that... direct taxes be held to be only '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 tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error. Springer v. U.S., 102 586 (1880)



there is one thing I can say with certainty. Taxes considered to be direct were those assessed to the individual by government such as a poll tax, head tax, a tax upon property, while indirect taxes were costs added by government to things and activities which individuals were free to acquired or reject.

An income tax is neither a poll tax nor a property tax.

[johnwk]

An income tax is neither a poll tax nor a property tax.



Give it a freaken break. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread? The subject is tax reform, not your nonsensical personal views about what an "income tax" is.


You really do have a knack for ignoring the subject of the thread.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

Give it a freaken break. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread?

About as much as your posts #10 and 11.


You really do have a knack for ignoring the subject of the thread.

As you have one for ignoring the law.

[johnwk]

About as much as your posts #10 and 11.



As you have one for ignoring the law.
What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread? The subject is tax reform,

[Sonny Tufts]

Does President Trump’s tax reform end unequal direct taxation and restore our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxation?

There is no federal direct tax currently in force.


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”?

There will be winners and losers in any system of taxation, even one relying on capitations since there would inevitably be certain exemptions. Congress clearly has the constitutional authority to decide whether to raise revenue through direct or indirect taxes and to determine the tax base in either case. No matter what it chooses, some will win and some will lose, even under your "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment".


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?

I don't recall that the IRS asks people to divulge their religious or political beliefs, sex lives, or other "most personal aspects of their private lives". Moreover, you have it backwards: the government's primary objective in taxation is to raise revenue, and asking for certain financial information is simply a means to that end.

[johnwk]

There is no federal direct tax currently in force.






:rolleyes:


Have you forgotten the "temporary victory tax" of 1943, which taxes the property every laboring class person has in the sale of their own labor, a temporary tax which is still in effect?


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

Have you forgotten the "temporary victory tax" of 1943, which taxes the property every laboring class person has in the sale of their own labor, a temporary tax which is still in effect?

An income tax on wages and personal earnings isn't a direct tax. If you don't like that answer, take it up with SCOTUS.

There is a huge difference between taxing the mere ownership of property (a direct tax) and taxing its receipt (an excise).

[johnwk]

.



See President Trump will head to Capitol Hill ahead of Senate tax reform vote (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-head-capitol-hill-ahead-senate-tax/story?id=51364731)


“We look forward to welcoming President Trump to the Senate again next Tuesday,” the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., announced in a statement today.


“This is a historic opportunity for our conference and the president to build on our momentum to give Americans the tax relief they’ve been waiting for,” he said.”


Unfortunately, President Trump is promoting the Republican swamp creatures cooked up “tax manipulation” of the socialist/communist inspired income tax, and it keeps alive this patently evil system of taxation which invites corruption, unequal taxation and allows members of Congress to pick winners and losers for a moderate campaign contribution from donors who represent special interests.


Real “tax reform” is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


President Trump is being played like a fiddle by our Washington Swamp Creatures when it comes to “tax reform”.


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)

[DamianTV]

What? The engine is blown? I got an idea to fix it, lets fiddle with the distributor cap and adjust the timing even tho there is no fuel getting into the cylinders! Thats sure to fix it!

\facepalm

[johnwk]

What? The engine is blown? I got an idea to fix it, lets fiddle with the distributor cap and adjust the timing even tho there is no fuel getting into the cylinders! Thats sure to fix it!

\facepalm



It's all about the Swamp Creatures keeping their iron fist on the necks of the people and plundering the wealth which America's labor and businesses have produced.

JWK

[Zippyjuan]

It's all about the Swamp Creatures keeping their iron fist on the necks of the people and plundering the wealth which America's labor and businesses have produced.

JWK

Changing to a head tax will stop the Swamp Creatures from having their iron fists on the necks of the people and plundering their wealth?

[johnwk]

Changing to a head tax will stop the Swamp Creatures from having their iron fists on the necks of the people and plundering their wealth?


What on earth are you suggesting?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

What on earth are you suggesting?


JWK

It is what I understand your proposal is- a head tax. Take spending, divide it by the number of people (with each state acting as intermediary- collecting their "state share" and forwarding it on to the Feds) , and that is your tax bill. Or am I mistaken?

(was that all people? People over a certain age? People with jobs?- these make a huge difference in how much the tax per person would be).

However it is calculated, it would hit lower income people harder than high incomes- making wealth disparity worse.


"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.

[Zippyjuan]

Just to run some numbers based on my interpretation of you plan. The 2017 budget called for about $4 trillion in spending. You only allow for tariffs and duties to be collected.


"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."

Excise taxes and customs duties accounted for $150 billion in revenues (not enough to even pay the interest on the debt). That leaves $3.85 trillion to be collected since you do not allow debt to be carried over. US population is 330 million. That leaves about $12,000 to be collected by the states from each person- regardless of age, income or assets. A family of four would owe $48,000. If the family earned $50,000, they still owe $48,000 and have $2000 left for things like food and clothing and housing (median income is $59,000 a year). If they made $1 million, they still owe $48,000. The family is now broke while the rich person has lost little of what he had.

Or is it up to the states to decide how to tax the individuals to collect their share? That could mean income taxes which does not get rid of the income tax- merely changes who collects it meaning no real change in the current system- only adding a middle man.

[johnwk]

It is what I understand your proposal is- a head tax. Take spending, divide it by the number of people (with each state acting as intermediary- collecting their "state share" and forwarding it on to the Feds) , and that is your tax bill. Or am I mistaken?

(was that all people? People over a certain age? People with jobs?- these make a huge difference in how much the tax per person would be).

However it is calculated, it would hit lower income people harder than high incomes- making wealth disparity worse.

Your selective reading is misleading. Now read SECTIONS 2 and 4


JWK

[johnwk]

Just to run some numbers based on my interpretation of you plan. The 2017 budget called for about $4 trillion in spending. You only allow for tariffs and duties to be collected.

Did you intentionally omit internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption?



"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.


I can see your object is to misdirect and confuse, and not to have an intelligent discussion. But that has always been your game in this forum. :rolleyes:


JWK

[johnwk]

Just to run some numbers .


Your numbers are irrelevant, especially the amount your assert is to be raised. You ignore the fact each State's Congressional Delegation would be encouraged under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment to reduce spending in order to avoid having to impose the apportioned direct tax to extinguish an annual deficit, under which circumstances each Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill which would deplete their own state treasury or force their own Governor and State Legislature to raise additional taxes and then transfer that revenue into the Treasury of the United States. And this is the moment of accountability which our Washington Sewer Creatures in Congress fear with a passion ... as they would be held accountable for not living within the revenue raised from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes

JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

each State's Congressional Delegation would be encouraged under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment to reduce spending in order to avoid having to impose the apportioned direct tax to extinguish an annual deficit, under which circumstances each Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill which would deplete their own state treasury or force their own Governor and State Legislature to raise additional taxes and then transfer that revenue into the Treasury of the United States.

You're incredibly naïve to believe that it would be easier for the congressional delegations to agree to slash federal spending to the bone than it would be to tell the state legislatures to come up with revenue-raising measures to replace the federal taxes their citizens no longer have to pay. I can hear it now:

Senator: Sorry, Governor, we've decided to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and most other federal programs. And oh, yes, that military base with its 20,000 civilian jobs is being axed, and that plant that manufactures fighters for the Air Force will have to close. But hey, that's your problem.

It's a certainty that any senator or representative who voted to cut federal spending down to the point that it could be covered by imposts, duties, and excises (other than the income tax, which is a type of excise) would soon be out of a job.

[johnwk]

You're incredibly naïve to believe .


Yes, you are naïve and uniformed, especially to how apportionment would effect our pinko state legislatures. Each would have to finally contribute a share proportionately equal to their big fat mouth when their Congressional Delegation spends federal revenue.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

Yes, you are naïve and uniformed, especially to how apportionment would effect [sic] our pinko state legislatures.

Oh, so now the state legislatures are filled with commies, too? And yet you want them to determine how to raise the revenue that will certainly be needed to meet a direct tax quota.

[Zippyjuan]

Did you intentionally omit internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption?



"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.


I can see your object is to misdirect and confuse, and not to have an intelligent discussion. But that has always been your game in this forum. :rolleyes:


JWK


At current spending levels, you would need tariffs of 200% on every item imported.

At current spending levels, you need an excise tax on every item of 30%.

Are states only allowed to collect revenues via your excise tax- or will there still be income taxes at the state level (your program says it will be able to get rid of income taxes)?

[johnwk]

Oh, so now the state legislatures are filled with commies, too? And yet you want them to determine how to raise the revenue that will certainly be needed to meet a direct tax quota.



Yup. A number of the State Legislatures, such as New York, California, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, etc., are filled with communists and socialists. But what you deflect from is, each State, under our founders plan, would have to contribute a share proportionately equal to their big fat mouth when their Congressional Delegation spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes. How nice of you to side step the brilliance and wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to both representation and direct taxation. Just goes to show how disingenuous you really are.


JWK


“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)

[LibForestPaul]

Taxes - the curtain in front of the farce

Power, Cronyism, Democracy, Spending, Fiefdoms. CUTS IN SPENDING, No more blackwaters, no more dozens of departments, no more staff. Ain't going to happen.

[johnwk]

At current spending levels, you would need tariffs of 200% on every item imported.

At current spending levels, you need an excise tax on every item of 30%.



There you go again with an intentional distraction. Current spending levels are encouraged with the current communist/socialist inspired income tax. Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment the socialist/communist love affair with government "free cheese", which drives up spending, will come to an abrupt end. So, your nonsensical "current spending levels" are nothing more than a distraction and an attempt to avoid a discussion of the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution's original tax plan, which would be re-established under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a proposal which our sewer rats in Washington fear with a passion. How dare someone promotes allowing working people to bring home a paycheck untaxed by our federal government and required Congress to balance the annual budget, even if it means imposing the apportioned direct tax.


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

[Zippyjuan]

There you go again with an intentional distraction. Current spending levels are encouraged with the current communist/socialist inspired income tax. Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment the socialist/communist love affair with government "free cheese", which drives up spending, will come to an abrupt end. So, your nonsensical "current spending levels" are nothing more than a distraction and an attempt to avoid a discussion of the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution's original tax plan, which would be re-established under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a proposal which our sewer rats in Washington fear with a passion. How dare someone promotes allowing working people to bring home a paycheck untaxed by our federal government and required Congress to balance the annual budget, even if it means imposing the apportioned direct tax.

JWK



Fair Share Balanced Budget act would not get rid of the income tax- just shift it from the Federal Government level to the states. Feds still get the money- states get the responsibility of collecting it. It is an illusion that it ends people paying taxes to the federal government.

Would government spending actually be reduced if it passed? Would you get rid of Social Security and Defense Spending? Medicare? Would Congress (they would be voted out if they tried)? What would you get rid of?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/presidents-budget-total-spending-fy2016_large.png

[johnwk]

Fair Share Balanced Budget act would not get rid of the income tax-



The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment does remove this patently evil system of taxation from Congress' hands, and likewise encourages each State's Congressional Delegation to live within the revenue raised from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption in order to avoid the apportioned direct tax.

Let us once again review the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


It is not "tax reform". It is income tax manipulation which keeps alive the notoriously evil and arbitrary powers associated with the communist/socialist income tax. It is an ongoing attack on our free market system and allows our Washington Swamp Creatures to use the power of taxation to subvert and undermine our nation's founding principles.

Real tax reform is found in 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 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 those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is 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

[Zippyjuan]

Yes- you have posted the plan many times already. How does it impact spending? What will Congress actually cut? What would you actually cut? Spending is the real issue. You are moving around the chairs. It shifts who collects the funds- not where they go (because there is no way you will collect near enough with tariffs and excise taxes). States will still be sending the same people to vote on the same programs. The citizens of their states will still be paying for them.

[johnwk]

Yes- you have posted the plan many times already. How does it impact spending? What will Congress actually cut? What would you actually cut? Spending is the real issue. You are moving around the chairs. It shifts who collects the funds- not where they go (because there is no way you will collect near enough with tariffs and excise taxes). States will still be sending the same people to vote on the same programs. The citizens of their states will still be paying for them.

Yes, I have posted the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment a number of times. And your questions indicate you have not even tried to figure out what positive impact it would have on each State’s Congressional Delegation sent to Washington, nor the various ways it removes the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s working class people. For example, you falsely assert the FSBBA does not raise enough revenue. The fact is, it does not put any limits on the amount of revenue Congress may raise. But it does encourage each State’s Congressional Delegation to spend no more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned direct tax levied upon the states, which would deplete each state’s own treasury. Do you not think this is an incentive for each state to elect members of Congress who will try to live within the revenue raised from imposts, duties and taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax?


Additionally, does the FSBBA not end Congress’s ability to pick winners and losers in return for campaign contributions?

Does it not end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”?

Does it not end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes?

Does not end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?

Does it not end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury?

Does it not balance the budget on an annual basis and end the threat of reckless borrowing? Tell me, how much does Congress now spend annually on interest to cover the national debt? Would a balanced budget amendment not be a blessing and encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible?


It is very telling that you find no benefits under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and prefer to obfuscate as to its benefits. Your attitude and postings indicates you are a great supporter of the socialist/communist inspired income tax, and Congress’ reckless spending which is primarily used to finance communist and socialist spending.


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]

Additionally, does the FSBBA not end Congress’s ability to pick winners and losers in return for campaign contributions?

No, because Congress retains the right to choose the tax base. Even the Amendment has a default rule under which landowners are the losers if Congress has to impose a direct tax.


Does it not balance the budget on an annual basis and end the threat of reckless borrowing?

Absolutely not. The Amendment specifically recognizes that there can be a deficit in a particular fiscal year and allows the can to be kicked down the road for an indefinite period -- reread Section 4, which says that the direct tax revenue that is to be used to erase a deficit is to be paid by the States "by a final date set by Congress", which could be years in the future.

Moreover, as written Section 4 doesn't accomplish its purpose. If the direct tax is supposed to erase the deficit and if all of the States pay on time, they still get a 10% discount, which means the deficit won't be erased.

[Sonny Tufts]

How nice of you to side step the brilliance and wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to both representation and direct taxation.

Regarding representation, it's fine. Regarding taxation, it's neither brilliant nor wise, because it can lead to different tax rates for similarly situated taxpayers, as I pointed out before. Only a capitation tax with no exemptions would be a fair direct tax.


“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."

Indeed. And your proposed direct tax method would suffer from the same problem.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Additionally, does the FSBBA not end Congress’s ability to pick winners and losers in return for campaign contributions?




No, because Congress retains the right to choose the tax base.




There you go again, posting false claims. When laying and collecting impost, duties and internal taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, the tax is not laid upon individuals, so winners and losers cannot be picked.

And when the apportioned tax is laid, each state is free to raise its share of the tax in its own chosen way. But if a state refuses to pay its share, then, and only then, is Congress free to enter the state to collect the state’s tax burden.

Stop making crap up.


JWK

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
“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

Indeed. And your proposed direct tax method would suffer from the same problem.

Stop with the nonsense and misdirection and posting words out of context. Under the Articles of Confederation some states were delinquent in meeting their quoted. This was corrected under our existing Constitution by granting power to Congress to lay and collect direct taxes, and if necessary, enter a state and collect the tax. However, as Pinckney pointed out, this taxing power could not be abused by Congress. The full quote, which you intentionally edited for a nefarious reason is:


“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)

Seems that you are very comfortable with misrepresentations to sustain your outright and false assertions. Of course, those who support keeping the patently evil income tax alive and in Congress’ hands, have no problem using it for a variety of nefarious reasons.



JWK




“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)___Mr. PENDLETON

[EBounding]

For me personally, the tax plan looks great.

http://taxplancalculator.com/

[Superfluous Man]

The OP is saying that no change in the tax code short of eliminating the income tax completely can ever be a good thing.

That's silly.

[Zippyjuan]

There you go again, posting false claims. When laying and collecting impost, duties and internal taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, the tax is not laid upon individuals, so winners and losers cannot be picked.

And when the apportioned tax is laid, each state is free to raise its share of the tax in its own chosen way. But if a state refuses to pay its share, then, and only then, is Congress free to enter the state to collect the state’s tax burden.

Stop making crap up.


JWK

Tariffs do pick winners and losers. It penalizes companies which need to import materials to produce their products. All forms of taxation have winners and losers. The tax is not directly laid upon individuals but it does get added into the prices they pay for the things they buy. It reduces competition from companies outside the US which means that US companies are not forced to be more competitive meaning they can be less efficient and charge higher prices than if they had that competition. They cost consumers more. You pay the tax via higher prices for goods and services. The whole point of a tariff is protectionism.

Some people make the mistake thinking that tariffs are a free ride- that it isn't US citizens paying taxes but only foreign companies wanting to sell in the US. That is wrong- it is the US consumer who pays those taxes. There ins't a "free ride" where you don't have to pay anything. It just hides the taxes better so you have no idea what the taxes are actually costing you.

[Sonny Tufts]

When laying and collecting impost, duties and internal taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, the tax is not laid upon individuals, so winners and losers cannot be picked.

Of course they can. A tariff on, say, imported French wine will make winners out of domestic wine growers and losers out of the importers of French wine who will be forced to charge a higher price and may find that they can't compete with domestic wine (which, after all, is the whole purpose of protective tariffs). Indeed, a tax on any particular article of consumption will make losers out of the producers and sellers of such articles, because it will increase the price and therefore reduce the demand (unless the demand for the article is inelastic).


And when the apportioned tax is laid, each state is free to raise its share of the tax in its own chosen way. But if a state refuses to pay its share, then, and only then, is Congress free to enter the state to collect the state’s tax burden.

There's nothing in the Amendment that says Congress can't initially specify the tax base of a direct tax. In fact, Congress has done so in every direct tax it has ever imposed (1798, 1813, 1815, 1816, and 1861) -- land, dwelling houses, and slaves (the latter weren't included in the 1861 tax). If you want the States to be able to decide how to raise their respective shares of revenue, you're going to need to add language to that effect to the Amendment.

Moreover, nothing in the Amendment prohibits Congress from imposing a capitation tax, which is another way of choosing the tax base.

[Superfluous Man]

There you go again, posting false claims. When laying and collecting impost, duties and internal taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, the tax is not laid upon individuals, so winners and losers cannot be picked.

Good grief.

So after that purity test OP, it turns out you're still for taxes anyway.

[Zippyjuan]

Additionally, does the FSBBA not end Congress’s ability to pick winners and losers in return for campaign contributions?

No, it does not. They can still pass laws which benefit one industry/ company at the expense of another.


Does it not end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”?

Tariffs and excise taxes do pick winners and losers. It changes how they can pick winners- it does not remove their ability to pick winners via taxation. It still lets States determine "taxable income" and even have an income tax. You are right that it removes the income tax at the federal level.


Does it not end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes?
They can still use an excise tax for that purpose.


Does not end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?
They can do that for other reasons.


Does it not end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury?

Tariffs and excise taxes makes consumers and businesses pay more for things. It protects lazy and unproductive US companies from competition from foreign countries.


Does it not balance the budget on an annual basis and end the threat of reckless borrowing? Tell me, how much does Congress now spend annually on interest to cover the national debt? Would a balanced budget amendment not be a blessing and encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible?

It does not require a balanced budget every year- it lays out how they can get around it- by forcing states to pay in more money.


SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing,

[Zippyjuan]

Still ignoring reality as well. How about some actual figures? How much do you think the government can raise via excise taxes and tariffs? How big should government spending be? How would you reduce the size of government? What would you cut and by how much? Tariffs and excise taxes currently only take in about $150 billion a year. Your plan would require a massive increase in that.

[Sonny Tufts]

However, as Pinckney pointed out, this taxing power could not be abused by Congress.

Since under the Constitution Congress can choose the tax base for a direct tax, it could abuse its power by choosing the things to be taxed so as to favor or disfavor certain States.


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”[/I][/b]3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)___Mr. PENDLETON

This observation is restricted to the House of Representatives. The Framers had no such problem with the objection when it came to the Senate, in which Delaware has a hugely disproportionate weight compared to, say, California.

[johnwk]

There you go again, posting false claims. When laying and collecting impost, duties and internal taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, the tax is not laid upon individuals, so winners and losers cannot be picked.

And when the apportioned tax is laid, each state is free to raise its share of the tax in its own chosen way. But if a state refuses to pay its share, then, and only then, is Congress free to enter the state to collect the state’s tax burden.

Stop making crap up.


JWK



Tariffs do pick winners and losers. .


:rolleyes:

Nowhere near as does the income tax.


Does the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”?

Does the FSBBA not end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes?

Does the FSBBA end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?

Does the FSBBA not end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury?

Does the FSBBA provide a specific method to balance the budget on an annual basis and end the devastating effects of reckless borrowing? Tell me, how much does Congress now spend annually on interest to cover the national debt? Would a balanced budget amendment not be a blessing and encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible?


Are there not many significant advantages in ending the federal income tax and adopting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

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

[johnwk]

Since under the Constitution Congress can choose the tax base for a direct tax, it could abuse its power by choosing the things to be taxed so as to favor or disfavor certain States.



This observation is restricted to the House of Representatives. The Framers had no such problem with the objection when it came to the Senate, in which Delaware has a hugely disproportionate weight compared to, say, California.



Have you been drinking? What on earth are you talking about? If and when Congress lays a direct tax upon the States, the States are left to raise their apportioned share in their own chosen manner.


"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.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Does the FSBBA provide a specific method to balance the budget on an annual basis and end the devastating effects of reckless borrowing?

Not that I can see. It sets a goal but does not provide a mechanism for avoiding spending more than they take in in taxes. It lets them extort money from the states.


Does the FSBBA not end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes?

They would still have other toys for that- including your excise taxes.


Does the FSBBA end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?

Could the Feds use tax laws to do that under your suggestion? No. Could they still do it in other ways or for other reasons? Yes.


Tell me, how much does Congress now spend annually on interest to cover the national debt? Would a balanced budget amendment not be a blessing and encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible?

In the FY 2017 budget interest on the debt cost $266 billion. Your program makes it easy for them to ignore balancing the budget. Current imposts, tariffs and excise taxes (your suggested replacement for the income tax) does not collect enough to even pay for that.

[Zippyjuan]

I'm a numbers guy. I want to see what the actual- not just theoretical- impact would be. I don't see spending changing significantly from what it is now- politicians don't have an incentive to cut spending when that will cost them votes.

Suppose we adopted your idea today- what would be the impact? (We aren't going to start over with zero government, zero spending, and zero debt). What would the rates on tariffs and excise taxes be? How would the economy react to that? How would the people react? "We will get rid of your income taxes (about half of all filers today owe no net income taxes) but instead we will replace that with a combination of higher price from tariffs on things you import and higher prices in the form of excise taxes. Would you like that?"

If we went 50-50 on the tariffs and excise taxes we can use a 100% tariff on everything imported and a 15% excise tax (sales tax) on everything you buy.

You dismiss it when I put up numbers but they are important. Reality. Not just theory in a perfect world.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm a numbers guy.


Numbers guy?! You just Google stuff and post it.

[Zippyjuan]

"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 [B]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."

JWK

How does this "lien" on property thing work if a state doesn't kick in its "fair share"? Is that just state owned property or does it include privately owned lands as well? Can the government then come in and seize personal property because a state didn't kick in their "fair share"? How much land is actually owned by states vs private or federal government? (in most states, the state own less than three percent of the total land- in 13 states, the state owns one percent or less of the land) http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles6/state_by_state_government_land_o.htm

Does the lien apply to Federal Government lands within the state?

How is the state owned land valued?

[Sonny Tufts]

If and when Congress lays a direct tax upon the States, the States are left to raise their apportioned share in their own chosen manner.

That's not what the Amendment says. The clause "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" doesn't say that each State can define the tax base for its quota. You may think it does but it doesn't, unless you shoehorn that meaning into the word "assume".

Look, the existing Constitution allows Congress to choose the tax base, and it has done so every time it has imposed a direct tax. Your Amendment doesn't eliminate its power to impose direct taxes in lieu of indirect taxes, nor does it eliminate Congress' power to define the tax base. If the intent of the Amendment is to make such a major change to Congress' existing taxing power, you'd be well advised to make it explicit. You also need to fix the glitch about the 10% discount, which as written will prevent the deficit from ever being eliminated.

[Superfluous Man]

I'm a numbers guy. I want to see what the actual- not just theoretical- impact would be. I don't see spending changing significantly from what it is now- politicians don't have an incentive to cut spending when that will cost them votes.

The best way to give them that incentive is by reducing their revenue through massive tax cuts.

[Zippyjuan]

The best way to give them that incentive is by reducing their revenue through massive tax cuts.

Yeah! That will get them to reduce spending! Just like previous tax cuts reduced government spending! Government is so small you can barely see it!

[Sonny Tufts]

How does this "lien" on property thing work if a state doesn't kick in its "fair share"? Is that just state owned property or does it include privately owned lands as well? Can the government then come in and seize personal property because a state didn't kick in their "fair share"? How much land is actually owned by states vs private or federal government? (in most states, the state own less than three percent of the total land) http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles6/state_by_state_government_land_o.htm

Just goes to show how poorly drafted the Amendment is. As it reads, the direct tax would apply to all real property, including land owned by the State, the federal government, churches, and charities, thereby making it certain that the Amendment would never be ratified.


How is the state owned land valued?

There would need to be federal assessors to value such land.

[Zippyjuan]

Let's try some new numbers. Let's use current spending and tariff revenues. Reality. $4 trillion in spending, $150 billion in tariffs leaving $3.85 trillion to finance from the states.

Let's go to Texas. US has 330 million people- Texas has about 29 million or 8.8% of the US population. Their fair share would be $338 billion (which is 50% more than their entire state budget for this year). Say Texas stiffs the Feds. They put a lien on only state owned lands. Texas is 269,000 square miles and one percent is owned by the state- 2,700 square miles. That comes to $125,000 a square mile or about $200 an acre.

If they DO pay it off, that is about $12,000 for every resident of the state.

[Zippyjuan]

It becomes an extortion racket to force the states to pay for what the Federal Government does. Rather than issuing debt they just send the bills on to the states and say "here, you pay for it!"

[johnwk]

Let's try some new numbers. Let's use current spending and tariff revenues. Reality. $4 trillion in spending, $150 billion in tariffs leaving $3.85 trillion to finance from the states.

Let's go to Texas. US has 330 million people- Texas has about 29 million or 8.8% of the US population. Their fair share would be $338 billion (which is 50% more than their entire state budget for this year). Say Texas stiffs the Feds. They put a lien on only state owned lands. Texas is 269,000 square miles and one percent is owned by the state- 2,700 square miles. That comes to $125,000 a square mile or about $200 an acre.


I have already gone over the irrelevancy of your projected numbers. And yet, you rehash the same drivel. I wrote:

There you go again with an intentional distraction. Current spending levels are encouraged with the current communist/socialist inspired income tax. Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment the socialist/communist love affair with government "free cheese", which drives up spending, will come to an abrupt end. So, your nonsensical "current spending levels" are nothing more than a distraction and an attempt to avoid a discussion of the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution's original tax plan, which would be re-established under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a proposal which our sewer rats in Washington fear with a passion. How dare someone promotes allowing working people to bring home a paycheck untaxed by our federal government and required Congress to balance the annual budget, even if it means imposing the apportioned direct tax.


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

[johnwk]

The OP is saying that no change in the tax code short of eliminating the income tax completely can ever be a good thing.

That's silly.

Only for those who support the communist/socialist inspired income tax.


JWK

[PierzStyx]

An income tax on wages and personal earnings isn't a direct tax. If you don't like that answer, take it up with SCOTUS.

There is a huge difference between taxing the mere ownership of property (a direct tax) and taxing its receipt (an excise).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Oh.... wait...... You're serious.....

Well, that is just silly.

This just in, taking your money -property- directly from you isn't a direct tax. That makes as much sense as people thinking Trump was interested in reducing government spending. The mental hoops you people will jump through to try and twist language to fit justify your actions is both astounding and depressing.

[PierzStyx]

Just to run some numbers based on my interpretation of you plan. The 2017 budget called for about $4 trillion in spending. You only allow for tariffs and duties to be collected.



Excise taxes and customs duties accounted for $150 billion in revenues (not enough to even pay the interest on the debt). That leaves $3.85 trillion to be collected since you do not allow debt to be carried over. US population is 330 million. That leaves about $12,000 to be collected by the states from each person- regardless of age, income or assets. A family of four would owe $48,000. If the family earned $50,000, they still owe $48,000 and have $2000 left for things like food and clothing and housing (median income is $59,000 a year). If they made $1 million, they still owe $48,000. The family is now broke while the rich person has lost little of what he had.

Or is it up to the states to decide how to tax the individuals to collect their share? That could mean income taxes which does not get rid of the income tax- merely changes who collects it meaning no real change in the current system- only adding a middle man.

Exactly the problem with all tax plans. And a great argument for getting rid of them all.

[johnwk]

Additionally, does the FSBBA not end Congress’s ability to pick winners and losers in return for campaign contributions?


No, it does not. They can still pass laws which benefit one industry/ company at the expense of another.

What you fail to realize is, unlike picking winners and losers under income taxation, and the countless abuses attached to income taxation, taxing specifically selected articles of consumption is the least susceptible to such abuses and allows the market place to determine important limits which are beyond Congress’ power. Let us examine this manner of taxation.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding 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.”

Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to produce a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.


Some may claim, as you seem to do, that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain or financial contributions, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.

So, your assumption turns out to be not as great as you would have us believe.

JWK

[Superfluous Man]

Yeah! That will get them to reduce spending! Just like previous tax cuts reduced government spending! Government is so small you can barely see it!

What previous tax cuts?

If tax revenue didn't make it easier for politicians to spend money, then there wouldn't be any taxes. Starving Leviathan may not immediately cause it to shrink, but it won't spend as much with less tax revenue as it would have spent with more.

[Superfluous Man]

Only for those who support the communist/socialist inspired income tax.


JWK

It's also silly for those who don't support it. It's just all around ridiculous.

[Zippyjuan]

I have already gone over the irrelevancy of your projected numbers. And yet, you rehash the same drivel. I wrote:

There you go again with an intentional distraction. Current spending levels are encouraged with the current communist/socialist inspired income tax. Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment the socialist/communist love affair with government "free cheese", which drives up spending, will come to an abrupt end. So, your nonsensical "current spending levels" are nothing more than a distraction and an attempt to avoid a discussion of the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution's original tax plan, which would be re-established under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a proposal which our sewer rats in Washington fear with a passion. How dare someone promotes allowing working people to bring home a paycheck untaxed by our federal government and required Congress to balance the annual budget, even if it means imposing the apportioned direct tax.


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

The numbers DO matter. It isn't a "distraction". It is an attempt to see what your plan would actually mean in the real world- not a fantasy hypothetical one. What happens if we replace the income tax with tariffs and excise taxes?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The numbers DO matter.

If you give up the principle--you're just negotiating price.

[johnwk]

The numbers DO matter. It isn't a "distraction". It is an attempt to see what your plan would actually mean in the real world- not a fantasy hypothetical one.



Bull-crapski! Your numbers assume Congress will not cut spending in order to avoid the apportioned direct tax.


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)

[Zippyjuan]

Bull-crapski! Your numbers assume Congress will not cut spending in order to avoid the apportioned direct tax.


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)

You assume they will cut spending. Cutting popular spending programs means getting voted out of office. They don't want that.

I posted spending and asked you to suggest what they would or could cut. What do you think? Will they get rid of Social Security? Defense spending? Medicaid? Here is the chart again:

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/presidents-budget-total-spending-fy2016_large.png

Can/ will they be able to get rid of half of government spending? One third? Any?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What happens if we replace the income tax with tariffs and excise taxes?

Less taxes means less government, but do continue your own fantasy.

[johnwk]

What happens if we replace the income tax with tariffs and excise taxes?


Our marketplace determines the limit of taxes raised from imposts, duties and excise taxes on articles of consumption.


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.” ___ Hamilton



JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Our marketplace determines the limit of taxes raised from imposts, duties and excise taxes on articles of consumption.

JWK

And if that doesn't cover it, your plan lets them demand the states pay for it- increasing taxes on the residents of those states. Raising taxes on imposts, duties, and excise taxes reduces demand for those items (since they cost more) reducing your revenues. That gives them an out from having to balance it. (again noting that about half of all income tax filers don't pay net income taxes but they would be hit by higher prices from your new taxes).

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And if that doesn't cover it, your plan lets them demand the states pay for it- increasing taxes on the residents of those states. Raising taxes on imposts, duties, and excise taxes reduces demand for those items (since they cost more) reducing your revenues. That gives them an out from having to balance it. (again noting that about half of all income tax filers don't pay net income taxes but they would be hit by higher prices from your new taxes).


Nope. Wrong again.

[johnwk]

You assume they will cut spending. Cutting popular spending programs means getting voted out of office.


What you fail to realize is, when the apportioned tax is laid to pay for those "programs", and a bill is sent to the people in each state to pay their apportioned share of the deficit, the people will begin to realize there is no free lunch, nor free government cheese.

Tell me, what do you think the people of pinko New York would do when they have to pay an apportioned amount equal to their big mouth in Congress when spending federal revenue? Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if New York should receive a bill from for its apportioned share of the 2016 federal deficit which Chucky Boy Schumer helped to create with his pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect Chucky-boy would be met at New York's border with a dedicated crowd waiting to engage in a tar and feather party rather than a tea party! And this is why the Washington Establishment and the friends of big government hate the founders apportioned tax to extinguish a deficit ___ it creates a very real moment of accountability for every member of Congress!

JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Thing is that people will blame the generic "Congress" (as they always do) and keep sending their own representatives back over and over again to do the same things over and over and over again. Congress sucks but their own representatives are good (and often in gerrymandered, secure districts). And they have their pet programs they don't want to see cut- they would like to see a balanced budget but when you tell them exactly what you will have to cut, they change their story and want it protected. Even Ron Paul said he would not cut Social Security or Medicaid. He would "honor those commitments".

And again- how much would they realistically cut from the budget I posted?

[johnwk]

Our marketplace determines the limit of taxes raised from imposts, duties and excise taxes on articles of consumption.


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.” ___ Hamilton



JWK





And if that doesn't cover it, your plan lets them demand the states pay for it- increasing taxes on the residents of those states. Raising taxes on imposts, duties, and excise taxes reduces demand for those items (since they cost more) reducing your revenues. That gives them an out from having to balance it. (again noting that about half of all income tax filers don't pay net income taxes but they would be hit by higher prices from your new taxes).

What does the above gibberish have to do with what I posted above?

JWK

[johnwk]

Thing is that people will blame the generic "Congress" ...


Not when their state Congressional Delegation brings home a bill and hands it over to the Governor and State Legislature. You ignore the fact a State's Governor and Legislature will not be very happy to have to deplete their own state treasury and send it to Washington. This of course encourages the Governor and State Legislature to keep a jealous eye on the spending practices of its Congressional Delegation and report to the People the increase in state taxes to refill their state treasury has been caused by the reckless spending of their Congressional Delegation.

You just don't like a real moment of accountability to be created, which the apportioned tax does create when used to extinguish an annual deficit.

JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Not when their state Congressional Delegation brings home a bill and hands it over to the Governor and State Legislature. You ignore the fact a State's Governor and Legislature will not be very happy to have to deplete their own state treasury and send it to Washington. This of course encourages the Governor and State Legislature to keep a jealous eye on the spending practices of its Congressional Delegation and report to the People the increase in state taxes to refill their state treasury has been caused by the reckless spending of their Congressional Delegation.

JWK

They won't deplete their own treasuries (states don't usually have reserves in the first place). They will pass it along to the taxpayers and blame Congress.

(I asked earlier about what if a state doesn't pay up- what land is the government going to put a lien against? All the land in the state- even Federal and Private lands? Just state lands?)

Which programs would you expect Congress to slash/ get rid of if your idea passed?

[Sonny Tufts]

Oh.... wait...... You're serious.....

I am. And so are the courts that so ruled.


Well, that is just silly.

Not at all. Consider: a tax on the mere ownership of property can be imposed more than once -- real estate taxes, for example, are imposed each year. But a tax on the receipt of property is imposed only once.


This just in, taking your money -property- directly from you isn't a direct tax.

It isn't, in the sense that "direct tax" is used in the Constitution. That term has always been limited to capitations and property taxes. Many taxes are collected directly from people (inheritance taxes, carriage taxes, whiskey taxes), but that doesn't mean they're direct taxes under the Constitution.

[Sonny Tufts]

Less taxes means less government, but do continue your own fantasy.

The primary fantasy mentioned in these posts is the notion that people will be willing to elect representatives to cut federal spending down to $150 billion (assuming that's the correct figure for imposts, duties, and excises other than income taxes). If you think the voters would stand for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, defense, and countless other programs, you're either delusional or a complete idiot.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...you're either delusional or a complete idiot.


That's your argument? Insulting people? Does your employer Soros know you do this?

[johnwk]

Not when their state Congressional Delegation brings home a bill and hands it over to the Governor and State Legislature. You ignore the fact a State's Governor and Legislature will not be very happy to have to deplete their own state treasury and send it to Washington. This of course encourages the Governor and State Legislature to keep a jealous eye on the spending practices of its Congressional Delegation and report to the People the increase in state taxes to refill their state treasury has been caused by the reckless spending of their Congressional Delegation.

You just don't like a real moment of accountability to be created, which the apportioned tax does create when used to extinguish an annual deficit.

JWK




They won't deplete their own treasuries (states don't usually have reserves in the first place). They will pass it along to the taxpayers and blame Congress.


:rolleyes:

Stop with the BS!


A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. Are you really suggesting every local news outlet in the State will not report their State's Congressional Delegation has brought home a bill which will deplete the state's treasury which is funded by state tax payers?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

:rolleyes:

Stop with the BS!


A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. Are you really suggesting every local news outlet in the State will not report their State's Congressional Delegation has brought home a bill which will deplete the state's treasury which is funded by state tax payers?


JWK

The states don't have the money in their treasuries to transfer to the Federal Government. They will have to raise taxes on their taxpayers to get it. And they will blame the faceless Federal Government for having to do so. And then urge their representatives to kill the tax plan.

[Danke]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Oh.... wait...... You're serious.....

Well, that is just silly.

This just in, taking your money -property- directly from you isn't a direct tax. That makes as much sense as people thinking Trump was interested in reducing government spending. The mental hoops you people will jump through to try and twist language to fit justify your actions is both astounding and depressing.

Technically it is not a direct tax. But the way it is enforced improperly, does make it effectively, a direct tax.

[Zippyjuan]

So how big do you think the Federal Government will become if your program was to pass?

[johnwk]

The primary fantasy mentioned in these posts is the notion that people will be willing to elect representatives to cut federal spending down to $150 billion (assuming that's the correct figure for imposts, duties, and excises other than income taxes). If you think the voters would stand for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, defense, and countless other programs, you're either delusional or a complete idiot.

You wrote "If you think the voters . . . "

You appear to be the only one who knows what voters think.


Give it a break!

[johnwk]

:rolleyes:

Stop with the BS!


A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. Are you really suggesting every local news outlet in the State will not report their State's Congressional Delegation has brought home a bill which will deplete the state's treasury which is funded by state tax payers?


JWK



The states don't have the money in their treasuries to transfer to the Federal Government. They will have to raise taxes on their taxpayers to get it. And they will blame the faceless Federal Government for having to do so. And then urge their representatives to kill the tax plan.

You didn't answer the question asked.

Additionally, my statement is factually correct! A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. How the money gets there is an entirely different subject. Stop conflating different subjects.

[johnwk]

So how big do you think the Federal Government will become if your program was to pass?

Are you and Sonny bedroom mates? The both of you have a lot in common, especially trolling this forum.

JWK

[johnwk]

It becomes an extortion racket to force the states to pay for what the Federal Government does. Rather than issuing debt they just send the bills on to the states and say "here, you pay for it!"

And the people will not rise up against an "extortion racket"?

Your absurd comment indicates you realize you and Sonny have lost the debate and so, you resort to absurdities.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

You didn't answer the question asked.

Additionally, my statement is factually correct! A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. How the money gets there is an entirely different subject. Stop conflating different subjects.

Actually how it gets to the state treasury and then onto the US Treasury does matter. It won't really change things for the taxpayer if they pay income tax to the state which sends their check to Washington or if the taxpayer pays income tax to Washington. It is still coming out of their pocket and going to the exact same place. You are pretending that the taxes magically disappear.

Speaking of unanswered questions:

SO how much would you expect the size of government to go down due to your idea? Just a rough estimate. Ten percent? 50%?

How does that property lien thing work? Can the Federal Government seize property if the state fails to forward the checks?

[Danke]

It becomes an extortion racket to force the states to pay for what the Federal Government does. Rather than issuing debt they just send the bills on to the states and say "here, you pay for it!"

That is exactly the original intent. Easier for a group of men (the states) to fight against tyranny of the federal gov. vs. an individual.

[Danke]

Actually how it gets to the state treasury and then onto the US Treasury does matter. It won't really change things for the taxpayer if they pay income tax to the state which sends their check to Washington or if the taxpayer pays income tax to Washington. It is still coming out of their pocket and going to the exact same place. You are pretending that the taxes magically disappear.

Speaking of unanswered questions:

SO how much would you expect the size of government to go down due to your idea? Just a rough estimate. Ten percent? 50%?

How does that property lien thing work? Can the Federal Government seize property if the state fails to forward the checks?

States will owe a bill , but they can pay it by any means their electorate chooses. Doesn’t have to be an “income tax.”

And they can also choose not to pay what is demanded. If enough of them do this...

[Zippyjuan]

States will owe a bill , but they can pay it by any means their electorate chooses. Doesn’t have to be an “income tax.”

And they can also choose not to pay what is demanded. If enough of them do this...

True. It could be sales or property tax. But the taxpayer is still paying. Taxes didn't go away. The proposal just adds a middle man of the states to collect money for the State.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Speaking of unanswered questions:



For someone who constantly dodges questions--you sure ask a lot of them. How about you starting answering some?

[Danke]

True. It could be sales or property tax. But the taxpayer is still paying. Taxes didn't go away. The proposal just adds a middle man of the states to collect money for the State.

Does not add a middle man, States already have revenue offices to collect taxes.

The fed eliminates a lot of those jobs, now only 50 states to collect from. Just a bill they send to the States. The states may have to add a few jobs, true. Just depends how they choose to collect.

[johnwk]

Speaking of unanswered questions:

SO how much would you expect the size of government to go down due to your idea?


My idea? You still can't admit it's our founding fathers idea. Can you?


Here is the evidence you are full of bull-crapski:


FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:

And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Public Exigencies; nor then, Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of suck requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA:

Resolved that the general Government of the United States ought never to impose direct taxes, but where the monies arising from the duties, imposts and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have made a requisition upon the states to Assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions And in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion together with Interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of payment prescribed by such requisition-

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS:

Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State's proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition.

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND:

8th. In cases of direct taxes, Congress shall first make requisitions on the several states to assess, levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions, in such way and manner, as the legislatures of the several states shall judge best; and in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion, together with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, from the time prescribed in such requisition.

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA:

III. When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the executive power of each state, of the quota of such State, according to the census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised: And if the legislature of any state shall pass a law, which shall be effectual for raising such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected in such state.

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA:

Third, When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the Executive power of each State of the quota of such state according to the Census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised; And if the Legislature of any State shall pass a law which shall be effectual for raising such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected, in such State.


The fact is, our founders intended Congress to raise its revenue from indirect taxes, but provided for emergencies with an apportioned direct tax to extinguish deficits should they occur.

Stop making crap up!



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.

[johnwk]

True. It could be sales or property tax. But the taxpayer is still paying. Taxes didn't go away. The proposal just adds a middle man of the states to collect money for the State.

Still making crap up. What the apportioned tax does is as follows. When imposts, duties and excise taxes [indirect taxes] are found insufficient to fund Congress' appetite, each States Congressional Delegation must come home with a bill in hand to pay for their excessive eating, and this adds a very real moment of accountability when they are forced to justify their outrageous spending to their Governor and State Legislature, and why they can't live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.


Stop making crap up!

JWK

[johnwk]

That is exactly the original intent. Easier for a group of men (the states) to fight against tyranny of the federal gov. vs. an individual.

BINGO! And that is why our Congress critters fear with a passion any discussion of real tax reform which is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment and a return to our Constitution's original tax plan which would end the communist / socialist inspired income tax.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

You wrote "If you think the voters . . . "

You appear to be the only one who knows what voters think.

I'm not the only one:


And the people will not rise up against an "extortion racket"?

The only difference is that I'm not naïve enough to believe that the people will be willing to give up all the government programs necessary to pare the budget down to $150 billion.

[Sonny Tufts]

And they can also choose not to pay what is demanded. If enough of them do this...

That's what happened under the Articles of Confederation, leading to its failure.

[Superfluous Man]

You wrote "If you think the voters . . . "

You appear to be the only one who knows what voters think.


Give it a break!

Come on though. You can't possibly disagree with him. He said:

If you think the voters would stand for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, defense, and countless other programs, you're either delusional or a complete idiot.

That's a pretty unassailable truth right there.

[Sonny Tufts]

The fact is, our founders intended Congress to raise its revenue from indirect taxes, but provided for emergencies with an apportioned direct tax to extinguish deficits should they occur.

The Founders were dealing with a country of 3.6 million people and 892,000 square miles. Today the country has 325 million people and 3.8 million square miles. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Founders' intent would remain static no matter the change in circumstances.

More to the point, the Founders didn't hardwire this intent into the Constitution -- they didn't restrict Congress to using direct taxes only in cases of emergencies. In fact, the Constitution contains only three explicit limits on the federal taxing power: direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The Founders were dealing with a country of 3.6 million people and 892,000 square miles. Today the country has 325 million people and 3.8 million square miles. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Founders' intent would remain static no matter the change in circumstances.

More to the point, the Founders didn't hardwire this intent into the Constitution -- they didn't restrict Congress to using direct taxes only in cases of emergencies. In fact, the Constitution contains only three explicit limits on the federal taxing power: direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports.


Yes, another thinly veiled proponent of the living & breathing approach to the constitution. Our resident tax lawyer and extreme progressive has no interest in liberty or learning anything here, but rather to simply post contrary views for the sake of being contrary.

[Danke]

Yes, another thinly veiled proponent of the living & breathing approach to the constitution. Our resident tax lawyer and extreme progressive has no interest in liberty or learning anything here, but rather to simply post contrary views for the sake of being contrary.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NorthCarolinaLiberty again

[Sonny Tufts]

Yes, another thinly veiled proponent of the living & breathing approach to the constitution. Our resident tax lawyer and extreme progressive has no interest in liberty or learning anything here, but rather to simply post contrary views for the sake of being contrary.

Actually, it's the position that when the Constitution is unambiguous about something all one needs to do is read its plain language. It's quite clear that the Framers put only three restrictions on the federal taxing power and that they left it up to Congress to determine, subject to these restrictions, when, how, and what to tax.

And you're still clueless about my interest in liberty, among a host of other things.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Actually, it's the position...

Actually, it's your position.




...when the Constitution is unambiguous about something...


Progressives like to invoke a lot of ambiguity where this is none or very little.


And you're still clueless about my interest in liberty,...


I've asked you about it, but you never shared it. Anyway, I already know. Care to share it with others?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
The fact is, our founders intended Congress to raise its revenue from indirect taxes, but provided for emergencies with an apportioned direct tax to extinguish deficits should they occur.


The Founders were dealing with a country of 3.6 million people and 892,000 square miles. Today the country has 325 million people and 3.8 million square miles. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Founders' intent would remain static no matter the change in circumstances.

More to the point, the Founders didn't hardwire this intent into the Constitution -- they didn't restrict Congress to using direct taxes only in cases of emergencies. In fact, the Constitution contains only three explicit limits on the federal taxing power: direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports.

My goodness. Now you are pretending our Constitution is that of a rubber ruler, allowed to be stretched and distorted in order to make it mean whatever one wishes it to mean.

The fact remains, my post is factually correct, and, I have provided sufficient documentation to confirm the stated intentions of the founders, and those who ratified the Constitution. was that the apportioned direct tax was to be used to deal with deficits arising from imposts, duties and excise taxes, and, in case of emergencies. See POST NUMBER 102 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?516880-President-Trump-gives-up-on-tax-reform-and-embraces-income-tax-manipulation&p=6557977&viewfull=1#post6557977)

Now, let us review what the most fundamental rule of constitution construction is, which is summarize as follows:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

So, as it turns out, your assertion that legislative intent has no bearing on the use of the apportioned direct tax is nothing more than your personal and sophomoric OPINION!

In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our very own Supreme Court confirms the absolute supremacy of legislative intent and abiding by it:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


Now, if you believe we ought to alter the intended purpose and operation of the apportioned direct tax found in our Constitution, let me refer you to Article V, which our wise founding fathers put into the Constitution to accommodate for such alterations and/or changing times. But keep in mind my friend, that provision requires consent of the people as outlined in its text.


JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[Zippyjuan]

Let's go back and look at the actual words in the Constitution concerning taxes- ignoring for now the 16th Amendment.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Noting the coma after the word "taxes" meaning that taxes are not restricted to only duties, imposts, and excises. Taxes can be in ADDITION to those. It does not say all taxes must be uniform throughout the United States, only that Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform. One state cannot have a higher tariff than another. It gives Congress the power to determine what those taxes should be.

[Sonny Tufts]

My goodness. Now you are pretending our Constitution is that of a rubber ruler, allowed to be stretched and distorted in order to make it mean whatever one wishes it to mean.

To the contrary, I view the language of the Constitution just as it's written. You're the one who wants to stretch it by inserting a restriction in the document that isn't there.

What you don't realize is that I agree with you that direct taxes should not be used in lieu of indirect taxes. But the plain fact is that there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from imposing a direct tax in the first instance. If you think there should be such a prohibition, I refer you to Article V, which you have doubtless already considered given your proposal of an amendment that you think would impose such a prohibition (but as drafted, it won't).

Incidentally, I haven't checked all of the provisions of the ratification documents you cited, but it appears that several (and I strongly suspect that all of them) are taken from proposed amendments to the Constitution that the ratifying states wished to have the initial Congress consider. In other words, they have nothing to do with the proper interpretation of language of the Constitution, but are from wish lists that have no legal effect whatsoever, something the people proposing them obviously realized or else they wouldn't have proposed them as amendments.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts
The Founders were dealing with a country of 3.6 million people and 892,000 square miles. Today the country has 325 million people and 3.8 million square miles. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Founders' intent would remain static no matter the change in circumstances.

More to the point, the Founders didn't hardwire this intent into the Constitution -- they didn't restrict Congress to using direct taxes only in cases of emergencies. In fact, the Constitution contains only three explicit limits on the federal taxing power: direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports.


Yes, another thinly veiled proponent of the living & breathing approach to the constitution.

I think it's abundantly clear that Sonny, as is the case with our sewer rats in Washington, despises having a written constitution, with its documented legislative intent available, which gives context to its text. They prefer having a constitution which is susceptible to their interpretation, and their whims and fancies, so they may impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness and "social justice".




"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[Sonny Tufts]

I think it's abundantly clear that Sonny, as is the case with our sewer rats in Washington, despise having a written constitution, with its documented legislative intent available, which gives context to its text.

I've already demonstrated that your "documented legislative intent" is a lie. Or didn't you realize that what you cited in the ratification documents has nothing to do with how the original written Constitution was to be interpreted?

Stop making this stuff up!

[johnwk]

I've already demonstrated that your "documented legislative intent" is a lie. Or didn't you realize that what you cited in the ratification documents has nothing to do with how the original written Constitution was to be interpreted?

Stop making this stuff up!



The only one attempting to make stuff up is you. You have demonstrated your own opinion, which is unsubstantiated by the words of those who framed our Constitution, nor are they confirmed by those who ratified it.



Whether you like it or not, and with regard to direct taxation, the ratification documents are irrefutable evidence as to the intentions of those who approved the Constitution.


Now, go back to Constitutional construction 101 and the supremacy of legislative intent (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?516880-President-Trump-gives-up-on-tax-reform-and-embraces-income-tax-manipulation&p=6558166&viewfull=1#post6558166) and learn the rules of constitutional construction.


Incidentally, "No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

SO, WHAT WAS THE INTENTIONS OF THE RATIFING STATES WITH REGARD TO DIRECT TAXATION?

Here are a few examples regarding the intended use of direct taxation.


From the Massachusetts ratifying debates:

"Some gentlemen have said, that Congress may draw their revenue wholly by direct taxes; but they cannot be induced so to do; it is easier for them to have resort to the impost and excise; but as it will not do to overburden the impost, (because that would promote smuggling, and be dangerous to the revenue,) therefore Congress should have the power of applying, in extraordinary cases, to direct taxation." Elliot, 2, 42

"The first revenue will be raised from the impost, to which there is no objection, the next from the excise; and if these are not sufficient, direct taxes must be laid." Elliot 2, 57

"That Congress, however, will not apply to the power of direct taxation, unless in cases of emergency, is plain." Elliot 2, 60

"Mr. S., that we are attacked by a foreign enemy; that in this dilemma our treasury was exhausted, our credit gone, our enemy on our borders, and that there was no possible method of raising impost or excise; in this case, the only remedy would be a direct tax." Elliot 2, 61

From the Virginia ratification debates

"But the power of laying direct taxes is objected to.: if a sufficient revenue be not otherwise raised, recurrence must be had to direct taxation; gentleman admit this, but insist on the propriety of first applying to the state legislatures." Elliot, 3, 40

"Let us consider the most important of these reprobated powers; that of direct taxation is most generally objected to. With respect to the exigencies of government, there is no question but the most easy mode of providing for them will be adopted. When, therefore, direct taxes are not necessary, they will not be recurred to. It can be of little advantage to those in power to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people. To consult the conveniences of the people will cost them nothing, and in many respects will be advantageous to them. Direct taxes will only be recurred to for great purposes." Elliots, 3, 95


Once again you are proven to panhandle opinions which are not in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[Sonny Tufts]

Whether you like it or not, and with regard to direct taxation, the ratification documents are irrefutable evidence as to the intentions of those who approved the Constitution.


Now, go back to Constitutional construction 101 and the supremacy of legislative intent (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?516880-President-Trump-gives-up-on-tax-reform-and-embraces-income-tax-manipulation&p=6558166&viewfull=1#post6558166) and learn the rules of constitutional construction.


Incidentally, "No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

What you are still unwilling to face is the documented fact that none of the proposals regarding direct taxation contained in the ratification documents was ever enacted into law as part of the Constitution. "Legislative intent" applies only to something that gets enacted. "Constitutional construction" applies only to something that's actually in the Constitution. Neither of these applies to the proposals you cited.

Good grief, you might as well argue that Congress can't enact a capitation tax (even though the Constitution implicitly says it can) just because at least one of the ratification documents proposed such a prohibition as an amendment.

Actions speak louder than words. The fact that none of the direct tax proposals was enacted should tell you something, but you're like Tommy -- deaf, dumb, and blind.

[johnwk]

What you are still unwilling to face is the documented fact that none of the proposals regarding direct taxation contained in the ratification documents was ever enacted into law as part of the Constitution. "Legislative intent" applies only to something that gets enacted.

The power to lay and collect an apportioned direct tax is in our Constitution! But thank you for posting your unsubstantiated opinion. Now, let us take a look at some authoritative sources which confirm you are full of bull-crapski when it comes to the supremacy of “legislative intent”.

One of the rules of our Constitution [Amendment Seven] is to follow the rules of "common law", which means adhering to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, which includes direct taxes.

And one of the long standing rules under the common law with regard to the meaning of laws, which includes our Constitution, is to enforce its “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.


In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”


And where is our Constitution’s legislative intent to be found? It is found by researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, e.g., Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Hamilton’s Notes, The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliot’s Debates, etc., are some of the sources used to document the legislative intent of our Constitution.

Now, go back to POST NUMBER 118 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?516880-President-Trump-gives-up-on-tax-reform-and-embraces-income-tax-manipulation&p=6558272&viewfull=1#post6558272) which contains sufficient documentation, of those who ratified the Constitution, and establishes when the apportioned tax was intended to be used, and then get back to me.

JWK

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

[Superfluous Man]

My goodness. Now you are pretending our Constitution is that of a rubber ruler, allowed to be stretched and distorted in order to make it mean whatever one wishes it to mean.


Sounds about right.

[Sonny Tufts]

Originally Posted by johnwk
My goodness. Now you are pretending our Constitution is that of a rubber ruler, allowed to be stretched and distorted in order to make it mean whatever one wishes it to mean.

Sounds about right.

That's precisely what johnwk is doing. Never mind that the language of the Constitution doesn't restrict when Congress can enact a direct tax. Never mind that the people behind the ratification documents knew this and proposed amendments that would impose restrictions. Never mind that none of these proposed amendments was ever enacted. No, johnwk will just do an end run around the amendment process and stretch and distort the language of the Constitution to include restrictions that the ratifiers knew weren't there.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Superfluous Man


Originally Posted by johnwk
My goodness. Now you are pretending our Constitution is that of a rubber ruler, allowed to be stretched and distorted in order to make it mean whatever one wishes it to mean.

Sounds about right.


That's precisely what johnwk is doing. Never mind that the language of the Constitution doesn't restrict when Congress can enact a direct tax. Never mind that the people behind the ratification documents knew this and proposed amendments that would impose restrictions. Never mind that none of these proposed amendments was ever enacted. No, johnwk will just do an end run around the amendment process and stretch and distort the language of the Constitution to include restrictions that the ratifiers knew weren't there.

I have already responded to your above unsubstantiated nonsense as follows:



The power to lay and collect an apportioned direct tax is in our Constitution! But thank you for posting your unsubstantiated opinion. Now, let us take a look at some authoritative sources which confirm you are full of bull-crapski when it comes to the supremacy of “legislative intent”.

One of the rules of our Constitution [Amendment Seven] is to follow the rules of "common law", which means adhering to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, which includes direct taxes.

And one of the long standing rules under the common law with regard to the meaning of laws, which includes our Constitution, is to enforce its “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.


In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”


And where is our Constitution’s legislative intent to be found? It is found by researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, e.g., Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Hamilton’s Notes, The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliot’s Debates, etc., are some of the sources used to document the legislative intent of our Constitution.

Now, go back to POST NUMBER 118 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?516880-President-Trump-gives-up-on-tax-reform-and-embraces-income-tax-manipulation&p=6558272&viewfull=1#post6558272) which contains sufficient documentation, of those who ratified the Constitution, and establishes when the apportioned tax was intended to be used, and then get back to me.

JWK

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

[Sonny Tufts]

But thank you for posting your unsubstantiated opinion.

Do you really want substantiation that none of the proposed amendments was ever adopted? Read the Constitution and see if any are there.

There is one documented fact you have ignored in your end run around Article V: in listing the direct tax restriction as a proposed amendment to the Constitution, the people writing the ratification documents for certain of the States intended that the restriction be adopted in accordance with the normal amendment process. But it wasn't.

Have you ever wondered why, if the people ratifying the Constitution in the States that you cited really wanted the proposed direct tax amendments, their representatives in Congress never acted on them? I know the answer: only 6 of the 13 States ratifying the Constitution expressed a desire for a further direct tax amendment, and South Carolina merely expressed a desire that direct taxes be used under certain circumstances. But the other 6 States ratified the Constitution without expressing any limitation on direct taxes. So it seems you want to circumvent Article V in two ways: you want to avoid amending the Constitution to add language that not only isn't there but that was known to not be there; and you wish to have the desires of only 54% of the States be taken into account instead of the 75% required by the Constitution. Your disdain for the Constitution is something else.

The ratifying documents may be read here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp




One of the rules of our Constitution [Amendment Seven] is to follow the rules of "common law", which means adhering to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, which includes direct taxes.

You have a nasty habit of inserting things into the Constitution that aren't there. All the Constitution says about common law is that jury trial shall be preserved in civil suits where the value in controversy exceeds $20 and that no fact determined by a jury shall be re-examined except according to the common law rules. It does not say that all other common law rules are to be applied, or do you really think that the Constitution mandates that an accused cannot testify in his own behalf or that a married woman can't enter into contracts or manage her own property, both of which were the rules at common law?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
But thank you for posting your unsubstantiated opinion.




Do you really want substantiation that none of the proposed amendments was ever adopted? Read the Constitution and see if any are there.

There is one documented fact you have ignored in your end run around Article V: in listing the direct tax restriction as a proposed amendment to the Constitution, the people writing the ratification documents for certain of the States intended that the restriction be adopted in accordance with the normal amendment process. But it wasn't.

Have you ever wondered why, if the people ratifying the Constitution in the States that you cited really wanted the proposed direct tax amendments, their representatives in Congress never acted on them? I know the answer: only 6 of the 13 States ratifying the Constitution expressed a desire for a further direct tax amendment, and South Carolina merely expressed a desire that direct taxes be used under certain circumstances.


What you seem to "know" is bull-crapski. Nothing of significance!


Of the first 12 proposed amendments to our Constitution, and contrary to your absurd contention, there was no amendment to require direct taxes only be used in case of emergency. Why on earth would such an amendment be necessary when this very intention was repeatedly expressed during the Constitution’s framing, and likewise expressed during state ratification debates, and also demanded in a number of the state ratification documents? The legislative intent requiring direct taxes to be limited to emergencies is abundantly clear.

Stop trolling the thread with your nonsense.

JWK

[johnwk]

You have a nasty habit of inserting things into the Constitution that aren't there. All the Constitution says about common law is that jury trial shall be preserved in civil suits where the value in controversy exceeds $20 and that no fact determined by a jury shall be re-examined except according to the common law rules.


There you go again misrepresenting the meaning of our Constitution.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Additionally, as I previously pointed out, ”In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

I know your kind has a desire to allow judges and Justices make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean in order to impose their personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness. In other words, you like our Constitution to be a rubber ruler, susceptible to a stretching to accommodate the personal whims and fancies of our Washington Establishment and our Global Governance Crowd (https://www.cfr.org/programs/international-institutions-and-global-governance-program)

Give it a break. You are losing any credibility which you may have, and I suspect that is not very much.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[Sonny Tufts]

Why on earth would such an amendment be necessary when this very intention was repeatedly expressed during the Constitution’s framing, and likewise expressed during state ratification debates, and also demanded in a number of the state ratification documents? The legislative intent requiring direct taxes to be limited to emergencies is abundantly clear.

If it was so clear, why (a) wasn't it included in the original constitutional language, and (b) did 6 ratifying documents ask that the Constitution be amended to include the direct tax limitation?

[johnwk]

If it was so clear, why (a) wasn't it included in the original constitutional language, and (b) did 6 ratifying documents ask that the Constitution be amended to include the direct tax limitation?

Your repeated questions which appear above, have been repeatedly addressed, e.g., see post number 125.

Give it a freaken break.

The legislative intent requiring direct taxes to be limited to emergencies is abundantly clear when reviewing the historical evidence.


JWK