Cory Booker, presidential hopeful, rolls out establishment tax plan

[johnwk]

See Cory Booker unveils plan to cut taxes for half the country (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-unveils-plan-to-cut-taxes-for-half-the-country/ar-BBVXyQk?ocid=spartandhp)

“Booker''s plan calls for expanding the EITC's benefits to higher incomes — from a maximum income of $54,000 to $90,0000 for married couples — and raising the maximum benefits as well. Joint filers could receive a 25 percent higher maximum credit, topping out at about $8,000 per year. The plan includes a bigger bump in benefits for childless workers, whose EITC payout is currently capped at about about $500, but would rise up to about $4,000 under Booker's plan.”

The problem with Booker’s plan is, it makes no attempt to end the unconstitutional and oppressive Temporary victory tax of 1943 which began our federal government’s modern-day confiscation of working people’s earned wages.

Let us not forget it was the Socialist Democrats who passed the 1943 "Victory Tax". Roosevelt’s 1943 "Victory Tax" expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was specifically, and intentionally sold as a way to tax “unearned income” as distinguished from earned wages, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort.

But to this very day, Roosevelt’s Temporary Victory Tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, interfering with poor working people from accumulate wealth, and has forced millions upon millions of poor working wage earners into a state of poverty, and then dependency upon government for their subsistence ___ an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and financially dependent underclass voting block!

If Cory Booker and his fellow democrats were sincere about ending a tax system which benefits the supposedly rich and powerful, they would promote an end to the 1943 temporary Victory Tax ____ ending a tax on working people’s earned wages, tips, salaries, etc. In its place, the would advocate a small [maybe one or two percent} luxury tax upon specifically selected articles classified as "articles of luxury" to make up the difference ___ taxing all those articles which “the rich and powerful” enjoy and the poorest among us only dream of enjoying. Of course, this kind of tax, a voluntarily paid tax upon articles of luxury voluntarily purchased, is the very kind of tax our founders considered as fair. In Federalist No 21 with regard to this type of tax we find:

”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. “

It should also be noted that the use of this type of tax allows the market place to determine the limit of tax placed upon each article.

”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.” ___ Fed. No. 21

Hamilton’s reasoning was proven correct when Congress decided to place an outrageous 10 percent "luxury" tax on a number of articles under the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990”. The outrageous 10 percent luxury tax, particularly on boats, was found so onerous that sales dropped dramatically and the tax was repealed the following year! Of course, Congress, with its insatiable desire to spend money, does not like a tax system which is self-regulating ___ meaning regulated by our market place. Nor do Democrat Leaders like a tax system which allows working people to keep the bread they have earned, accumulate wealth, and participate in a free market, free enterprise system.

So, when you hear the tax reform proposals offered by Democrat president hopefuls, keep in mind the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:

“…..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

JWK

Socialist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do get political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.

[johnwk]

I see no one has commented on ending the Victory Tax of 1943 which began a tax on working people’s earned wages, and replacing it with a luxury tax on specifically selected articles of consumption considered to be luxury.


Wouldn’t such a tax bring a measure of fairness to federal taxation in that the poorest among us could avoid the tax while the wealthy would only be subject to the tax when voluntarily purchasing articles of luxury?


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

[oyarde]

Title should read , booker intends to expand welfare .

[Sonny Tufts]

The problem with Booker’s plan is, it makes no attempt to end the unconstitutional and oppressive Temporary victory tax of 1943 which began our federal government’s modern-day confiscation of working people’s earned wages.

A tax on wages is not and never has been unconstitutional. Indeed, wages have been included in the tax base of every federal income tax since 1862. While it's true that as a result of generous (in today's dollars) exemptions most wage earners didn't have to pay the tax until World War II, there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that specifies what the exemption amount must be or that there be any exemption at all. Given that the Constitution specifies only one thing that Congress can't tax (exports), it's pretty obvious that the Founders intended to leave to Congress the decision on what to tax. And the Supreme Court agrees: "It is true that the power of congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion." The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866).



If Cory Booker and his fellow democrats were sincere about ending a tax system which benefits the supposedly rich and powerful, they would promote an end to the 1943 temporary Victory Tax ____ ending a tax on working people’s earned wages, tips, salaries, etc. In its place, the would advocate a small [maybe one or two percent} luxury tax upon specifically selected articles classified as "articles of luxury" to make up the difference

Not in a million years. Total wage income reported to the IRS in 2016 was around $7.76 trillion. At an estimated conservative average effective tax rate of 10%, the total income tax revenue from wages would be $776 billion, which would never be made up by luxury taxes.


keep in mind the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson also said, "I approved from the first moment, of the great mass of what is in the new constitution, the consolidation of the government, the organisation into Executive, legislative and judiciary, the subdivision of the legislative, the happy compromise of interests between the great and little states by the different manner of voting in the different houses, the voting by persons instead of states, the qualified negative on laws given to the Executive which however I should have liked better if associated with the judiciary also as in New York, and the power of taxation. I thought at first that the latter might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." Letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789.

The current tax system may be bad policy, but it's not unconstitutional. And speaking of bad policy, Booker's proposal to extend the EITC is very bad policy, based on pie-in-the-sky notions.

[Superfluous Man]

But to this very day, Roosevelt’s Temporary Victory Tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow...

All taxes do this though.

It's good to oppose a tax for this reason. But to be consistent, you then have to oppose all taxes.

[johnwk]

A tax on wages is not and never has been unconstitutional. .


Only if such a tax is not direct, in which case the rule of apportionment must be applied.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

Only if such a tax is not direct, in which case the rule of apportionment must be applied.
JWK

A tax on wages is not and never has been a direct tax. As the Supreme Court has stated, the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property; a tax on wages is neither of these.

Moreover, even if a tax on wages were a direct tax, the 16th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that it needn't be apportioned, unless of course you're going to argue the brain-dead, consistently-rejected argument that wages aren't income.

[Swordsmyth]

The federal government should be funded with tariffs and a tax on state budgets.

[dude58677]

A tax on wages is not and never has been a direct tax. As the Supreme Court has stated, the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property; a tax on wages is neither of these.

Moreover, even if a tax on wages were a direct tax, the 16th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that it needn't be apportioned, unless of course you're going to argue the brain-dead, consistently-rejected argument that wages aren't income.

Taxes are extortion used to bomb countries and to force crummy services down people’s throats and whoever supports this is a scumbag!

[johnwk]

A tax on wages is not and never has been a direct tax. As the Supreme Court has stated, the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property; a tax on wages is neither of these.


Moreover, even if a tax on wages were a direct tax, the 16th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that it needn't be apportioned, unless of course you're going to argue the brain-dead, consistently-rejected argument that wages aren't income.

Thank you for your opinion asserting a federal tax upon earned wages is not a direct tax, which is suspiciously void of historical evidence to substantiate the claim.

In regard to your assertion that a tax upon wages “… is not, and never has been a direct tax …”, a review of Adam Smith’s, Wealth of Nations, a contemporary writing of the time which was familiar to many of our founders, indicates your assertion is without foundation. In this writing we find the following reference regarding a capitation tax:

“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.

Keep in mind, to be faithful to our Constitution which commands “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”, and, to be in compliance with the rules which govern constitutional construction, it is essential to determine the meaning of a direct tax as it was understood by our Founders.

When Justice Roberts wrote in the Obamacare case that “The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States”, he confirmed what previous Supreme Court cases have concluded ___ direct taxes, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment, are 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 which was not the case. 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 in its written opinion, “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


Thus, regardless of the name put upon a federal tax, if it takes the form of a direct tax, it is, to this very day, forbidden unless apportioned.


The above quote from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, gives a clear indication that a tax upon earned wages was considered to be a direct tax during our nation’s founding. But what are the characteristics relied upon by our founders which are used to distinguish a direct tax from one which was indirect? To answer this question with any certainty we need to review our founder’s very own words.


As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that: “In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts [an indirect type of tax], which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467 Wilson


So, a characteristic of an indirect tax is one which is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases.



As to direct taxation, Oliver Elsworth, also a delegate to the Convention from Connecticut provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.


January 7, 1788. [On the Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]


”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man's business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”


Elsworth goes on to note:

“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”

”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 92


So, contrary to your suspicious assertion, when one reviews historical documents during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, there is a consistency among our forefathers comments showing that direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive and not avoidable, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.

The bottom line is, a tax upon the property which a working person earns by the sweat of their labor was, most assuredly, considered to be a direct tax by our founders, and requires an apportionment if laid by the federal government.


JWK


"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

[Zippyjuan]

My short interpretation of the OP. "No tax cuts!" - expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would be bad.

But increase taxes on the rich.


In its place, the would advocate a small [maybe one or two percent} luxury tax upon specifically selected articles classified as "articles of luxury" to make up the difference __ taxing all those articles which “the rich and powerful” enjoy and the poorest among us only dream of enjoying. Of course, this kind of tax, a voluntarily paid tax upon articles of luxury voluntarily purchased, is the very kind of tax our founders considered as fair. In Federalist No 21 with regard to this type of tax we find:

Mathematically, if you want to get rid of the income tax and balance your budget, you need not a "one to two percent" tax on luxury goods but a 75% tax on all goods including luxury goods and necessities like food. (assuming you don't reduce spending from where it is).

Total retail sales in the US were $6 trillion last year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/443495/total-us-retail-sales/

2019 budget is $4.5 trillion.

Luxury good sales were $69 billion. A two percent tax would result in $1.4 billion. Not enough for anything.

[Sonny Tufts]

In regard to your assertion that a tax upon wages “… is not, and never has been a direct tax …”, a review of Adam Smith’s, Wealth of Nations, a contemporary writing of the time which was familiar to many of our founders, indicates your assertion is without foundation. In this writing we find the following reference regarding a capitation tax:

“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.

I've previously explained to you what Smith meant, but it appears you weren't able to comprehend it. Let's try again:


Smith's definition of a capitation was one that is payable from whatever revenue the payor might have -- "The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities. These must be paid indifferently from whatever revenue the contributors may possess; from the rent of their land, from the profits of their stock, or from the wages of their labour." (Part II, Article IV) In other words, a capitation, unlike an income tax, isn't aimed at any particular fund. When he says that capitations levied on the lower ranks are effectively a tax on their wages, all he means is that wages are the only fund out of which the lower ranks can pay.

But this doesn't mean that a tax on wages is a capitation under the Constitution. If it were, it would only be a capitation as to the lower ranks, while a tax on the higher ups would not be a capitation because they wouldn't necessarily have to pay it out of wages.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?443685-Senator-Cruz-keep-income-tax-lower-top-rates&p=5418282&highlight=Smith#post5418282


The above quote from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, gives a clear indication that a tax upon earned wages was considered to be a direct tax during our nation’s founding.

You are making the unsupported assumptions that the Founders (a) misunderstood Smith's definition of a capitation just as you have, and (b) intended to incorporate Smith's definition of a capitation into the Constitution. In fact, reliance on Smith as the touchstone for the definitions of "capitation" and "direct tax" as used in the Constitution was explicitly rejected in Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881), upholding a tax on Mr. Springer's personal earnings and bond interest against the claim that the tax was an unapportioned direct tax.

More to your historical point, in the Hylton case, decided just 8 years after the ratification of the Constitution, 3 of the 4 justices (each of whom had been directly involved in the constitutional conventions) opined that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were capitations and taxes on land. Alexander Hamilton argued the case for the government, and in his brief (later relied upon in Springer)) he confined direct taxes to "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes." Springer, 102 U.S. at 598. An income tax, whether on wages or something else, doesn't fall within Hamilton's definition.

Incidentally, your citation of the Butcher's Union dictum is especially ironic. First of all, the quotation is from the concurring opinion of a single justice and not from the majority opinion. The correct citation should have been "Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (1884) (Justice Field, concurring)." Second, the case involved antitrust issues and had nothing to do with taxation. Third, Justice Field was part of the unanimous decision in Springer upholding the validity of the Civil War income tax, so he obviously wasn't thinking about income taxes in Butchers' Union. Fourth, Field was quoting Adam Smith's criticism of laws forbidding people from engaging in professions without having previously served an apprenticeship; he wasn't discussing taxation.

Suffice it to say that the view that a federal tax on wages is a direct tax has never been adopted by any court in the history of the country, and your suggestion that "there is a consistency among our forefathers comments showing that direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government" is utterly false.

[Superfluous Man]

I've previously explained to you what Smith meant, but it appears you weren't able to comprehend it. Let's try again:





You are making the unsupported assumptions that the Founders (a) misunderstood Smith's definition of a capitation just as you have, and (b) intended to incorporate Smith's definition of a capitation into the Constitution. In fact, reliance on Smith as the touchstone for the definitions of "capitation" and "direct tax" as used in the Constitution was explicitly rejected in Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881), upholding a tax on Mr. Springer's personal earnings and bond interest against the claim that the tax was an unapportioned direct tax.

More to your historical point, in the Hylton case, decided just 8 years after the ratification of the Constitution, 3 of the 4 justices (each of whom had been directly involved in the constitutional conventions) opined that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were capitations and taxes on land. Alexander Hamilton argued the case for the government, and in his brief (later relied upon in Springer)) he confined direct taxes to "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes." Springer, 102 U.S. at 598. An income tax, whether on wages or something else, doesn't fall within Hamilton's definition.

Incidentally, your citation of the Butcher's Union dictum is especially ironic. First of all, the quotation is from the concurring opinion of a single justice and not from the majority opinion. The correct citation should have been "Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (1884) (Justice Field, concurring)." Second, the case involved antitrust issues and had nothing to do with taxation. Third, Justice Field was part of the unanimous decision in Springer upholding the validity of the Civil War income tax, so he obviously wasn't thinking about income taxes in Butchers' Union. Fourth, Field was quoting Adam Smith's criticism of laws forbidding people from engaging in professions without having previously served an apprenticeship; he wasn't discussing taxation.

Suffice it to say that the view that a federal tax on wages is a direct tax has never been adopted by any court in the history of the country, and your suggestion that "there is a consistency among our forefathers comments showing that direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government" is utterly false.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sonny Tufts again."

[Pauls' Revere]

Flat excise and/or sales taxes only. Corporations and individuals pay the same percentage.

[johnwk]

I've previously explained to you what Smith meant, .

Yup. You do make up a lot crap, and ignore the actual words spoken by our founders during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution, especially those I have quoted and documented with respect to direct vs indirect taxes.


If you ever get around to refuting what I have posted regarding the meaning of direct vs indirect taxation, as understood by our founders, and do so by relying upon the debates during which time our constitution was framed and ratified as I have done, then, and only then would such a refutation be worthy of consideration.


:rolleyes:

JWK



Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[Swordsmyth]

Flat excise and/or sales taxes only. Corporations and individuals pay the same percentage.
And only the states should administer such taxes, the feds should have to rely on tariffs and/or a tax on state budgets.

[Sonny Tufts]

[SIZE=3]Yup. You do make up a lot crap, and ignore the actual words spoken by our founders during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution, especially those I have quoted and documented with respect to direct vs indirect taxes.

Your quote from Wilson doesn't deal with the definition of a direct tax. In any event, the views of two members of conventions are hardly evidence of the views of all of the other members of the state and constitutional conventions. Perhaps a more telling quote comes from Madison's notes:


"Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answd.” 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 350 (Aug. 20, 1787)(Max Farrand ed., Yale University Press, 1966)

I'll see your Wilson and Ellsworth and raise you John Marshall and Hamilton. The former, speaking in the Virginia ratification debates, said that direct taxes included "land, slaves, stock," and "a few other articles of domestic property." 3 The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Several State Conventions, Virginia Ratification Convention 229 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 1866) (June 10, 1788). In Federalist 36, Hamilton mentions only capitations and taxes on land in his discussion of direct taxes.

But all this is merely cherry picking by both of us. The historical record isn't as clear-cut as you claim. As one scholar put it,


The exact distinction between direct and indirect taxation . . . was beyond peradventure of doubt not understood by the framers of the Constitution and those who adopted it. All that can be said is that, in a general way, import and export duties were considered indirect taxes, and that land and poll taxes were considered direct taxes; but farther than that it is impossible to go. Edwin R. A. Seligman, The Income Tax 56-570 (1911)

But your discussion on this thread has gone far afield from your fatuous claim in post #1 that the 1943 Victory Tax was unconstitutional. Regardless of the issue of what "direct tax" originally meant, the 16th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that a tax on wages is constitutional. That is, unless you're assuming that wages aren't income. You're not making that inane claim, are you? Or did you just switch gears and veer into the historical record because you can't defend your assertion about the constitutionality of the 1943 tax?

[johnwk]

Your quote from Wilson doesn't deal with the definition of a direct tax

And just what is it that I wrote regarding Wilson?


As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that: “In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts [an indirect type of tax], which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467 Wilson


So, a characteristic of an indirect tax is one which is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases.



As to direct taxation, Oliver Elsworth, also a delegate to the Convention from Connecticut provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.


January 7, 1788. [On the Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]


”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man's business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”


Elsworth goes on to note:

“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”

”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 92


So, contrary to your suspicious assertion, when one reviews historical documents during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, there is a consistency among our forefathers comments showing that direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive and not avoidable, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.

The bottom line is, a tax upon the property which a working person earns by the sweat of their labor was, most assuredly, considered to be a direct tax by our founders, and requires an apportionment if laid by the federal government.


JWK

[johnwk]

And only the states should administer such taxes, the feds should have to rely on tariffs and/or a tax on state budgets.



I agree with Congress' primary revenue ought to come from taxes at our water's edge. But, what do you mean by a tax on state budgets?



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)

[enhanced_deficit]

Pretty bold ideas and leadership.

Could Booker be the new future MAGA... and Trump endorse him for 2024 on Jared or Ivanka's recommendation?
Booker's bold foreign policy on mideast, Israel seems also very similar to Trump's.

Book: Trump inlaws Kushners funding behind Cory Booker, Kushner dad secretly met Booker (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533660-Book-Trump-inlaws-Kushners-funding-behind-Cory-Booker-Kushner-dad-secretly-met-Booker&)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/23/article-2429926-18340D7100000578-401_634x403.jpg


(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533660-Book-Trump-inlaws-Kushners-funding-behind-Cory-Booker-Kushner-dad-secretly-met-Booker&)


Trump to host fundraiser for Booker (https://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/ivanka-trump-fundraiser-cory-booker-094288)

[Zippyjuan]

Flat excise and/or sales taxes only. Corporations and individuals pay the same percentage.

75% tax on all retail sales including food or a 200% tax on everything imported. Tough choice.

[Pauls' Revere]

75% tax on all retail sales including food or a 200% tax on everything imported. Tough choice.

Ok, and we all pay the same rate. Everyone, regardless. Abolish ALL other forms of taxation. One single federal rate for ALL. Again, abolish ALL other forms of taxes, one rate to rule them all! LOL

[Pauls' Revere]

75% tax on all retail sales including food or a 200% tax on everything imported. Tough choice.

Ok, and we all pay the same rate. Everyone, regardless. Abolish ALL other forms of taxation. One single federal rate for ALL. Again, abolish ALL other forms of taxes, one rate to rule them all! LOL

Using Income Tax as an example:
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

Per this source and table the highest rate in 2019 is 40%. Some, I imagine paid zero taxes, like some corporations maybe even some people. Nonetheless, abolish the current tax code and simply set a 20% flat rate. In this example then everyone pays a 20% rate regardless. 20% of your income is 20% wheater it be 100,00 per year or 25,000 per year. Both persons would be contributing the same rate of 20%. No more credits, no more deductions, etc... all of it is gone. Again, I would abolish the income tax but I use this as an example for a flat tax.

[Pauls' Revere]

75% tax on all retail sales including food or a 200% tax on everything imported. Tough choice.

I would set tariffs as a separate issue. Flat tax within our borders (domestic).

[johnwk]

I would set tariffs as a separate issue. Flat tax within our borders (domestic).

Flat tax on what?

JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of democratic capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree with Congress' primary revenue ought to come from taxes at our water's edge. But, what do you mean by a tax on state budgets?



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)
Like an income tax or an expenditure tax applied to the states, it would reward low tax and spending states and discourage high taxes and spending.

I'm not sure whether it would require a Constitutional amendment or not but that should be the only domestic taxation allowed for the federal government.

[Pauls' Revere]

Flat tax on what?

JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of democratic capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

An excise tax for business and a sales tax for individuals only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise

An excise or excise tax is any duty on manufactured goods which is levied at the moment of manufacture, rather than at sale.

All other taxes are abolished. Business and individual pay the same rate on each.

[Swordsmyth]

An excise tax for business and a sales tax for individuals only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise

An excise or excise tax is any duty on manufactured goods which is levied at the moment of manufacture, rather than at sale.

All other taxes are abolished. Business and individual pay the same rate on each.
The excise tax should be collected when the original creator makes the first sale not when the product is created or you discourage production and most importantly limit competition by keeping those with little or no money from starting up.

[Pauls' Revere]

The excise tax should be collected when the original creator makes the first sale not when the product is created or you discourage production and most importantly limit competition by keeping those with little or no money from starting up.

Sounds good, Excise tax & Sales tax collected at point of sale. If the highest federal rate is currently 40% we start at 20%. ALL other federal taxes become ABOLISHED.

[Swordsmyth]

Sounds good, Excise tax & Sales tax collected at point of sale. If the highest federal rate is currently 40% we start at 20%. ALL other federal taxes become ABOLISHED.

I would still prefer the states to run the excise/sales tax system and then the states be taxed by the feds but what you suggest combined with tariffs would be much better than the current system.

[Pauls' Revere]

I would still prefer the states to run the excise/sales tax system and then the states be taxed by the feds but what you suggest combined with tariffs would be much better than the current system.

I'd leave the states alone, let them figure out their own systems. Open up a competitive tax rate war between states, low(er) tax states v/s high(er) taxed states.

[Swordsmyth]

I'd leave the states alone, let them figure out their own systems. Open up a competitive tax rate war between states, low(er) tax states v/s high(er) taxed states.
That's what would happen with my system, the feds would put an X% tax on state budgets and the states would choose what to tax, how to tax it and how heavily to tax it.
States with lower taxes and spending would not only attract more businesses but would also pay a smaller share of the federal tax burden.

[Pauls' Revere]

That's what would happen with my system, the feds would put an X% tax on state budgets and the states would choose what to tax, how to tax it and how heavily to tax it.
States with lower taxes and spending would not only attract more businesses but would also pay a smaller share of the federal tax burden.

How do we get this passed? or at least taken seriously? who would sponsor this?

[Zippyjuan]

Ok, and we all pay the same rate. Everyone, regardless. Abolish ALL other forms of taxation. One single federal rate for ALL. Again, abolish ALL other forms of taxes, one rate to rule them all! LOL

Using Income Tax as an example:
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

Per this source and table the highest rate in 2019 is 40%. Some, I imagine paid zero taxes, like some corporations maybe even some people. Nonetheless, abolish the current tax code and simply set a 20% flat rate. In this example then everyone pays a 20% rate regardless. 20% of your income is 20% wheater it be 100,00 per year or 25,000 per year. Both persons would be contributing the same rate of 20%. No more credits, no more deductions, etc... all of it is gone. Again, I would abolish the income tax but I use this as an example for a flat tax.

37% is the highest "marginal" tax rate- the rate applied to the last dollar earned. In this case, any dollar earned over $500,000 a year ($6000,000 a year for couples filing jointly). But even for this person, not all of their income is taxed at the top rate- just dollars earned above $500,000. Other income is taxed depending on the rate for the income bracket that portion of the income falls into.

The first $13,600 dollars are taxed at 10% (as head of household). Dollars they earn between $13,601 and and $51,800 will be taxed at $12% and so on as they make their way through the brackets. Then deductions and exemptions can reduce their taxable income. $250,000 a year puts you in the top one percent of incomes- at that level, $50,000 of your income would be taxed at 35% (the next highest bracket). $300,000 a year gets you into the top five percent. Median income (half earn more, half earn less) is $53,000 a year.

https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018-tables-300x268.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

How do we get this passed? or at least taken seriously? who would sponsor this?
I would like to see Rand propose it but I don't think there will be an opening to reform the tax system as long as the Demoncrats control the House.

It would help if someone could sell Trump on the idea in time for the 2020 campaign.

[Zippyjuan]

I'd leave the states alone, let them figure out their own systems. Open up a competitive tax rate war between states, low(er) tax states v/s high(er) taxed states.

The idea is to basically have the states collect taxes for the Federal Government and a tax on taxes. But it would not work. For one, not enough revenues. States took in about $900 billion in 2017. https://www.taxadmin.org/2017-state-tax-revenue

You would need a 450% tax on state revenues at current spending levels. States would not want to almost quintuple their tax rates to help out the Federal government. Citizens would revolt. Nobody would support it.

[Pauls' Revere]

37% is the highest "marginal" tax rate- the rate applied to the last dollar earned. In this case, any dollar earned over $500,000 a year ($6000,000 a year for couples filing jointly). But even for this person, not all of their income is taxed at the top rate- just dollars earned above $500,000. Other income is taxed depending on the rate for the income bracket that portion of the income falls into.

The first $13,600 dollars are taxed at 10% (as head of household). Dollars they earn between $13,601 and and $51,800 will be taxed at $12% and so on as they make their way through the brackets. Then deductions and exemptions can reduce their taxable income. $250,000 a year puts you in the top one percent of incomes- at that level, $50,000 of your income would be taxed at 35% (the next highest bracket). $300,000 a year gets you into the top five percent. Median income (half earn more, half earn less) is $53,000 a year.

https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018-tables-300x268.jpg

That's a great system to kill incentive. Why should I bother making more money or working harder (overtime) just to be taxed more?

Besides that's income, I would ABOLISH the income tax, Excise tax on business at point of sale and Sales tax for individuals. Both taxes (excise and sales) are taxed exactly the same rate. This then goes to the floor for debate every three years in front of C-SPAN for everyone to watch. Then we all know exactly how much were getting screwed. I would be willing to bet voter turnout would quadruple when people realize (get woke) to the fact of how much they pay and who the representatives are that vote to raise or lower that rate every three years.

If you wish to raise taxes on corporations fine then you as the individual are going to pay the same rate in the form of a sales tax. Visa versa, If you want to lower your sales tax rate then corporations get to lower the rate to the same rate individuals pay.

I have no problem hearing stories about corporations paying zero taxes. I only want the same break they get, and able to pay zero as well.

Besides, these lame brackets change every few years as the parties move these goal post to fit their base/donors. These brackets is just the governments way of picking who wins and who loses.

[Swordsmyth]

The idea is to basically have the states collect taxes for the Federal Government. But it would not work. For one, not enough revenues. States took in about $900 billion in 2017. https://www.taxadmin.org/2017-state-tax-revenue

You would need a 450% tax on state revenues at current spending levels. States would not want to almost quintuple their tax rates to help out the Federal government. Citizens would revolt.
Citizens would not revolt if all their federal taxes disappeared.

[Zippyjuan]

Citizens would not revolt if all their federal taxes disappeared.

If their state taxes went up five fold, yes, they would. Especially since about half do not pay net income taxes to the Federal government.

[Swordsmyth]

If their state taxes went up five fold, yes, they would. Especially since about half do not pay net income taxes to the Federal government.
Why?

The states could divide up the taxes the same way the feds did and people's total taxes wouldn't change at all.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea for people to have a tax revolt either.

[Pauls' Revere]

The idea is to basically have the states collect taxes for the Federal Government and a tax on taxes. But it would not work. For one, not enough revenues. States took in about $900 billion in 2017. https://www.taxadmin.org/2017-state-tax-revenue

You would need a 450% tax on state revenues at current spending levels. States would not want to almost quintuple their tax rates to help out the Federal government. Citizens would revolt. Nobody would support it.

Yes, taxes are revolting, seems we did pretty good the last time this country revolted against taxation. And wouldn't you think that states would CUT SPENDING so they wouldn't need to tax the hell out their citizens?

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, taxes are revolting, seems we did pretty good the last time this country revolted against taxation. And wouldn't you think that states would CUT SPENDING so they wouldn't need to tax the hell out their citizens?
The states would also be in a better position to go on a tax strike than individuals are.

We might be able to starve the beast and force federal budget cuts too.

[Zippyjuan]

That's a great system to kill incentive. Why should I bother making more money or working harder (overtime) just to be taxed more?

Besides that's income, I would ABOLISH the income tax, Excise tax on business at point of sale and Sales tax for individuals. Both taxes (excise and sales) are taxed exactly the same rate. This then goes to the floor for debate every three years in front of C-SPAN for everyone to watch. Then we all know exactly how much were getting screwed. I would be willing to bet voter turnout would quadruple when people realize (get woke) to the fact of how much they pay and who the representatives are that vote to raise or lower that rate every three years.

If you wish to raise taxes on corporations fine then you as the individual are going to pay the same rate in the form of a sales tax. Visa versa, If you want to lower your sales tax rate then corporations get to lower the rate to the same rate individuals pay.

I have no problem hearing stories about corporations paying zero taxes. I only want the same break they get, and able to pay zero as well.

Besides, these lame brackets change every few years as the parties move these goal post to fit their base/donors. These brackets is just the governments way of picking who wins and who loses.

So you would turn down a raise because it would put you in a higher tax bracket? (again noting that only dollars over a certain amount face the top rate you pay)?

Let's ignore deductions and make an example to see what would happen. Say you were head of household and made $45,000 a year. Then your boss gives you a raise to $55,000. Only money over $51,800 would be subject to the new tax bracket. $55,000 minus $51,800 leaves $3,300 taxed at the higher rate- the rest you pay the same rate as you did the year before. The new rate is 22% and the old one was 12% so that means for that $3,300 dollars you are paying ten percent more. Ten percent of $3,300 is $330. So at the Federal level, that $10,000 in income will cost you $330 more in taxes due to the higher bracket. (Social Security taxes and state taxes may be higher). Would you turn down that $10,000 to save $330?



Besides that's income, I would ABOLISH the income tax, Excise tax on business at point of sale and Sales tax for individuals. Both taxes (excise and sales) are taxed exactly the same rate.

I ran the numbers earlier and if you want to get rid of the income tax and have a balanced budget at current spending levels you need a 75% tax on all sales- including food. If you exclude food or other necessities, you will need a higher tax rate. A $10 case of beer would then run you $17.50.

[Pauls' Revere]

I would like to see Rand propose it but I don't think there will be an opening to reform the tax system as long as the Demoncrats control the House.

It would help if someone could sell Trump on the idea in time for the 2020 campaign.

I emailed Rand & El Jefe.

realDonaldTrump Sir, for 2020 campaign proposal. ABOLISH the federal tax code. Implement a FLAT TAX RATE for Excise tax (collected at point of sale) on business & Sales Tax for individuals. Both rates are the same and voted in the house every three years.

[Swordsmyth]

I emailed Rand & El Jefe.

@real (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=68777)DonaldTrump Sir, for 2020 campaign proposal. ABOLISH the federal tax code. Implement a FLAT TAX RATE for Excise tax (collected at point of sale) on business & Sales Tax for individuals. Both rates are the same and voted in the house every three years.
What about the leave all domestic taxation to the states and tax their budgets idea?

[Pauls' Revere]

So you would turn down a raise because it would put you in a higher tax bracket? (again noting that only dollars over a certain amount face the top rate you pay)?

Let's ignore deductions and make an example to see what would happen. Say you were head of household and made $45,000 a year. Then your boss gives you a raise to $55,000. Only money over $51,800 would be subject to the new tax bracket. $55,000 minus $51,800 leaves $3,300 taxed at the higher rate- the rest you pay the same rate as you did the year before. The new rate is 22% and the old one was 12% so that means for that $3,300 dollars you are paying ten percent more. Ten percent of $3,300 is $330. So at the Federal level, that $10,000 in income will cost you $330 more in taxes due to the higher bracket. (Social Security taxes and state taxes may be higher). Would you turn down that $10,000 to save $330?




I ran the numbers earlier and if you want to get rid of the income tax and have a balanced budget at current spending levels you need a 75% tax on all sales- including food. If you exclude food or other necessities, you will need a higher tax rate. A $10 case of beer would then run you $17.50.

Irrelevant, the income tax would be ABOLISHED.
Payroll Tax ABOLISHED.
etc...

[Zippyjuan]

Irrelevant, the income tax would be ABOLISHED.
Payroll Tax ABOLISHED.
etc...

Say hello to a national 75% sales tax.

[Pauls' Revere]

So you would turn down a raise because it would put you in a higher tax bracket? (again noting that only dollars over a certain amount face the top rate you pay)?

Let's ignore deductions and make an example to see what would happen. Say you were head of household and made $45,000 a year. Then your boss gives you a raise to $55,000. Only money over $51,800 would be subject to the new tax bracket. $55,000 minus $51,800 leaves $3,300 taxed at the higher rate- the rest you pay the same rate as you did the year before. The new rate is 22% and the old one was 12% so that means for that $3,300 dollars you are paying ten percent more. Ten percent of $3,300 is $330. So at the Federal level, that $10,000 in income will cost you $330 more in taxes due to the higher bracket. (Social Security taxes and state taxes may be higher). Would you turn down that $10,000 to save $330?




I ran the numbers earlier and if you want to get rid of the income tax and have a balanced budget at current spending levels you need a 75% tax on all sales- including food. If you exclude food or other necessities, you will need a higher tax rate. A $10 case of beer would then run you $17.50.

The only federal tax "you" would pay is a Sales Tax. Let's do this one better. Since business will pass on this hypothetical Excise Tax to the customer then we could say that the Individual Sales Tax must be 1/2 what the Excise tax is. I kind like this idea even better.

[Pauls' Revere]

Say hello to a national 75% sales tax.

BINGO!


That's my point! Now you see immediately how screwed you got!

Nice and easy, very transparent even the sheep can understand it!

[Zippyjuan]

BINGO!


That's my point! Now you see immediately how screwed you got!

Nice and easy, very transparent even the sheep can understand it!

So you think a 75% sales tax would be a good idea and much better than the current system. All but the highest incomes would be paying more. Lower incomes a massively higher amount.


Irrelevant, the income tax would be ABOLISHED.
Payroll Tax ABOLISHED.
etc...

And of course the rate would have to be even higher than that. Such a high tax (nearly doubling the price you pay for everything) would force people to buy less (because they can't afford what they used to) so your revenue falls significantly as well so the rate needs to be probably well over 100%.

[Pauls' Revere]

So you think a 75% sales tax would be a good idea and much better than the current system. All but the highest incomes would be paying more. Lower incomes a massively higher amount.


And of course the rate would have to be even higher than that. Such a high tax (nearly doubling the price you pay for everything) would force people to buy less (because they can't afford what they used to) so your revenue falls significantly as well so the rate needs to be probably well over 100%.



No, I want a zero tax rate. But I'm realistic and know that's hardly possible. How about 5% Excise rate and 2.5% sales rate.
people would vote for lower taxes. Because they'd see how much they are really paying.

[Zippyjuan]

No, I want a zero tax rate. But I'm realistic and know that's hardly possible. How about 5% Excise rate and 2.5% sales rate.
people would vote for lower taxes. Because they'd see how much they are really paying.

Total retail sales $5.3 trillion. (I looked at a wrong number earlier- $6 trillion was a forecast for 2022- that means not a 75% sales tax but an 85% tax). https://www.statista.com/statistics/443495/total-us-retail-sales/

2.5% sales tax rate will raise $132 billion. Interest on the debt alone is three times that. The deficit for this year alone will be about $1 trillion. A 19% national sales tax in addition to current taxes could close that deficit. The government may be willing to consider that IN ADDITION to current taxes.

[Pauls' Revere]

Total retail sales $5.3 trillion. (I looked at a wrong number earlier- $6 trillion was a forecast for 2022- that means not a 75% sales tax but an 85% tax). https://www.statista.com/statistics/443495/total-us-retail-sales/

2.5% sales tax rate will raise $132 billion. Interest on the debt alone is three times that. The deficit for this year alone will be about $1 trillion. A 19% national sales tax in addition to current taxes could close that deficit. The government may be willing to consider that IN ADDITION to current taxes.

Unless what?...your working only one side of this equation. (Government Expenditures) = (Excise Tax Rate & Sales Rate Incomes)

Unless the government CUTS SPENDING! yep, that means a more realistic balanced budget, military spending cuts, etc...across the board haircut for every government agency. We will quickly determine which ones are worth keeping and which would be abolished or reduced in size. Heck those crazy lefty states can pick up the federal slack and start their own programs to substitute the loss of the federal ones. If say the XYZ program drys up. Each state can start their own XYZ as a substitute and tax their citizens accordingly, but it would be eliminated at the federal level.

[Zippyjuan]

Unless what?...your working only one side of this equation. (Government Expenditures) = (Excise Tax Rate & Sales Rate Incomes)

Unless the government CUTS SPENDING! yep, that means a more realistic balanced budget, military spending cuts, etc...across the board haircut for every government agency. We will quickly determine which ones are worth keeping and which would be abolished or reduced in size. Heck those crazy lefty states can pick up the federal slack and start their own programs to substitute the loss of the federal ones. If say the XYZ program drys up. Each state can start their own XYZ as a substitute and tax their citizens accordingly, but it would be eliminated at the federal level.

Even Ron and Rand Paul were unwilling to try to cut Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid in their budget plans. That leaves you with this to cut: What would you reduce or get rid of?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/trump2019_discpie_unbranded_large.png

Cut 100% of that (no border protection, no military, no government besides Social Security and Medicare) and you only need a 64% national sales tax. (again higher really since the massive tax increase would kill retail sales which in turn would cause unemployment to soar).


Paul's plan differs from many of his rivals in that he does not propose reducing any benefits for massively indebted programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

"I see the Social Security as a contract that we should fulfill if at all possible," he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/44942719

[Swordsmyth]

Even Ron and Rand Paul were unwilling to try to cut Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid in their budget plans.
You can cut them by implementing means testing and freezing all new enrollments after the next 5 years.

[Pauls' Revere]

Even Ron and Rand Paul were unwilling to try to cut Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid in their budget plans. That leaves you with this to cut: What would you reduce or get rid of?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/trump2019_discpie_unbranded_large.png

Cut 100% (no border protection, no military, no government besides Social Security and Medicare) of that and you only need a 64% national sales tax. (again higher really since the massive tax increase would kill retail sales which in turn would cause unemployment to soar).

Predictions are that Social Security and Medicare will swallow up the federal budget anyways at the rate were going. other programs are going to die by attrition. Then we would have to decide what is worth saving and what must go. I'd like to see bases closed overseas, how much would be saved there? etc...the Flat Rate would be set to match the expenditures we have. Once people realize as you've pointed out how crazy the rate would "really" be people would come to terms with whats important for this country.

Meh, not voting to touch SS and medicare is strictly a political move a favorite for the older voters a huge block of boomers these days.

What would you, (if you could decide) reduce to bring an 85% rate down?

[Zippyjuan]

Predictions are that Social Security and Medicare will swallow up the federal budget anyways at the rate were going. other programs are going to die by attrition. Then we would have to decide what is worth saving and what must go. I'd like to see bases closed overseas, how much would be saved there? etc...the Flat Rate would be set to match the expenditures we have. Once people realize as you've pointed out how crazy the rate would "really" be people would come to terms with whats important for this country.

Meh, not voting to touch SS and medicare is strictly a political move a favorite for the older voters a huge block of boomers these days.

What would you, (if you could decide) reduce to bring an 85% rate down?

Ron Paul claimed shutting overseas bases could save $1 trillion. But the entire Department of Defense, including overseas bases, is not $1 trillion. Can't save more than you spend- especially when you still have most if not all of the existing military. Would you simply let the troops and support personnel go or move them back to bases here? If that is the idea (bring them home), it saves little if anything plus adds the cost of moving everything to the US along with cleanup costs and creating space and housing for them here.

Close them down and fire everybody? This would be a low figure since retired military would still be eligible for government payments but let's just assume that the costs of having somebody overseas is the same as having them here (I realize that it isn't but I am just trying to find a simple way to get a very rough estimate). US active duty military was 1.3 million in 2016. Of that, about 200,000 were overseas (15%). I am going to assume that those 15% are also responsible for 15% of total defense spending. That would be about $100 billion of the military budget in the chart posted earlier. That would reduce spending about two percent.

[Pauls' Revere]

Mfg Sales Rev Sales Rev Total Rev Excise Tax Rev Individual Sales Tax Rev Excise Tax Rate Individual Sales Tax Rate Flat Tax Rev
2.25E+11 4.5E+11 6.75E+11 2.475E+12 2.475E+12 11.00 % 5.5 % 4.95E+12

I created a spreadsheet, like I said even I can figure this out.

Given the current government expenditure of 4.79 Trillion (who really knows what it is?) we would need Mfg Sales Rev of (2.25E+11) and Sales Rev of (4.5E+11) and the above rates of 11% Excise Tax & 5.5% Sales Tax to reach 4.95 Trillion.

Obviously sales change etc, but we adjust the rate accordingly to match expenditures. But nice to know a regular Joe can figure this out. It takes a team of PhD tax lawyers to figure out the tax code.

[Pauls' Revere]

Ron Paul claimed shutting overseas bases could save $1 trillion. But the entire Department of Defense, including overseas bases, is not $1 trillion. Can't save more than you spend- especially when you still have most if not all of the existing military. Would you simply let the troops and support personnel go or move them back to bases here? If that is the idea (bring them home), it saves little if anything plus adds the cost of moving everything to the US along with cleanup costs and creating space and housing for them here.

Close them down and fire everybody? This would be a low figure since retired military would still be eligible for government payments but let's just assume that the costs of having somebody overseas is the same as having them here (I realize that it isn't but I am just trying to find a simple way to get a very rough estimate). US active duty military was 1.3 million in 2016. Of that, about 200,000 were overseas (15%). I am going to assume that those 15% are also responsible for 15% of total defense spending. That would be about $100 billion of the military budget in the chart posted earlier. That would reduce spending about two percent.

I would start by disbanding the reserves, 90 day notice you out. Close bases overseas. I think a lot of the budget is wrapped up in maintenance and operations (overhead) but idk. Got to start somewhere, and sooner the better were all going to be.

[johnwk]

I agree with Congress' primary revenue ought to come from taxes at our water's edge. But, what do you mean by a tax on state budgets?



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)





Like an income tax or an expenditure tax applied to the states, it would reward low tax and spending states and discourage high taxes and spending.

I'm not sure whether it would require a Constitutional amendment or not but that should be the only domestic taxation allowed for the federal government.


I still have absolutely no idea what you are taxing and how you would calculate what you are taxing.


JWK

[johnwk]

Flat tax on what?

JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of democratic capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.





An excise tax for business and a sales tax for individuals only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise

An excise or excise tax is any duty on manufactured goods which is levied at the moment of manufacture, rather than at sale.

All other taxes are abolished. Business and individual pay the same rate on each.


I still have no idea what you mean by "Flat tax within our borders (domestic)." What are you taxing, and how do you calculate it?

JWK

[johnwk]

I would still prefer the states to run the excise/sales tax system and then the states be taxed by the feds but what you suggest combined with tariffs would be much better than the current system.


During our Constitution's framing and ratification debates, the were a number of comments made that whenever the federal government decided to lay an internal tax within a state's borders, the State would have the opportunity to raise the said revenue, before federal tax collectors entered the state for that purpose. I just thought you would be interested in that historical fact. In addition, during one of the direct taxes levied by the federal government upon the states, a bill was sent to each of the states with their share of the tax and a time period was set allowing the state to collect the tax and send it to the federal government. See Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

JWK

[johnwk]

I would like to see Rand propose it but I don't think there will be an opening to reform the tax system as long as the Demoncrats control the House.

It would help if someone could sell Trump on the idea in time for the 2020 campaign.



How about our Constitution's original tax plan?


“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 each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, 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




John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...". Witness today the suicidal path America has chosen, supported by a Fifth Colum media and Yellow Journalists.

[Sonny Tufts]

Like an income tax or an expenditure tax applied to the states, it would reward low tax and spending states and discourage high taxes and spending.

I'm not sure whether it would require a Constitutional amendment or not but that should be the only domestic taxation allowed for the federal government.

Under the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity developed by the Supreme Court, Congress can't tax the States (subject to certain exceptions), and the States can't tax the federal government, so a constitutional amendment would definitely be necessary.

[johnwk]

Under the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity developed by the Supreme Court, Congress can't tax the States . . .

:rolleyes:


Congress has power to lay and collect a direct tax upon the states, the only requirement is Congress must follow the rule of apportioning such a tax, e.g., The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720) in which each state's apportioned share was calculated, and each state was notified of its apportioned fair share.

JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

:rolleyes:


Congress has power to lay and collect a direct tax upon the states, the only requirement is Congress must follow the rule of apportioning such a tax, e.g., The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720) in which each state's apportioned share was calculated, and each state was notified of its apportioned fair share.

The context of the discussion was an income tax imposed on the states, not a direct tax. Income taxes don't have to be apportioned. A direct tax upon the states measured by state expenditures would be incapable of apportionment because expenditures aren't in proportion to population. See https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/per-capita-state-spending/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22 :%22asc%22%7D

[Zippyjuan]

I still have absolutely no idea what you are taxing and how you would calculate what you are taxing.


JWK

It is a silly tax on taxes- states would be taxed on the amount of taxes they collect from their citizens. A weak attempt to have states collect taxes for the Federal Government and high fed taxes in state taxes.

If you want to fund the Federal Government that way, state taxes would have to quintuple.

[oyarde]

Looks like the dem clown car primary has a new entry today .

[johnwk]

It is a silly tax on taxes- states would be taxed on the amount of taxes they collect from their citizens. A weak attempt to have states collect taxes for the Federal Government and high fed taxes in state taxes.





Based on your repeated misrepresentations and baseless innuendoes in this forum, I will never rely upon what you post. I will wait for the poster who advocated this to explain what is meant.


JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of democratic capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[Swordsmyth]

I still have absolutely no idea what you are taxing and how you would calculate what you are taxing.


JWK


Based on your repeated misrepresentations and baseless innuendoes in this forum, I will never rely upon what you post. I will wait for the poster who advocated this to explain what is meant.


JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of democratic capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.
He is actually close but as usual he loads it with spin:

You either tax the income of the states or their expenditures, the expenditures might be better because it would discourage the states from using debt.

If state A takes in $1B in taxes and spends $.5B in taxes then if the tax rate was 10% they would pay the feds either $.1B or $.05B.

[Swordsmyth]

During our Constitution's framing and ratification debates, the were a number of comments made that whenever the federal government decided to lay an internal tax within a state's borders, the State would have the opportunity to raise the said revenue, before federal tax collectors entered the state for that purpose. I just thought you would be interested in that historical fact.
That is nice to know but it isn't quite the same as my proposal because the feds were setting the tax and then asking the states to collect it, under my system the feds could not decide what to tax or how much to tax it.


In addition, during one of the direct taxes levied by the federal government upon the states, a bill was sent to each of the states with their share of the tax and a time period was set allowing the state to collect the tax and send it to the federal government. See Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

JWK
That is almost what I am proposing but it is not a percentage of the states income or expenditures, my system may require a Constitutional amendment.

[Swordsmyth]

How about our Constitution's original tax plan?


“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 each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, 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




John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...". Witness today the suicidal path America has chosen, supported by a Fifth Colum media and Yellow Journalists.
That would certainly be an improvement over our current system and there are elements of it that would work with my system but I disagree with a few parts.

I don't want the feds to get to set any domestic taxes on the citizens or to collect and enforce them.

In my system if the states fail to pay the set percentage of either their income or their expenditures then I would suspend their Representatives and Senators until such time that they pay.

Other than tariffs all taxes on the citizens would be chosen and collected by the states and/or local governments which are easier for the citizens to hold accountable and small government states would be rewarded by bearing a smaller portion of the federal tax burden while big government states would be penalized by paying more.

[Pauls' Revere]

I still have no idea what you mean by "Flat tax within our borders (domestic)." What are you taxing, and how do you calculate it?

JWK

Ok, I see it like this. Picture this if you will. ABOLISH the current tax system. No income taxes, no tax credits, no deductions, etc... we reset the federal system.

These are only examples:

Say we have a Flat Excise Tax Rate for manufacturing businesses (collected at point of sale), We have the same idea for individuals (consumers) a Flat Sales Tax. I would like to see the Flat Sales Tax equal to half what the Excise rate is. This tax revenue is used to fund government programs.

(Excise Tax Rate .20%)+(Sales Tax Rate, Excise Rate/2 = .10%) = (Tax Revenue)

Excise Tax Rate is set/voted on every three years by Congress.

All this would apply within our borders. Buying and selling to/fro overseas that's done with or without tariffs.
Of course HUGE HURDLES would have to be jumped to make this happen. Perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

[Pauls' Revere]

Looks like the dem clown car primary has a new entry today .

Moulton?

[oyarde]

Moulton?

Yes , ought to be to 20 or so by My 01 .

[Zippyjuan]

Ok, I see it like this. Picture this if you will. ABOLISH the current tax system. No income taxes, no tax credits, no deductions, etc... we reset the federal system.

These are only examples:

Say we have a Flat Excise Tax Rate for manufacturing businesses (collected at point of sale), We have the same idea for individuals (consumers) a Flat Sales Tax. I would like to see the Flat Sales Tax equal to half what the Excise rate is. This tax revenue is used to fund government programs.

(Excise Tax Rate .20%)+(Sales Tax Rate, Excise Rate/2 = .10%) = (Tax Revenue)

Excise Tax Rate is set/voted on every three years by Congress.

All this would apply within our borders. Buying and selling to/fro overseas that's done with or without tariffs.
Of course HUGE HURDLES would have to be jumped to make this happen. Perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

Ten percent sales tax would raise about $500 billion. Spending is only about $4 trillion more than that.

[dude58677]

Ten percent sales tax would raise about $500 billion. Spending is only about $4 trillion more than that.

You do realize that government spending is also supposed to be cut as part of the hypothetical?

[Pauls' Revere]

Ten percent sales tax would raise about $500 billion. Spending is only about $4 trillion more than that.

Then we have spending cuts to make, yes?

[johnwk]

But your discussion on this thread has gone far afield from your fatuous claim in post #1 that the 1943 Victory Tax was unconstitutional. Regardless of the issue of what "direct tax" originally meant, the 16th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that a tax on wages is constitutional.




Our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that a direct tax, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment, is still, to this day, required to be apportioned. The name of a tax is irrelevant. If a tax on "income" takes the form of a direct tax, it is still required to be apportioned. In fact, the income tax imposed in EISNER v. MACOMBER was struck down as violating the apportionment rule.


The only question to be answered is, what are the distinguishing characteristics between a direct tax and one which is indirect? And in answer to this fundamental question the following historical documentation appears to shed light on and answers the question:


As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that:


“In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts [an indirect type of tax], which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467 Wilson


So, a characteristic of an indirect tax is one which is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases.



As to direct taxation, Oliver Elsworth, also a delegate to the Convention from Connecticut provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.


January 7, 1788. [On the Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]

”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man's business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”



Elsworth goes on to note:

“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”

”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …”
___ Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 92


So, contrary to your suspicious assertion “the 16th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that a tax on wages is constitutional”, it is only constitutional if the tax on wages is apportioned. when one reviews historical documents during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, there is a consistency among our forefathers comments showing that direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive and not avoidable, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.


The bottom line is, a tax upon the property which a working person earns by the sweat of their labor has the characteristics of a direct tax as historically understood, and therefor requires an apportionment if laid by the federal government, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

So, contrary to your suspicious [sic] assertion “the 16th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that a tax on wages is constitutional”, it is only constitutional if the tax on wages is apportioned. when one reviews historical documents during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, there is a consistency among our forefathers comments showing that direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive and not avoidable, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.

When reading an amendment to the Constitution, resort to what the Founders (or, more accurately, what a few cherry-picked Founders) thought is no longer relevant when the very purpose of the amendment is to change the original design. So even if your understanding of history were correct your conclusion as to the legal effect of the amendment is hopelessly wrong. "From whatever source derived" means just that -- in other words, the plain language of the amendment makes it clear that the source of the income is irrelevant, and your attempt to carve out an exception for wage income is spurious.

Speaking of spurious, didn't you intend to use that word instead of "suspicious"?

[Zippyjuan]

Then we have spending cuts to make, yes?

With something like $300 billion going to just interest on the debt, you have about $200 billion to spend. Cut $4.3 trillion from this:

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/trump2019_discpie_unbranded_large.png

[Superfluous Man]

With something like $300 billion going to just interest on the debt, you have about $200 billion to spend. Cut $4.3 trillion from this:

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/trump2019_discpie_unbranded_large.png

Repudiate the debt. Now you only have to cut $3.8 trillion from that. That's easy. I don't see a single thing on that pie chart that shouldn't be cut all the way to zero.

Then we can get rid of every tax.

[dude58677]

When reading an amendment to the Constitution, resort to what the Founders (or, more accurately, what a few cherry-picked Founders) thought is no longer relevant when the very purpose of the amendment is to change the original design. So even if your understanding of history were correct your conclusion as to the legal effect of the amendment is hopelessly wrong. "From whatever source derived" means just that -- in other words, the plain language of the amendment makes it clear that the source of the income is irrelevant, and your attempt to carve out an exception for wage income is spurious.

Speaking of spurious, didn't you intend to use that word instead of "suspicious"?

Seriously cherry picked the founders views? My ass!

[johnwk]

When reading an amendment to the Constitution, resort to what the Founders (or, more accurately, what a few cherry-picked Founders) thought is no longer relevant when the very purpose of the amendment is to change the original design. So even if your understanding of history were correct your conclusion as to the legal effect of the amendment is hopelessly wrong. "From whatever source derived" means just that -- in other words, the plain language of the amendment makes it clear that the source of the income is irrelevant, and your attempt to carve out an exception for wage income is spurious.

Speaking of spurious, didn't you intend to use that word instead of "suspicious"?

No. I meant suspicious. I have, for a very, very long time, viewed those who go to extreme lengths and make specious arguments that the 16th Amendment was intended to and does allow an un-apportioned tax on earned wages, as being suspicious.

There is no question that the 16th Amendment confirms Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment. But if the tax on incomes taxes the form of a direct tax, as it did in EISNER v. MACOMBER (1920), it requires apportionment, as stated by the Court.

What you are forgetting or ignoring is, the language of the 16th Amendment makes no mention whatsoever to repeal Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, which states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Capitation, or other direct tax, means no capitation or other direct tax may be laid without apportionment. And in BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN (1929) long after the 16th Amendment’s adoption, the court emphatically declared: ” As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


Yes! Your assertions about the 16th amendment are indeed suspicious, and particularly so when you cannot even make a rational argument that direct taxes are not required to be apportioned.



JWK