Tab Content
  • johnwk's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:33 PM
    I have no idea what you are talking about when you write "cash-flow tax on the states". You have not given any details. JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:23 PM
    An amendment for what? JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:13 AM
    I'm not sure what you mean by a direct tax on the states. Aside from that our founders did contemplate a "direct tax" levied upon the States and used it a number of times in our nation's history. Below is a link to the first direct tax upon the states and the apportioned share each state was obligated to pay. See: DIRECT TAX OF 1798 JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 02:52 PM
    There is a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. Your proposal appears to be a tax assessed to the individual states which indicates it would be a direct tax and requiring apportionment. JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 11:36 AM
    Nothing? And what about Representatives? :rolleyes: JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 10:09 AM
    I have been very clear. You wish to ignore my clarity and the expressed intentions of our founders. Have fun arguing with yourself. And when you are done, return to posts 44 and 46 and study our founders' clear intentions. JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 08:46 AM
    I provided the founder's stated intentions in posts 44 and 46. They certainly did not intend to allow Congress to give financial preferences to one state over another. You can ignore their stated intentions all you want, but there they are and they contradict your opinions. We are not talking about building "lighthouses" or forts or other military installations... a legitimate function of our Federal Government. We are talking about our federal government handing out large sums of money from the federal treasury to the States. Read the Constitution: "...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 06:27 AM
    :rolleyes: We are talking about Congress giving financial preferences to one state over another. Post 44 and 46 documents our founder's intentions. JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 06:21 AM
    Under Congress' power to lay a direct tax Congrerss first determines a total sum needed and then determines each state's share by the rule of apportionment. For an actual example to levy a direct tax see The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 in which a direct tax was laid upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves. JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-19-2017, 03:20 PM
    What you did was post an adolescent comment which you thought would be cute. GROW UP! :rolleyes: JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-19-2017, 03:16 PM
    Your absurd comments are made to intentionally deflect. An example showing our founder's intentions to allow a direct tax upon the states can be found in several of our Constitution’s ratification documents, such as the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire: Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from ……. The fact is a direct tax was laid upon the states a number of times in our nation's history, e. g., see Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied. And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-19-2017, 02:59 PM
    I provided a link and it proves the money was disbursed from the federal treasury to the states using the rule of apportionment. The fact is, apportionment dates back to the 1600s and our early English Colonies. Let us refresh our memory by reading part of the New England Confederation of 1643 _ an agreement among the first English Colonies on America soil. "It is by these Confederates agreed that the charge of all just wars, whether offensive or defensive, upon what part or member of this Confederation soever they fall, shall both in men, provisions and all other disbursements be borne by all the parts of this Confederation in different proportions according to their different ability in the manner following, namely, that the Commissioners for each Jurisdiction from time to time, as there shall be occasion, bring a true account and number of all their males in every Plantation, or any way belonging to or under their several Jurisdictions, of what quality or condition soever they be, from sixteen years old to threescore, being inhabitants there. And that according to the different numbers which from time to time shall be found in each Jurisdiction upon a true and just account, the service of men and all charges of the war be borne by the poll: each Jurisdiction or Plantation being left to their own just course and custom of rating themselves and people according to their different estates with due respects to their qualities and exemptions amongst themselves though the Confederation take no notice of any such privilege: and that according to their different charge of each Jurisdiction and Plantation the whole advantage of the war (if it please God so to bless their endeavors) whether it be in lands, goods, or persons, shall be proportionately divided among the said Confederates." Note a specific rule is established among the members of the Confederacy under which their treasury is filled by each member supplying “men, provisions and all other disbursements“. There is no allowance for the burden being selectively placed upon one member at the expense of the others.
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-19-2017, 07:45 AM
    The rule of apportionment was intended by our founders to also apply to revenue disbursed from the federal treasury to the states and is documented in an Act of Congress passed in June of 1836 when all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and the rule of apportionment was strictly applied! The fact is, the legislative intent of our Constitution would have to be violated to do what you suggest. JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-19-2017, 07:30 AM
    I have no idea what you mean by a "flat tax". If it is a direct tax it needs to be apportioned. What are your objections, if any, to return to our Constitution's original tax plan by adopting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment? Let us take a look at the wisdom and brilliance of our Founder's original tax plan which is proposed as follows. The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-18-2017, 02:37 PM
    Maybe it's time to consider raising a federal revenue in a manner which allows the market place to determine the amount of revenue Congress can raise, and also makes each State's Congressional delegation accountable when imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes on consumption are found insufficient to meet Congresses' expenditures. Keep in mind the beloved and socialist inspired adoption of an "income tax" opened the door to revenue redistribution programs which in turn has created countless federal government cheese-eating factions and a constant swelling of our national debt. JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-18-2017, 07:14 AM
    What if each State's Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill to extinguish an annual deficit which would be paid out of their own State's Treasury, and each State's share would be apportioned as its representation in Congress is apportioned? Would this not encourage each State's Congressional Delegation to avoid deficit spending? JWK
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    10-17-2017, 08:02 AM
    When it comes to tax reform you can bet your bottom dollar our Washington Swamp Creatures want nothing to do with tax reform which would actually alter the manner in which federal revenue is raised. What our Republican Swamp Creatures falsely claim is “tax reform”, is nothing more than a plan to manipulate the existing method of laying and collecting taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages tips and other “incomes”, and it would create a whole new set of winners and losers using this type of tax. Keep in mind, under Kevin Brady’s so called “tax reform”, we still wind up with a direct unequal tax upon individuals and businesses which is calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” ___ a tax system allowing our federal government to create privileged classes exempt from taxation; a tax which can, and has been used as a weapon by notoriously evil politicians to harass and punish political foes; a tax system allowing corrupt politicians to require taxpayers to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives; a tax which has allowed our federal government from one Congress to another to micro manage our lives and businesses and place the heel of an oppressive government on the necks of America's most productive citizens and business owners, which in fact has resulted in our current repressive state of affairs. President Trump may very well have his heart in the right place when it comes to “tax reform”, but he is being conned by slithering snakes like Kevin Brady, Paul Ryan and Mitchell McConnell who have no intention to end the authoritarian system of federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” ___ a system of taxation which has proven to be a tool of corrupt politicians and is destructive to our nation’s general welfare and prosperity. Unlike our Founders who wanted America’s market place to be used to fill our national treasury using specific taxes laid upon articles of consumption ___ a kind of tax which is limited by the purchase of such articles, making it a “self-regulating” tax ___ and across-the-board imposts and duties at our water’s edge such as tonnage taxes, and if necessary a direct apportioned tax to extinguish deficits should Congress find impost, duties and excise taxes insufficient during the course of a fiscal year, Brady, Ryan and McConnell have joined forces with the Democrat Party Leadership to keep alive the notoriously evil system of income taxation, which is a primary source of power used by Washington sewer rats to reward donors, punish enemies, redistribute wealth which America’s labor, businesses and investors have worked to produce, and keeps the heel of a corrupt federal government on the necks of the American People.
    72 replies | 847 view(s)
No More Results

1 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Hi I'm Chowder

    I saw your debate with Wild English nut-job Rose with the Fair Tax. Man you tore him apart!

    Anyway I want to say thanks for the info you posted on the Hannity Forums. I used to be a neo-con but I saw the light around December of last year.

    I also used to support the fair tax and really thought for a while it seemed like a good idea. But your statements have changed my mind.

    Thanks man.

    -Chowder.

    P.S Where is your sources for the info, I would like to read them more closely or did you rely mostly on the Constitution: the one document our Politicians ignore except for Ron Paul.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 1 of 1
About johnwk

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,485
Posts Per Day
0.44
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
1
Most Recent Message
05-18-2011 11:03 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 03:33 PM
Join Date
07-19-2008
Referrals
1

1 Friend

  1. Weston White Weston White is offline

    Member

    Weston White
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

01-26-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

10-22-2017


10-21-2017


10-20-2017


10-19-2017


10-18-2017


07-31-2017


07-25-2017



Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast