Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

[johnwk]

.SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

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

[Weston White]

Would you agree that the income tax is ultimately a spending tax, which is proper to be imposed on the amount of increase less its principal (i.e., wealth severed beyond investment exhausted)? (To play devil’s advocate here.)

[Mr Tansill]

What do you guys think about a "flat" tax in the sense of an actual $$$ cap...like everyone pays X% up until $XX,XXX dollars, then you're done?

[JK/SEA]

how about no tax?...

[Christian Liberty]

how about no tax?...

That would be what I would prefer.

But, if we're going to have a tax, not sure why "income" is worse than some other type. Its all about the amount taken.

[johnwk]

Would you agree that the income tax is ultimately a spending tax, which is proper to be imposed on the amount of increase less its principal (i.e., wealth severed beyond investment exhausted)? (To play devil’s advocate here.)

A tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes is an immoral tax in my opinion in addition to the other objections I raised in the OP


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

[idiom]

Heck, lets just get rid of all the taxes and let the government print whatever it needs. Inflation is a nice even tax, and nobody will complain about it.

[roho76]

how about no tax?...

Isolationist!

[Vanguard101]

If Rand Paul is asked whether he would abolish the income tax, he currently would say no. Let's keep it real guys...

[johnwk]

If Rand Paul is asked whether he would abolish the income tax, he currently would say no. Let's keep it real guys...

Are you indicating Rand Paul has a love affair with this arbitrary and immoral tax?


JWK


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

[JK/SEA]

If Rand Paul is asked whether he would abolish the income tax, he currently would say no. Let's keep it real guys...

sarcasm right?

[Crashland]

None of the GOP candidates will propose ending the income tax, not even Rand. Only exception would be any FairTax supporters like Mike Huckabee

[johnwk]

None of the GOP candidates will propose ending the income tax, not even Rand. Only exception would be any FairTax supporters like Mike Huckabee

The "fairtax" [H.R, 25] does not propose to end all federal taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes". But it would establish two new taxes if adopted, and this would be in addition to other taxes calculated from incomes.


JWK




To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving work permits to millions who have invaded our borders!

[Vanguard101]

sarcasm right?

Rand Paul would reverse his position and say he is not in favor of abolishing the income tax

[JK/SEA]

Rand Paul would reverse his position and say he is not in favor of abolishing the income tax

so you will support Hilliary then...?

[Sonny Tufts]

Are you indicating Rand Paul has a love affair with this arbitrary and immoral tax?

Would it be any less arbitrary and immoral if it were imposed by a State? After all, under your view of the "original tax plan" a State would be free to impose an income tax to come up with its apportioned share of needed revenue.

[johnwk]

Would it be any less arbitrary and immoral if it were imposed by a State?

Of course not. Why do you ask me that absurd question?

JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

Of course not. Why do you ask me that absurd question?

JWK

Because you've been pushing your view of the Founders' "original tax plan", under which the States are free to come up with their share of what you believe to be direct taxes any way they wish:

But the founders intended that if Congress should lay any direct taxes, which reach the people or their property directly, the states would have an opportunity to pay their share rather than have the federal government enter the states and collect the tax directly from the people. This is made know in a number of the State Ratification documents, e.g., see 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 Time of payment prescribed in such requisition- (emphasis added)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ower-top-rates

[Danke]

Would it be any less arbitrary and immoral if it were imposed by a State? After all, under your view of the "original tax plan" a State would be free to impose an income tax to come up with its apportioned share of needed revenue.

Yes, everything is less "arbritary and immoral" at the local level when you are asking of it from your neighbor. States already impose income taxes and some don't. Further bring it down to the county level and see your support dwindle.

[johnwk]

Because you've been pushing your view of the Founders' "original tax plan", under which the States are free to come up with their share of what you believe to be direct taxes any way they wish:



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ower-top-rates

Can you not distinguish a federal tax from those which are imposed by a state? We are talking about a federal tax in this thread! And Senator Cruz is still supporting as "tax reform" a federal tax in incomes which is both an arbitrary and immoral tax!


JWK



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

[mosquitobite]

The tax itself isn't what bothers me.

It's the government getting "first dibs" as if they are some religious entity that deserves a tithe.

Want true tax reform? First focus on the withholding tax.

Make every American write a check on April 15th. I guaran-damn-tee you that things will change instantly.


Withholding tax disproportionately affects the poor. They NEED that money. Yet, they have to wait a year to get back THEIR "refund".


Wars will suddenly go back to their properly debated place if we got their hands out of our pockets. That's the REAL problem with the income tax!

[Sonny Tufts]

Can you not distinguish a federal tax from those which are imposed by a state? We are talking about a federal tax in this thread! And Senator Cruz is still supporting as "tax reform" a federal tax in incomes which is both an arbitrary and immoral tax!

The point is that the "original tax plan" that you wish to have reinstated would permit (and in some cases could force) the States to impose "arbitrary and immoral" taxes. If the federal government had to go back to the old requisition system (which failed miserably under the Articles of Confederation), the States' tax burden would increase, and the handful of States that don't currently have income taxes on individuals might find it necessary to start imposing them.

[Vanguard101]

so you will support Hilliary then...?

...........

[r3volution 3.0]

You can't cut taxes without offsetting cuts in spending, since the government would simply finance the deficit through inflation (which is more economically destructive than direct taxation). Last fiscal year, the personal income tax yielded $1.395 trillion. Cutting anywhere close to $1.395 trillion is politically impossible, period. Therefore, talk about eliminating the income tax is premature. Talking about it as an ultimate aspiration for the future is fine, but understand that it's not happening anytime soon. Focus on cutting spending: and by amounts that have some chance of actually passing Congress.

Anyway, yea, a flat income tax is marginally more efficient than a progressive income tax - not so much because of the single rate but because the flat rate tax as usually proposed would have fewer deductions, exceptions, etc (making compliance easier/cheaper). It would be a good thing but, again, the real problem is spending. That should be the focus.

[johnwk]

The point is that the "original tax plan" that you wish to have reinstated would permit (and in some cases could force) the States to impose "arbitrary and immoral" taxes. If the federal government had to go back to the old requisition system (which failed miserably under the Articles of Confederation), the States' tax burden would increase, and the handful of States that don't currently have income taxes on individuals might find it necessary to start imposing them.

I disagree with you completely. If we went back to the original federal tax plan, imposts, duties and excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, each State's Congressional delegation while in Washington would be encouraged to live with the revenue brought in from these indirect taxes and would work to drastically cut federal spending to avoid having to impose a direct tax at the end of the year to extinguish a deficit which would deplete their own State's Treasury!

JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

If we went back to the original federal tax plan, imposts, duties and excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, each State's Congressional delegation while in Washington would be encouraged to live with the revenue brought in from these indirect taxes and would work to drastically cut federal spending to avoid having to impose a direct tax at the end of the year to extinguish a deficit which would deplete their own State's Treasury!

JWK

You're living in a dream world. The revenue from "imposts, duties and excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption" might have been enough to sustain the federal budget in 1787, but it clearly wouldn't today. What legislator is going to tell his constituents that he'll vote to eliminate Social Security? Which congressman from, say, Virginia, will announce his support of slashing the defense budget, resulting in the closing of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the loss of 10,000 civilian jobs?

[johnwk]

You're living in a dream world. The revenue from "imposts, duties and excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption" might have been enough to sustain the federal budget in 1787, but it clearly wouldn't today. What legislator is going to tell his constituents that he'll vote to eliminate Social Security? Which congressman from, say, Virginia, will announce his support of slashing the defense budget, resulting in the closing of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the loss of 10,000 civilian jobs?

You forgot the apportioned tax if imposts, duties and excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption are insufficient. Aside from that your post indicates you're a fan of big government and want the revenue to fund a big government. Am I correct?


JWK


“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

[Sonny Tufts]

You forgot the apportioned tax if imposts, duties and excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption are insufficient. Aside from that your post indicates you're a fan of big government and want the revenue to fund a big government. Am I correct?

No, you're not correct. I simply recognize political realities.

The requisition method failed before, and it's ludicrous to think it would succeed today, especially given the huge growth in the federal budget.

[TaftFan]

Rand Paul is for the flat tax.

[PAF]

Rand Paul is for the flat tax.

Perhaps Rand did not read HR 25, which is not reform, but replacement. It is 131 pages, riddled with prison, jail and fines.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3570762

Knowing Rand's record, I am sure once he reads it he would have second thoughts.