Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 84

Thread: Cory Booker, presidential hopeful, rolls out establishment tax plan

  1. #1

    Cory Booker, presidential hopeful, rolls out establishment tax plan

    See Cory Booker unveils plan to cut taxes for half the country

    “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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    taxing earned wages vs an excise tax on articles of luxury

    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

  4. #3
    Title should read , booker intends to expand welfare .
    Do something Danke

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 04-18-2019 at 09:46 AM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  9. #8
    The federal government should be funded with tariffs and a tax on state budgets.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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!
    Last edited by dude58677; 04-18-2019 at 07:57 PM.

  12. #10

    direct taxes vs indirect taxation, our founder's meaning

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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)
    Last edited by johnwk; 04-20-2019 at 12:40 PM.

  13. #11
    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/...-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.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-20-2019 at 01:29 PM.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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/showthr...th#post5418282
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 04-20-2019 at 01:26 PM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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."

  16. #14
    Flat excise and/or sales taxes only. Corporations and individuals pay the same percentage.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.




    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.
    Last edited by johnwk; 04-20-2019 at 02:11 PM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    [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?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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

  23. #20

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    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.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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/Fre...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.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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).

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    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.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Cory Booker launches 2020 presidential campaign
    By timosman in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-04-2019, 12:46 AM
  2. Cory Booker (Dem senator and Rand Paul Friend) denies presidential rumors.
    By jmdrake in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-10-2015, 05:21 PM
  3. Rand Paul, Cory Booker plan to take on drug war in 2014
    By CaseyJones in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-04-2014, 09:17 PM
  4. Rand Paul mocks Cory Booker
    By libertarian101 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-18-2013, 08:27 PM
  5. Oprah Winfrey Fundraising for Cory Booker
    By cindy25 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-01-2013, 08:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •