Why President Trump is spot on regarding an end to the payroll tax

[johnwk]

Keep in mind our federal government is authorized to raise revenue in a number of ways ___ imposts, duties, excise taxes, and direct taxes. And with regard to these taxes, direct taxes are required to be apportioned while indirect taxes must be uniform among the States.

When reviewing historical documents to determine the distinguishing characteristics which separate direct taxes from those which are indirect, there is a consistency among our forefathers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 individual payroll tax levied upon a working person’s earned wage is obviously a direct tax, and is arbitrary is unequal in its use. But, by the terms of our Constitution when a tax is levied directly upon the people it requires the tax to be an equal per capita tax.

So why is President Trump’s desire to end the payroll tax a good idea? And how would it help return our nation to its founding principles?

To give one glaring example why ending the payroll tax is a good idea, we only need to explore how the revenue raised from this onerous tax is used, an example being is the funding of the Kennedy Center, and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.

Using the proceeds from the direct payroll tax Congress funds the above institutions, and the above institutions are used to allow a privileged group [those receiving federal funding], to express their opinions, beliefs, feelings and expressions in a more forceful manner than a wage earner who has had a portion of their paycheck forcefully taken [as distinguished from an indirect tax] to finance these institutions and the expressions and speech of others.

Using government force to confiscate a portion of A’s paycheck, which is then given to B to finance the dissemination of B’s personal speech and expressions which A is forced to subsidize through the above mentioned institutions is a fundamental violation of A’s First Amendment protection which would not occur if a voluntary paid indirect tax were used.

Are we to forget what Jefferson stated on this very subject?

”That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. . .”

Are we to forget what Representative Page stated with regard to our federal government granting “partial preferences”?

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative Page

Are we to forget that Representative Giles equated government force being used to take the property of one individual, which is then transferred by government to another for their use and enjoyment as being tyranny?

"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

The fact is, ending the individual payroll tax would not only allow hard working wage earners to accumulate the wealth earned by the sweat of their labor, and improve their economic conditions, it would help to end unwilling wage earners being forced to finance the speech, expressions and opinions of those they disagree with.

Why does the communist/socialist Democrat Leadership continue to support the payroll tax and its inherent tyranny at the federal head? Why do they support confiscating the property earned by A’s labor which is then transferred to B so B may express his/her personal feelings, expressions and beliefs in a more powerful manner than A whose earned property has been diminished for the benefit of B’s speech and expressions?

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)

[Sonny Tufts]

The individual payroll tax levied upon a working person’s earned wage is obviously a direct tax, and is arbitrary is unequal in its use. But, by the terms of our Constitution when a tax is levied directly upon the people it requires the tax to be an equal per capita tax.

The payroll tax on the employee is an income tax and in accordance with the 16th Amendment doesn't need to be apportioned or equal on a per capita basis. See IRC §3101.

Using the proceeds from the direct payroll tax...

The payroll tax isn't a direct tax. The employer portion is an excise on employing people, and the employee portion is an income tax (i.e., an excise on the receipt of income).

“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)

Such irony. The author of this quote voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Civil War income tax just 3 years earlier. The passage comes from the concurring opinion of a single justice, not from the majority opinion, and should be cited with "(Justice Field, concurring)" appended at the end. The Butcher's Union case dealt with antitrust issues and had nothing whatsoever to do with taxation.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The payroll tax on the employee is an income tax and in accordance with the 16th Amendment doesn't need to be apportioned or equal on a per capita basis. See IRC §3101.

I've yet to meet a prog who didn't love the 16th. Just another liberty coffin nail hammered by progressive era communists.

Such irony.

Such irony that a 2x Obama voter and big government advocate like you always rushes in to post contrary items. Contrary no matter what the subject.

Now where have I seen this RPF contrariness before? Hmmm......

[johnwk]

The payroll tax isn't a direct tax.

Thank you for you unsubstantiated opinion, an opinion which conflicts with our forefathers comments which identify the characteristics distinguishing direct taxes, from those which are indirect.

During the framing of our Constitution the question was asked, what is the meaning of direct taxes. Unfortunately, no one answered.

But, the bottom line is, Justice Fuller's comment in a case involving income taxation is spot on!


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.


Simply because you state “The payroll tax isn't a direct tax", does not make is so.


Having taken the time to actually research the distinguishing characteristics which identify and separate direct taxes from those which are indirect, as understood by our founders, there is no question in my mind that Congress, to this very day, has indeed been laying un-apportioned direct taxes in violation of our Constitution.


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.


”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


When one actually reviews historical documents to determine the distinguishing characteristics which separate direct taxes from those which are indirect, 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 Temporary Victory Tax of 1943, adopted by the socialist/communist FDR Administration, as an example, and which began the current tax on earned wages, when considering historical documentation and characteristics identifying direct taxes as distinguished from those which are indirect, clearly falls into the category of a direct tax and thus requires an apportionment among the States.


JWK


“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

[Sonny Tufts]

I've yet to meet a prog who didn't love the 16th. Just another liberty coffin nail hammered by progressive era communists.

It's not a question of loving it. It's simply saying what the law is, a distinction that is apparently too subtle for some knee-jerk igmoramuses.

Such irony that a 2x Obama voter and big government advocate like you always rushes in to post contrary items.

You've doubled down on your delusions, as I never voted for Obama. But if your limited excuse for a brain leads you to that conclusion, I couldn't care less.

I post views that are contrary to crackpot theories about the law, too many of which are posted on this site by morons who wouldn't know history, the Constitution, or the Internal Revenue Code if it bit them in the ass.

[Sonny Tufts]

Thank you for you unsubstantiated opinion, an opinion which conflicts with our forefathers comments which identify the characteristics distinguishing direct taxes, from those which are indirect.

My response didn't address the historical meaning of "direct taxes" at the time of the Constitution's ratification, since I have discussed that topic with you before and I don't intent to beat that dead horse (or your misunderstanding of the Adam Smith quote) again.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ax#post6786251
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ax#post6783700
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-apportionment

My point was simply that, contrary to your unsubstantiated and uninformed opinion, the employee's share of payroll taxes doesn't have to be apportioned because it's an income tax and income taxes don't need to be apportioned.

But, the bottom line is, Justice Fuller's comment in a case involving income taxation is spot on!

This is the same Justice Fuller who remarked in the same case, "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's not a question of loving it.

It's my question. Do you approve or not?

... as I never voted for Obama.

Who did you vote for?

I post views that are contrary to crackpot theories about the law,....

Why do you do that?

[Sammy]

We all want lower Taxes but he needs to cut spending.

[johnwk]

My response didn't address the historical meaning of "direct taxes" at the time of the Constitution's ratification, since I have discussed that topic with you before and I don't intent to beat that dead horse (or your misunderstanding of the Adam Smith quote) again.

Unlike you, I have actually offered the characteristics as defined by our forefathers, which define and separate direct taxes from those which are indirect

Since you have ignored the documentation, let us once again review this information.

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.

”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


When one actually reviews historical documents to determine the distinguishing characteristics which separate direct taxes from those which are indirect, 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. A tax on a person's earned wage, which happens to be their property, exhibits the characteristics of a direct tax as defined by our forefathers.

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)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

My response...

Unlike you, I have actually offered the characteristics as defined by our forefathers,...

Sonny Tufts and his extreme liberal friends aren't interested one bit in the founding fathers. Tufts is like his prog associates who believe the constitution is a "living breathing document." Just like changing biological sex--Tufts believes the constitution can be whatever they feel it to be.

[Anti Globalist]

We all want lower Taxes but he needs to cut spending.

Exactly. Lowering taxes does nothing if spending is not cut.

[fedupinmo]

My point was simply that, contrary to your unsubstantiated and uninformed opinion, the employee's share of payroll taxes doesn't have to be apportioned because it's an income tax and income taxes don't need to be apportioned.

What is "income"?

[Sonny Tufts]

What is "income"?

A realized accession to wealth. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).

[Sonny Tufts]

Sonny Tufts and his extreme liberal friends aren't interested one bit in the founding fathers. Tufts is like his prog associates who believe the constitution is a "living breathing document." Just like changing biological sex--Tufts believes the constitution can be whatever they feel it to be.

You really have no clue. I describe what the law IS, not what I think it should be. The Constitution as written makes it abundantly clear that income taxes don't need to be apportioned, regardless of whether they're considered to be direct taxes.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You really have no clue.

How could I if you don't answer my question?

I describe what the law IS, not what I think it should be.

Why do you do that?

[Sonny Tufts]

How could I if you don't answer my question?

You haven't a clue not because I don't answer your silly questions, but because you have a mindless, illogical knee-jerk reaction that makes you come to the idiotic conclusion that if my description of the law bursts some sovcit's bubble it must mean that I'm a left winger or a prog, that I voted for Obama twice, and that I believe the actual words of the Constitution can be molded to justify any lefty position.

Why do you do that?

Because a lot of people have gotten into deep $#@! by buying into crackpot notions about tax law. It's one thing to say that the law is wrong and immoral. It's quite another to claim that the law as written somehow doesn't require folks to pay taxes or have tax withheld from their pay.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... I don't answer your silly questions,...

Asking your voting choice is a silly question?

It's one thing to say that the law is wrong....

Well, is it? That's what I'm asking you.

Because a lot of people have gotten into deep $#@! by buying into crackpot notions about tax law.

So why do give advice on this forum?







.