Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Trump floats ending income taxation and taxing consumption

  1. #1

    Trump floats ending income taxation and taxing consumption

    .
    See Trump floats replacing income tax with tariffs: GOP lawmaker


    "Experts argue that Trump’s idea would not be able to generate the amount of revenue that income taxes bring in and that it could hurt exporters."
    As you can see, the establishment's lackies are quick to denounce any attempt to return to our Constitution's original tax plan which would help to remove the jackbooted tax-heel from the necks of hard-working American citizens and America's businesses, which is now used as a weapon to punish political opponents and reward the friends of big government.

    Trump's idea would bring us closer to our Constitution's original tax plan which is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


    Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment

    “SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay [ICODE]any[/ICODE] tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


    NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

    "SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


    NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.


    "SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


    In reference to the above Section see: FIRST DIRECT TAX LAID BY CONGRESS, 1798 and each State’s apportioned fair share.



    NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

    States’ population

    ---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

    Total U.S. Population


    The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States pays the exact same amount!


    Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


    State`s Pop.

    ------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
    U.S. Pop.


    "SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


    NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


    "SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


    JWK


    “……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



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Oh, the "Fair Share" BBA again



    By Publius Huldah

    Why the “Balanced Budget Amendment” is a Hoax – and a Deadly Trap


    You can not responsibly support a proposed Amendment to Our Constitution unless you have read and understand the proposal and how it would change our Constitution. You must look behind the nice sounding name! Will the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) really “rein in” the federal government? Will it really “show them” that they have to balance their budget the same as we do?

    Or does it actually legalize spending which is now unconstitutional? Is it actually a massive grant of new constitutional powers to the President and the federal courts – a grant which will cut the Heart out of The Constitution our Framers gave us?

    Amending the Constitution is serious business – and you are morally bound to get informed before you jump on The Amendment Bandwagon.

    So, lay aside your giddy joy at the fact that all 47 U.S. Senate Republicans are co-sponsoring the Balanced Budget Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 10 (March 31, 2011). Let’s go through it. What you believe the BBA will do, and what it will actually do, are two very different things indeed.

    Continue:

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...a-deadly-trap/




    By Publius Huldah

    Balanced Budget Amendment: Why it is The WORST Idea Ever

    Continue:

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...rst-idea-ever/
    ____________

    An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)

    The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Oh, the "Fair Share" BBA again


    [INDENT]
    By Publius Huldah

    Why the “Balanced Budget Amendment” is a Hoax – and a Deadly Trap
    Every one of the proposed balanced budget amendments offered by Congress are a hoax. I have also exposed why they are a hoax. Each would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget.

    The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, unlike the frauds promoted by Congress, is our Founder's way to balance the annual budget.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Every one of the proposed balanced budget amendments offered by Congress are a hoax. I have also exposed why they are a hoax. Each would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget.

    The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, unlike the frauds promoted by Congress, is our Founder's way to balance the annual budget.
    Even aside from the "Fair Share" garbage, it's garbage.

    actually legalize spending which is now unconstitutional
    ____________

    An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)

    The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Even aside from the "Fair Share" garbage, it's garbage.
    According to you.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    According to you.

    Yes, according to me. I don't subscribe to "Fair Share" commie philosophy. Even if you do


    ---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

    Did you know that one can balance a budget of $10,000 the same way that one can balance a budget of $500 Trillion?


    actually legalize spending which is now unconstitutional
    ____________

    An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)

    The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)

  8. #7
    Do away with the income tax and replace it with nothing.

    But the reality is that Trump doesn't want to cut spending.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  9. #8
    This is just Trump throwing out different kinds of proposals to see what might be popular. Just like the tips thing or the tariff thing. Trump has shown ZERO desire to cut spending and SPENDING IS THE REAL TAX!

    As for the consumption tax, in principle, it's somewhat better than an income tax as a way to fund this behemoth, but it still robs the productive sectors. And those whose income has been taxed for their entire lives and are now living off of savings would be taxed a second time. And that demo votes and donates to politicians.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Do away with the income tax and replace it with nothing.

    But the reality is that Trump doesn't want to cut spending.
    reality is it doesnt matter if it was of interest to trump , not interest of cuck scumer and never will be .
    Do something Danke

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    reality is it doesnt matter if it was of interest to trump , not interest of cuck scumer and never will be .
    If Trump is president, and when he was president, of course it matters and mattered whether it was an interest of his. The president is the single most powerful legislator in the USA.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  13. #11
    The older I get, the more I only want to hear one single thing on the topic of taxes:
    “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.”

    There is nothing new under the sun. The only thing different today is the varnish of legitimacy on the whole thing is thicker. But still everyone involved with this racket is just as crooked and worthy of ridicule as they were 2000 years ago, regardless whether people recognize it today.
    WHAT THE F*** DID YOU THINK​ WAS GOING TO HAPPEN???

  14. #12
    I think the reality is that Trump is going to say whatever he thinks will get him back in the white house.

  15. #13
    He's talking about raising the military pay by 15% across-the-board, and one should make the conclusion that Trump doesn't want to cut any military spending.

    To replace the income tax with tarrifs is not possible without severe spending cuts, the likes of which would cause uproars among many special interest groups of all kinds. It's not going to happen. Here's a couple comments from the article worth repeating:

    “The individual income tax raises about $2 trillion annually on a tax base of personal income of roughly $15 trillion,” Erica York, senior economist and research director at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, wrote on X. “Customs duties currently raise about $80 billion annually on imports of $3.4 trillion.”

    “[G]ood luck milking $2 trillion of tax revenue out of $3 trillion of imports,” she added in a separate post.

    -and-

    “The price of imports would rise, but so would the [US dollar], leading to lower sales and income for exporters,” Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow on tax policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, argued on X.

    Bryan Riley, director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union, notes that based on the current level of US imports, “it would take a tariff rate of 71 percent” to generate the same level of revenue that income taxes bring in.

    “However, a tariff rate of 71 percent would dramatically reduce the volume of imports,” he argued. “As a result, the revenue generated would be nowhere close to $2.2 trillion.”
    "When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Yes, according to me. I don't subscribe to "Fair Share" commie philosophy. Even if you do
    Is that you showing support for Biden and his gang's love affair with representation in Congress being apportioned, but detest apportionment being applied to each state paying an apportioned share to extinguish a deficit cause by big spending socialists in Congress, most of whom are in Democrat controlled states?

    One of the primary reasons for apportionment being applied to taxation was to make it uncomfortable to engage in reckless spending. Socialists are all in with one man, one vote when spending revenue, but will fight to the death to avoid one vote, one dollar when financing government expenditures via a direct tax.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Is that you showing support for Biden and his gang's love affair with representation in Congress being apportioned, but detest apportionment being applied to each state paying an apportioned share to extinguish a deficit cause by big spending socialists in Congress, most of whom are in Democrat controlled states?

    One of the primary reasons for apportionment being applied to taxation was to make it uncomfortable to engage in reckless spending. Socialists are all in with one man, one vote when spending revenue, but will fight to the death to avoid one vote, one dollar when financing government expenditures via a direct tax.
    Get real. You act like that will concentrate wealth in factory towns and agricultural states, where real wealth is created. But this Funny Money Economy will continue to funnel newly printed bucks to Wall St. and Hollyweird, where all the profits from those enterprises end up, as usual.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 06-17-2024 at 01:44 PM.

  18. #16
    The unworkability of the "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment" has been demonstrated earlier. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ghlight=johnwk

    In particular, the Amendment specifically recognizes that there can be a deficit in a particular fiscal year and allows the can to be kicked down the road for an indefinite period -- reread Section 4, which says that the direct tax revenue that is to be used to erase a deficit is to be paid by the States "by a final date set by Congress", which could be years in the future.

    Moreover, Section 4 doesn't accomplish its purpose. If the direct tax is supposed to erase the deficit and if all of the States pay on time, they still get a 10% discount, which means the deficit won't be erased.
    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



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    tilting at windmills.
    "When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    If Trump is president, and when he was president, of course it matters and mattered whether it was an interest of his. The president is the single most powerful legislator in the USA.
    No , positive legislation doesnt come from pres nominees or presidents especially if not democrats . Instead you get Affordable care act , build back better and inflation reduction acts . Trillions in waste, fraud , graft and inflation but not any one single positive. Its over two decades since George Ws tax relief acts. No single dem in ouse or senate would vote for a trump bill to eliminate fed income tax. It remains to be seen if Trump can win . If so any positives it will be restricted to pretty well anyting able to done by executive order not overturned by court. No positive legislation is coming past a senate like one we currenty are stuck w/. US is drastically taken a step back for worse in past two decades , no real opposition party to dem - commie agenda. Voices of Massie and Rand pretty lonely.
    Last edited by oyarde; 06-17-2024 at 04:58 PM.
    Do something Danke

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Get real. You act like that will concentrate wealth in factory towns and agricultural states, where real wealth is created. But this Funny Money Economy will continue to funnel newly printed bucks to Wall St. and Hollyweird, where all the profits from those enterprises end up, as usual.
    When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.

    .
    .

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.

    .
    .
    Doesn't mean doing something that won't fix it will fix it.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    No single dem in ouse or senate would vote for a trump bill to eliminate fed income tax.
    Neither would Trump.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    Neither would Trump.
    I have no idea if he'd sign it . I'd guess he would but who knows. Never getting to a president anyway. Pretty much living like the movie Groundhog day now , stuck w/ status quo until it collapses.
    Do something Danke



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 06-21-2024, 06:18 AM
  2. Taxing you on income never received, Moore v. United States
    By johnwk in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-07-2023, 09:52 AM
  3. There's A Lot More To Taxation Than The Income Tax
    By jct74 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2016, 11:12 AM
  4. No Income Tax; 5-10% Federal Consumption Tax
    By No Free Beer in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-17-2012, 10:55 AM
  5. Peter Schiff - Income tax vs. Consumption Tax
    By TheBlackPeterSchiff in forum Peter Schiff Forum 2010
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 08:51 PM

Posting Permissions

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