President Trump gives up on tax reform and embraces income tax manipulation

[johnwk]

.

See Trump Hails 'Big Win' For Tax Reform--13 GOP Reps Disagree

”President Trump on Thursday praised the House GOP’s passage of their tax reform plan, calling it a “big win” for reform.”

The fact is, President Trump's support for the House Bill does absolutely nothing to reform the manner in which Congress raises its federal revenue!

Does President Trump’s tax reform end unequal direct taxation and restore our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxation? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury? Hell no!


Seems crystal clear that President Trump has joined our Washington Swamp Creatures in their ongoing Kabuki Dance called tax reform, which never ends in real tax reform. Real tax reform is found in The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would restore our Constitution’s original tax plan, as our Founders intended it to operate, and it would withdraw the notoriously evil powers associated with the communist/socialist inspired income tax which President Trump has now embraced.


JWK


Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes, when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

[EBounding]

It's still not the worst thing in the world. Amash and Massie voted for it.

https://www.facebook.com/justinamash...97483136957753

I voted yes on #HR1, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

This bill is the House's effort to significantly reform the tax code. For individuals' income taxes, it changes some tax rates, doubles the standard deduction, eliminates or limits many deductions and credits, and repeals the estate tax (or "death tax"). For corporate taxes, it lowers the rate, eliminates or limits many deductions and loopholes, and changes our international tax system to a territorial tax system, allowing American companies that earn profits overseas to bring that money into the United States without facing an additional tax on it.

The major benefits of this bill come from the fact that it lowers taxes and reduces the complexity of the tax code.

Lowering rates and eliminating deductions and credits will likely result in less time and money spent on filing taxes, fewer resources wasted on designing and executing strategies to avoid taxes, less social engineering through the tax code, and a fairer tax code overall.

For individuals, the increase in the standard deduction will allow many taxpayers to avoid needing to itemize their deductions. This means many taxpayers will no longer need to spend the time and money to find and claim each of their deductions and, coupled with some of the lower rates and the elimination of deductions and credits, also reduces the relative advantage for those who have the resources to afford better tax advice. This will also result in fewer people being subject to the coercive incentives of itemized deductions, which encourage people to make choices they otherwise would not make.

For corporations, the elimination of deductions and loopholes, and the change to a territorial system, will reduce the opportunities and incentives to avoid taxation and may help to limit corporations' massive efforts to do so. Billions of dollars are wasted each year when corporations hire tax attorneys and accountants to find contrived ways to structure transactions to avoid taxes. Our current tax code gives large companies an advantage over smaller competitors who do not have the resources to use those strategies. This bill simplifies the corporate tax code, reducing the opportunities to manipulate it.

I believe firmly in limited, constitutional government. That means, among other things, support for less government spending and lower, fairer taxes.

This bill will probably result in additional borrowing in the short run—but only because my Republican and Democratic colleagues continue to vote for higher spending. Republicans and Democrats recently voted along party lines for separate budgets (both of which I opposed) that increase spending and grow our debt by many trillions of dollars. Since entering Congress, I have voted for the least spending of any member of Congress:

https://spendingtracker.org/rankings…

The tax cuts in H R 1 won't directly benefit every taxpayer, and it's likely some people will even see tax increases. This is not the bill I would have written, but the cuts in this bill are very broad, and the substantial reduction in the complexity of the tax code will benefit even those who do not see direct cuts to their income taxes.

It passed 227-205.

[johnwk]

It's still not the worst thing in the world.

It is not "tax reform". It is income tax manipulation which keeps alive the notoriously evil and arbitrary powers associated with the communist/socialist income tax. It is an ongoing attack on our free market system and allows our Washington Swamp Creatures to use the power of taxation to subvert and undermine our nation's founding principles.

Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment!

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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they 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 their labor!

"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 apportioned tax to be laid.


"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."


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

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


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

[johnwk]

See: The Constitution’s financial terms, part IV: The apportionment rule

OCTOBER 23RD, 2015

”Behind the apportionment requirement was this unifying principle: At least in the lower legislative chamber, taxation should be coupled with representation. This principle had been a justification for the Revolution, and no one active in the debates over the Constitution seems to have overtly disagreed with it. The framers saw the practical application of this principle in an apportionment rule that tailored each state’s tax burden to its congressional representation.”

The article goes on to emphasize the rule of apportioning direct taxes was ”…designed to assure impartial federal treatment of the several states. Without the apportionment rule, a congressional majority from one group of states might vote to extract a disproportionate share of revenue from the rest.”

Today, our socialists, communists, liberals and progressives in Congress are using the power of direct taxation to enter each state and seek out the most productive hard working citizens and businesses in each state who are then taxed directly, and forced to contribute an unequal tax burden than a State’s lazy and unproductive citizens, even though our Constitution specifically requires any direct tax upon individuals, requires apportionment ___ a rule which works out to be an equal per capita tax.

Like I have been saying for over thirty years, real tax reform begins with the following 32 words which are found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment:

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



Has anyone in this forum ever heard Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain. Eric Bolling, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, Juan Williams, Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto, John Stossel, Lou Dobbs, Charles Krauthammer, Tucker Carlson, Lisa Kennedy, or any media personality discuss our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxes or the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

JWK





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. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

[dannno]

It is not "tax reform". It is income tax manipulation which keeps alive the notoriously evil and arbitrary powers associated with the communist/socialist income tax. It is an ongoing attack on our free market system and allows our Washington Swamp Creatures to use the power of taxation to subvert and undermine our nation's founding principles.

Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment!

Ya we all want the income tax to end, but I think we would also all prefer it to be lower than it is currently.

[Zippyjuan]

Step One: Fair Share Debt: Get rid of the debt. Take debt divide by number of people in the country- that is your bill. You are responsible for it plus any interest it may incur. $20 trillion. Send your $60,000,000 to the US Treasury, Washington DC. This will free future generations from this problem.

Next- Fair Share balanced budget. Current is $4 trillion. Send your $12,000 to the US Treasury, Washington, DC.

Now I realize that most of you owed little to no taxes last year, but this is the only fair way to do things! Everybody pays the same regardless of assets or income. You only made $12,000 last year? Too bad. Send it in. We need that money more than you do. Real tax reform that everybody can support and so easy you can do it on a single post card! Think of all the time and money you will save by getting rid of all those complex forms we currently have!

[johnwk]

Ya we all want the income tax to end, but I think we would also all prefer it to be lower than it is currently.

What are you talking about? 45% of our population pay no income tax! How "low" can you go? That 45% have a vested interest in voting for communists, socialists, progressives, "liberals", and anyone who promises to keep their free government cheese coming.


JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Republican/Democrat Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has produced.

[johnwk]

.

See Our abominable income tax system
By Ken Hoagland Published April 15, 2015 Fox News

”Taxing income itself was originally specifically banned by the Founding Fathers as immoral. Only the ratification of the 16th amendment in February 1913 allowed our federal government to legally apportion direct taxes. The legislation itself began as a dare to Congressional Republicans, many of whom who voted for it believing states would never ratify such an expansion of federal powers.”

Contrary to the above mentioned article, our original Constitution actually required, and still requires to this very date that “direct taxes” are to be apportioned. See Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . “

The first apportioned direct tax was laid 1798, well before 1913. See, the Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 which imposed an apportioned direct tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

It should also be emphasized that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that “direct taxes” are still, in spite of the 16th Amendment, 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. 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 “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


And let us not forget what Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called "The shared responsibility payment". He wrote: ”"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

Perhaps someday FoxNews will have someone on to clear up many of the misconceptions and myths concerning the rule of apportionment, direct taxes, and explain why the Founders were united in requiring “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States.”

JWK​

[Sonny Tufts]

”Taxing income itself was originally specifically banned by the Founding Fathers as immoral."

What ignorant nonsense. There's nothing in the original Constitution forbidding income taxation. To the contrary, it banned the taxation of only one thing: exports.

It should also be emphasized that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that “direct taxes” are still, in spite of the 16th Amendment, still required to be apportioned!

SCOTUS has also repeatedly confirmed that the only direct taxes under the Constitution requiring apportionment are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property. The income tax is neither of these.

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.

Because the Court felt that a stock dividend wasn't income in the first place.

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an "excise" tax. but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Bromley's definition of an excise is exceedingly broad and is clearly broad enough to encompass an income tax:

...this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.

Under this definition it's obvious that a tax on income, regardless of the kind of income involved, is an excise that needn't be apportioned, as it's a tax on the exercise of a power over property -- i.e., its receipt. As the Court said in a later case, "If the gift of property may be taxed we cannot say that there is any want of constitutional power to tax the receipt of it, whether as the result of inheritance [citation omitted], or otherwise, whatever name may be given to the tax... Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property." Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 353 (1945).

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
”Taxing income itself was originally specifically banned by the Founding Fathers as immoral."

What ignorant nonsense. There's nothing in the original Constitution forbidding income taxation. To the contrary, it banned the taxation of only one thing: exports.

What is disingenuous as well as “ignorant” is your suggestion that the words you quoted are my conclusion. In fact the words are those of the author of the article which you omitted from your post.

Having said that, your misunderstanding of our Constitution does not advance your conclusion that our original Constitution did not ban Congress from taxing “income”. In fact, taxing “income” was banned by the limited taxing powers granted to Congress. There is no provision in our original Congress granting a power to Congress to tax “income”.

Try reading our Constitution someday and study its documented legislative intent, before posting your personal opinions concerning the meaning of our Constitution.

JWK

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
It should also be emphasized that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that “direct taxes” are still, in spite of the 16th Amendment, still required to be apportioned!

SCOTUS has also repeatedly confirmed that the only direct taxes under the Constitution requiring apportionment are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property. The income tax is neither of these.

My statement is factual. Direct taxes are still, to this day, required to be apportioned. As to the claim that the only direct taxes under our Constitution are “capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property”, that assertion is not sustainable when researching historical fact, and researching what were considered to be “direct taxes” during the time period our Constitution was being framed.

To broaden you knowledge, you may want to research the Stamp Act of 1765 which was considered to be a direct tax because it was levied internally by the British Parliament as opposed to being a tax levied on imports.

Additionally, a wealth based tax was also considered to be a direct tax, and then there was a “poll” or “head” tax which in some instances was also called and “income tax”. Likewise, “general assessments” were also considered to be a “direct tax”. And in the Wealth Of Nations, we find a tax imposed on the wages of labor was contemporarily considered to be a “direct tax”.


Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says:

'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, 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.'

But it is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical contemporary documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, there is one thing I can say with certainty. Taxes considered to be direct were those assessed to the individual by government such as a poll tax, head tax, a tax upon property, while indirect taxes were costs added by government to things and activities which individuals were free to acquired or reject.

For example, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)



JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

What is disingenuous as well as “ignorant” is your suggestion that the words you quoted are my conclusion. In fact the words are those of the author of the article which you omitted from your post.

There was no such suggestion. Note the quotation marks around the statement, which mean that you were quoting someone else. Had the words been your own there would have been no quotation marks.

Having said that, your misunderstanding of our Constitution does not advance your conclusion that our original Constitution did not ban Congress from taxing “income”. In fact, taxing “income” was banned by the limited taxing powers granted to Congress. There is no provision in our original Congress granting a power to Congress to tax “income”.

There is no specific language granting Congress the power to tax anything in particular, so by your reasoning it had no authority to enact the whiskey and carriage taxes in 1791 and 1794, respectively, since whiskey and carriages aren't mentioned in the Constitution. The Framers knew how to prohibit Congress from taxing something, as they specified with respect to exports. Incomes weren't included in the ban.

Try reading our Constitution someday

I suggest you read it and see if you can discover any language that even remotely suggests that the taxing power in I.8.1 didn't extend to incomes.

[Sonny Tufts]

To broaden you knowledge, you may want to research the Stamp Act of 1765 which was considered to be a direct tax because it was levied internally by the British Parliament as opposed to being a tax levied on imports.

You are making the unsupported assumption that the Framers intended to adopt the British definition of a direct tax into the Constitution.

Additionally, a wealth based tax was also considered to be a direct tax, and then there was a “poll” or “head” tax which in some instances was also called and “income tax”. Likewise, “general assessments” were also considered to be a “direct tax”. And in the Wealth Of Nations, we find a tax imposed on the wages of labor was contemporarily considered to be a “direct tax”.

No argument about wealth taxes or poll taxes -- they are both direct taxes, as the former is a tax on the ownership of property and the latter is a capitation. But we've already addressed the error in construing Smith as saying that an income tax is a capitation. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ower-top-rates

Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says:

'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, 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.'

Fine. An income tax is none of these, so by Hamilton's definition it is an indirect tax. This was pointed out by SCOTUS in the Springer case, in which it upheld the Civil War income tax against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax:

He [Hamilton] suggests that... direct taxes be held to be only '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.'

The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error. Springer v. U.S., 102 586 (1880)

there is one thing I can say with certainty. Taxes considered to be direct were those assessed to the individual by government such as a poll tax, head tax, a tax upon property, while indirect taxes were costs added by government to things and activities which individuals were free to acquired or reject.

An income tax is neither a poll tax nor a property tax.

[johnwk]

An income tax is neither a poll tax nor a property tax.

Give it a freaken break. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread? The subject is tax reform, not your nonsensical personal views about what an "income tax" is.


You really do have a knack for ignoring the subject of the thread.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

Give it a freaken break. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread?

About as much as your posts #10 and 11.

You really do have a knack for ignoring the subject of the thread.

As you have one for ignoring the law.

[johnwk]

About as much as your posts #10 and 11.



As you have one for ignoring the law.

What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread? The subject is tax reform,

[Sonny Tufts]

Does President Trump’s tax reform end unequal direct taxation and restore our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxation?

There is no federal direct tax currently in force.

Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”?

There will be winners and losers in any system of taxation, even one relying on capitations since there would inevitably be certain exemptions. Congress clearly has the constitutional authority to decide whether to raise revenue through direct or indirect taxes and to determine the tax base in either case. No matter what it chooses, some will win and some will lose, even under your "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment".

Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?

I don't recall that the IRS asks people to divulge their religious or political beliefs, sex lives, or other "most personal aspects of their private lives". Moreover, you have it backwards: the government's primary objective in taxation is to raise revenue, and asking for certain financial information is simply a means to that end.

[johnwk]

There is no federal direct tax currently in force.

Have you forgotten the "temporary victory tax" of 1943, which taxes the property every laboring class person has in the sale of their own labor, a temporary tax which is still in effect?


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

Have you forgotten the "temporary victory tax" of 1943, which taxes the property every laboring class person has in the sale of their own labor, a temporary tax which is still in effect?

An income tax on wages and personal earnings isn't a direct tax. If you don't like that answer, take it up with SCOTUS.

There is a huge difference between taxing the mere ownership of property (a direct tax) and taxing its receipt (an excise).

[johnwk]

.



See President Trump will head to Capitol Hill ahead of Senate tax reform vote


“We look forward to welcoming President Trump to the Senate again next Tuesday,” the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., announced in a statement today.


“This is a historic opportunity for our conference and the president to build on our momentum to give Americans the tax relief they’ve been waiting for,” he said.”


Unfortunately, President Trump is promoting the Republican swamp creatures cooked up “tax manipulation” of the socialist/communist inspired income tax, and it keeps alive this patently evil system of taxation which invites corruption, unequal taxation and allows members of Congress to pick winners and losers for a moderate campaign contribution from donors who represent special interests.


Real “tax reform” is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


President Trump is being played like a fiddle by our Washington Swamp Creatures when it comes to “tax reform”.


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

[DamianTV]

What? The engine is blown? I got an idea to fix it, lets fiddle with the distributor cap and adjust the timing even tho there is no fuel getting into the cylinders! Thats sure to fix it!

\facepalm

[johnwk]

What? The engine is blown? I got an idea to fix it, lets fiddle with the distributor cap and adjust the timing even tho there is no fuel getting into the cylinders! Thats sure to fix it!

\facepalm

It's all about the Swamp Creatures keeping their iron fist on the necks of the people and plundering the wealth which America's labor and businesses have produced.

JWK

[Zippyjuan]

It's all about the Swamp Creatures keeping their iron fist on the necks of the people and plundering the wealth which America's labor and businesses have produced.

JWK

Changing to a head tax will stop the Swamp Creatures from having their iron fists on the necks of the people and plundering their wealth?

[johnwk]

Changing to a head tax will stop the Swamp Creatures from having their iron fists on the necks of the people and plundering their wealth?

What on earth are you suggesting?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

What on earth are you suggesting?


JWK

It is what I understand your proposal is- a head tax. Take spending, divide it by the number of people (with each state acting as intermediary- collecting their "state share" and forwarding it on to the Feds) , and that is your tax bill. Or am I mistaken?

(was that all people? People over a certain age? People with jobs?- these make a huge difference in how much the tax per person would be).

However it is calculated, it would hit lower income people harder than high incomes- making wealth disparity worse.

"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.

[Zippyjuan]

Just to run some numbers based on my interpretation of you plan. The 2017 budget called for about $4 trillion in spending. You only allow for tariffs and duties to be collected.

"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."

Excise taxes and customs duties accounted for $150 billion in revenues (not enough to even pay the interest on the debt). That leaves $3.85 trillion to be collected since you do not allow debt to be carried over. US population is 330 million. That leaves about $12,000 to be collected by the states from each person- regardless of age, income or assets. A family of four would owe $48,000. If the family earned $50,000, they still owe $48,000 and have $2000 left for things like food and clothing and housing (median income is $59,000 a year). If they made $1 million, they still owe $48,000. The family is now broke while the rich person has lost little of what he had.

Or is it up to the states to decide how to tax the individuals to collect their share? That could mean income taxes which does not get rid of the income tax- merely changes who collects it meaning no real change in the current system- only adding a middle man.

[johnwk]

It is what I understand your proposal is- a head tax. Take spending, divide it by the number of people (with each state acting as intermediary- collecting their "state share" and forwarding it on to the Feds) , and that is your tax bill. Or am I mistaken?

(was that all people? People over a certain age? People with jobs?- these make a huge difference in how much the tax per person would be).

However it is calculated, it would hit lower income people harder than high incomes- making wealth disparity worse.

Your selective reading is misleading. Now read SECTIONS 2 and 4


JWK

[johnwk]

Just to run some numbers based on my interpretation of you plan. The 2017 budget called for about $4 trillion in spending. You only allow for tariffs and duties to be collected.

Did you intentionally omit internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption?



"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 apportioned tax to be laid.


<sub>I can see your object is to misdirect and confuse, and not to have an intelligent discussion. But that has always been your game in this forum.


JWK</sub>

[johnwk]

Just to run some numbers .

Your numbers are irrelevant, especially the amount your assert is to be raised. You ignore the fact each State's Congressional Delegation would be encouraged under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment to reduce spending in order to avoid having to impose the apportioned direct tax to extinguish an annual deficit, under which circumstances each Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill which would deplete their own state treasury or force their own Governor and State Legislature to raise additional taxes and then transfer that revenue into the Treasury of the United States. And this is the moment of accountability which our Washington Sewer Creatures in Congress fear with a passion ... as they would be held accountable for not living within the revenue raised from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes

JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

each State's Congressional Delegation would be encouraged under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment to reduce spending in order to avoid having to impose the apportioned direct tax to extinguish an annual deficit, under which circumstances each Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill which would deplete their own state treasury or force their own Governor and State Legislature to raise additional taxes and then transfer that revenue into the Treasury of the United States.

You're incredibly naïve to believe that it would be easier for the congressional delegations to agree to slash federal spending to the bone than it would be to tell the state legislatures to come up with revenue-raising measures to replace the federal taxes their citizens no longer have to pay. I can hear it now:

Senator: Sorry, Governor, we've decided to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and most other federal programs. And oh, yes, that military base with its 20,000 civilian jobs is being axed, and that plant that manufactures fighters for the Air Force will have to close. But hey, that's your problem.

It's a certainty that any senator or representative who voted to cut federal spending down to the point that it could be covered by imposts, duties, and excises (other than the income tax, which is a type of excise) would soon be out of a job.