Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 105

Thread: Republican party-line is tax manipulation not tax reform

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    I provided the founder's stated intentions in posts 44 and 46. They certainly did not intend to allow Congress to give financial preferences to one state over another. You can ignore their stated intentions all you want, but there they are and they contradict your opinions.

    We are not talking about building "lighthouses" or forts or other military installations... a legitimate function of our Federal Government. We are talking about our federal government handing out large sums of money from the federal treasury to the States. Read the Constitution:

    "...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"


    JWK




    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)




    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Be specific. ....

    I have been very clear. You wish to ignore my clarity and the expressed intentions of our founders. Have fun arguing with yourself. And when you are done, return to posts 44 and 46 and study our founders' clear intentions.


    JWK



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    I have been very clear. You wish to ignore my clarity and the expressed intentions of our founders. Have fun arguing with yourself. And when you are done, return to posts 44 and 46 and study our founders' clear intentions.
    Can't explain the Senate, can you? The founder's' intentions as expressed in the language of the Constitution are clear: direct taxes are the only things that must ne subject to the rule of apportionment. Nothing else.
    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

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Can't explain the Senate, can you? The founder's' intentions as expressed in the language of the Constitution are clear: direct taxes are the only things that must ne subject to the rule of apportionment. Nothing else.

    Nothing? And what about Representatives?




    JWK

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Under Congress' power to lay a direct tax Congrerss first determines a total sum needed and then determines each state's share by the rule of apportionment.

    For an actual example to levy a direct tax see The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 in which a direct tax was laid upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.


    JWK
    Yes, those are taxes on people and therefore "direct".
    My proposal is a tax on the states not the people, I do not believe it to be "direct", do you think it is "direct"?
    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



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, those are taxes on people and therefore "direct".
    My proposal is a tax on the states not the people, I do not believe it to be "direct", do you think it is "direct"?

    There is a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. Your proposal appears to be a tax assessed to the individual states which indicates it would be a direct tax and requiring apportionment.


    JWK

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    There is a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. Your proposal appears to be a tax assessed to the individual states which indicates it would be a direct tax and requiring apportionment.


    JWK
    If that is the definition of a direct tax then my idea would require an amendment, however I would dispute that a tax on a state that then taxes it's citizens is direct, I don't think the founders contemplated such a tax so they would not have considered it either direct or indirect simply for lack of considering it at all.
    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

  9. #67

    Direct tax of 1798 and each State's share of the tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If that is the definition of a direct tax then my idea would require an amendment, however I would dispute that a tax on a state that then taxes it's citizens is direct, I don't think the founders contemplated such a tax so they would not have considered it either direct or indirect simply for lack of considering it at all.


    I'm not sure what you mean by a direct tax on the states. Aside from that our founders did contemplate a "direct tax" levied upon the States and used it a number of times in our nation's history. Below is a link to the first direct tax upon the states and the apportioned share each state was obligated to pay.


    See: DIRECT TAX OF 1798

    JWK

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by a direct tax on the states. Aside from that our founders did contemplate a "direct tax" levied upon the States and used it a number of times in our nation's history. Below is a link to the first direct tax upon the states and the apportioned share each state was obligated to pay.


    See: DIRECT TAX OF 1798

    JWK
    OK, they would consider it a direct tax, so an amendment is required.

    I think we should get such an amendment and use it to repeal the income tax amendment at the same time.
    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

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    OK, they would consider it a direct tax, so an amendment is required.

    I think we should get such an amendment and use it to repeal the income tax amendment at the same time.
    An amendment for what?

    JWK

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    An amendment for what?

    JWK
    For my cash-flow tax on the states to be constitutional.
    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

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    For my cash-flow tax on the states to be constitutional.
    I have no idea what you are talking about when you write "cash-flow tax on the states". You have not given any details.


    JWK

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    I have no idea what you are talking about when you write "cash-flow tax on the states". You have not given any details.


    JWK
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    One option I like is a Federal tax on STATE cash-flow, all collection from citizens is localized and "tax and spend" is discouraged.
    I mean that the cash-flow of the states would be taxed at X% instead of the income tax on citizens and companies.
    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



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    There is a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.
    The original understanding of "direct taxes" as used in the Constitution was limited to capitations and taxes on land, as reflected in the 1795 Hylton case, upholding the Carriage Tax of 1794. Under current law the only direct taxes are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of real and personal property.
    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

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I mean that the cash-flow of the states would be taxed at X% instead of the income tax on citizens and companies.
    Cash-flow?


    JWK

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The original understanding of "direct taxes" as used in the Constitution was limited to capitations and taxes on land, as reflected in the 1795 Hylton case, upholding the Carriage Tax of 1794.

    Your opinion is noted but is not in harmony with historical facts.


    The fact is, there is a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. For example, in Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which you mention, he 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.'


    The question to be answered is, what are the characteristics which define a "direct tax" . The answer to that is: . . . direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.



    JWK
    Last edited by johnwk; 10-23-2017 at 05:56 AM.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Your opinion is noted but is not in harmony with historical facts.
    It is consistent with Hylton, decided just 8 years after the ratification of the Constitution and involving justices who were directly involved with its drafting.

    Moreover, indirect taxes have never been confined to "costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject". For example, legacy taxes on the transmission of property at death (first imposed by Congress in 1797) were always considered indirect, even though it's obvious death can't be avoided.

    The quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton case is inconsistent with the notion that indirect taxes are only those that can be avoided. Under his view direct taxes are confined to capitations and property taxes, and all other taxes are indirect regardless of whether they can be avoided. Hamilton's brief was cited with approval in Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880), upholding the Civil War era income tax as an indirect 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

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It is consistent with Hylton, decided just 8 years after the ratification of the Constitution and involving justices who were directly involved with its drafting.

    Moreover, indirect taxes have never been confined to "costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject". For example, legacy taxes on the transmission of property at death (first imposed by Congress in 1797) were always considered indirect, even though it's obvious death can't be avoided.

    The quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton case is inconsistent with the notion that indirect taxes are only those that can be avoided. Under his view direct taxes are confined to capitations and property taxes, and all other taxes are indirect regardless of whether they can be avoided. Hamilton's brief was cited with approval in Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880), upholding the Civil War era income tax as an indirect tax.


    You are avoiding an answer to the question. The question to be answered is, what are the characteristics which define a "direct tax" . The answer to that is: . . . direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.


    JWK

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Cash-flow?


    JWK
    All money collected and spent.
    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

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    All money collected and spent.
    All money collected and spent by a state? Would there be any other federal taxes? And what is the advantage of allowing Congress to exercise such an over bearing and oppressive power? What is its advantage over our founders' apportioned direct tax upon the states, which allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way? What is the principle upon which your "cash flow" tax is based? For example, our founders principle with regard to direct taxation was representation with a proportional financial obligation with regard to any direct tax laid upon the states.

    JWK

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    All money collected and spent by a state?
    In case you don't understand: all money collected and spent by each state would be taxed at X%

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Would there be any other federal taxes?
    No other taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    And what is the advantage of allowing Congress to exercise such an over bearing and oppressive power? What is its advantage over our founders' apportioned direct tax upon the states, which allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way? What is the principle upon which your "cash flow" tax is based? For example, our founders principle with regard to direct taxation was representation with a proportional financial obligation with regard to any direct tax laid upon the states.

    JWK
    The idea is to reward low tax and low spending states while collecting the federal government's required money at the local level and eliminating ALL federal collection mechanisms.

    Each state would collect it's taxes how it liked and in whatever quantity it liked, then a percentage would be given to the feds proportionate to that states economic strength modified by it's tax rates.

    Besides reducing their share by lowering their taxes and spending states could also lower their share by shifting their taxes and spending to the local level.
    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



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post

    The idea is to reward low tax and low spending states .

    How do you think your proposal would affect the building and maintaining of a State's infrastructure, its police and fire departments and other functions for which the Citizens of each state have created a state government with power to tax for these functions? Your idea seems to be a recipe to discourage and punish states for carrying out their legitimate functions.

    What are your objections, if any, to our Constitution's original tax plan?


    JWK

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    How do you think your proposal would affect the building and maintaining of a State's infrastructure, its police and fire departments and other functions for which the Citizens of each state have created a state government with power to tax for these functions? Your idea seems to be a recipe to discourage and punish states for carrying out their legitimate functions.
    They would be encouraged to reduce taxes and spending OR to shift them to local governments that are more responsible to their voters.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What are your objections, if any, to our Constitution's original tax plan?
    Poorer states are required to pay as much per citizen as richer states, richer states feel free to increase federal taxes and spending since they are hurt less than the poorer states.


    CORRECTION: under my plan tariffs would also be allowed.
    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

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They would be encouraged to reduce taxes and spending .


    And that idea would encourage the states to cut back on financing and taxing for legitimate government functions since your tax increases the cost of these expenditures.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post

    Originally Posted by johnwk
    What are your objections, if any, to our Constitution's original tax plan?
    Poorer states are required to pay as much per citizen as richer states, richer states feel free to increase federal taxes and spending since they are hurt less than the poorer states.

    The only time the apportioned tax is to be used is when imposts, duties and internal excise taxes are found insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures, and a deficit occurs in which case it is to be extinguished with the apportioned tax ___ a tax which is equal if laid upon the people directly. However, each state is left free to raise its share in its own chose way.

    The principle behind this tax is "representation with a proportional financial obligation". The larger a state's representation is in Congress when spending federal revenue, the bigger is its share of the direct tax.


    Why do you reject "representation with a proportional financial obligation" when indirect taxation is found insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures? Would it not encourage each state's congressional delegation, especially the larger states, to act fiscally responsible while in Congress assembled to avoid bringing home a direct tax bill which its own state's legislature and governor would have to deal with?


    JWK

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    And that idea would encourage the states to cut back on financing and taxing for legitimate government functions since your tax increases the cost of these expenditures.
    OR to shift them to local governments that are more responsible to their voters.
    Besides the part you ignored there is this question: Since when have governments ever needed to be encouraged to tax and spend? The problem is to discourage them and my idea does that.




    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    The only time the apportioned tax is to be used is when imposts, duties and internal excise taxes are found insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures, and a deficit occurs in which case it is to be extinguished with the apportioned tax ___ a tax which is equal if laid upon the people directly. However, each state is left free to raise its share in its own chose way.

    The principle behind this tax is "representation with a proportional financial obligation". The larger a state's representation is in Congress when spending federal revenue, the bigger is its share of the direct tax.


    Why do you reject "representation with a proportional financial obligation" when indirect taxation is found insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures? Would it not encourage each state's congressional delegation, especially the larger states, to act fiscally responsible while in Congress assembled to avoid bringing home a direct tax bill which its own state's legislature and governor would have to deal with?
    If it is merely a backup to my plan or a sales tax/VAT and tariffs then I would not object.
    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

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    OR to shift them to local governments that are more responsible to their voters.
    Besides the part you ignored there is this question: Since when have governments ever needed to be encouraged to tax and spend? The problem is to discourage them and my idea does that.
    Your idea, as I previously pointed out, would encourage state governments to cut back on financing and taxing for legitimate state government functions, since your tax increases the cost of these expenditures. Are you saying your idea would not increase the cost of state government functions?


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post




    Originally Posted by johnwk
    The only time the apportioned tax is to be used is when imposts, duties and internal excise taxes are found insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures, and a deficit occurs in which case it is to be extinguished with the apportioned tax ___ a tax which is equal if laid upon the people directly. However, each state is left free to raise its share in its own chose way.

    The principle behind this tax is "representation with a proportional financial obligation". The larger a state's representation is in Congress when spending federal revenue, the bigger is its share of the direct tax.


    Why do you reject "representation with a proportional financial obligation" when indirect taxation is found insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures? Would it not encourage each state's congressional delegation, especially the larger states, to act fiscally responsible while in Congress assembled to avoid bringing home a direct tax bill which its own state's legislature and governor would have to deal with?

    If it is merely a backup to my plan or a sales tax/VAT and tariffs then I would not object.

    I have repeatedly pointed out our Constitution's direct apportioned tax was intended to only be used if and when indirect taxes [imposts, duties and excise taxes] were found insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures. See POST NUMBER 37 for the details.


    JWK

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Your idea, as I previously pointed out, would encourage state governments to cut back on financing and taxing for legitimate state government functions, since your tax increases the cost of these expenditures. Are you saying your idea would not increase the cost of state government functions?
    It would not if those functions were shifted to local governments, obviously part of the point of my plan is to disincetivise taxing and spending by the states, they do too much of it.
    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. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It would not if those functions were shifted to local governments, obviously part of the point of my plan is to disincetivise taxing and spending by the states, they do too much of it.
    So, your idea is to change the very characteristics of our system of government and alter the functions of state governments.


    Getting back to the subject of the thread, do you agree our Republican Party Leadership is not offering tax reform? It is offering tax manipulation in order to keep the evil powers attached to income taxation?


    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)

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, your idea is to change the very characteristics of our system of government and alter the functions of state governments.
    No, just influence their behavior.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Getting back to the subject of the thread, do you agree our Republican Party Leadership is not offering tax reform? It is offering tax manipulation in order to keep the evil powers attached to income taxation?
    What they are offering is totally insufficient, even if we wanted to keep the graduated income tax they are merely tinkering with it, in no way are they trying to fix the 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



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Why don't we quit sending money to countries that burn our flag? Why are we paying companies to build houses in flood zones? Why does our country hate themselves, why do so many people want to watch the country burn?



  35. #90

    President Trump's phony tax reform

    Well, now that the Republican “tax reform” plan has been made public, it turns out I was spot on. The Republican Party Leadership, and that includes President Trump, never had any intention to propose tax reform. What is offered is nothing more than tax manipulation ___ a continuation of manipulating taxes calculated from incomes, and keeping alive all the powers associated with this patently evil and arbitrary system of taxation.


    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!


    I could go on and on about Trump's phony tax reform but the sad truth is, 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.


    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”?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Republican Governors Buck Party Line on Raising Taxes
    By Suzanimal in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-27-2015, 05:20 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-07-2012, 05:04 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 10:17 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-23-2007, 08:03 PM
  5. John Zogby on the Republican Line-up
    By wgadget in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-26-2007, 06:55 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
  •