Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 105

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

  1. #31
    The Heritage Foundation's take: http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report...the-us-economy


    Murray Rothbard: https://mises.org/library/value-added-tax-not-answer

    It is now easy to see the enthusiasm of the federal government and its economic advisers for the new scheme for a VAT. It allows the government to extract many more funds from the public — to bring about higher prices, lower production, and lower incomes — and yet totally escape the blame, which can easily be loaded on business, unions, or the consumer as the particular administration sees fit.
    Less paperwork for companies- or more?

    But the VAT is in many ways far worse than a sales tax, apart from its hidden and clandestine nature. In the first place, the VAT advocates claim that since each firm and stage of production will pay in proportion to its "value added" to production, there will be no misallocation effects along the way.

    But this ignores the fact that every business firm will be burdened by the cost of innumerable record keeping and collection for the government. The result will be an inexorable push of the business system toward "vertical mergers" and the reduction of competition.
    A further crucial flaw exists in the VAT, a flaw which will bring much grief to our economic system. Most people assume that such a tax will simply be passed on in higher prices to the consumer. But the process is not that simple. While, in the long run, prices to consumers will undoubtedly rise, there will be two other important effects: a large short-run reduction in business profits, and a long-run fall in wage incomes.

    The critical blow to profits, while perhaps only "short-run," will take place at a time of business recession, when many firms and industries are suffering from low profits and even from business losses. The low-profit firms and industries will be severely hit by the imposition of VAT, and the result will be to cripple any possible recovery and plunge us deeper into recession. Furthermore, new and creative firms, which usually begin small and with low profits, will be similarly crippled before they have scarcely begun.

    The VAT will also have a severe, and so far unacknowledged, effect in aggravating unemployment, which is already at a high recession rate. The grievous impact on unemployment will be twofold. In the first place, any firm that buys, say, machinery, can deduct the embodied VAT from its own tax liability; but if it hires workers, it can make no such deduction. The result will be to spur over-mechanization and the firing of laborers.

    Secondly, part of the long-run effect of VAT will be to lower the demand for labor and wage incomes; but since unions and the minimum-wage laws are able to keep wage rates up indefinitely, the impact will be a rise in unemployment. Thus, from two separate and compounding directions, VAT will aggravate an already serious unemployment problem.

    Hence, the American public will pay a high price indeed for the clandestine nature of the VAT. We will be mulcted of a large and increasing amount of funds, extracted in a hidden but no less burdensome manner, just at a time when the government seemed to have reached the limit of the tax burden that the people will allow. It will be funds that will aggravate the burdens on the already long-suffering average middle-class American. And to top it off, the VAT will cripple profits; injure competition, small business, and new creative firms; raise prices; and greatly aggravate unemployment. It will pit consumers against business, and intensify conflicts within society.
    He goes into more at the link.

    VAT hides the actual amounts you are paying in taxes.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 10-18-2017 at 04:27 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We are all doomed to economic collapse one way or another if we don't CUT SPENDING.
    But they won't do that. Both parties are not willing to reduce spending. And don't count on any new tax to replace old taxes- they will manage to become IN ADDITION to existing ones.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What if each State's Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill to extinguish an annual deficit which would be paid out of their own State's Treasury, and each State's share would be apportioned as its representation in Congress is apportioned? Would this not encourage each State's Congressional Delegation to avoid deficit spending?


    JWK
    I could live with it .

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The Heritage Foundation's take: http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report...the-us-economy


    Murray Rothbard: https://mises.org/library/value-added-tax-not-answer



    Less paperwork for companies- or more?





    He goes into more at the link.

    VAT hides the actual amounts you are paying in taxes.
    I could be convinced that a VAT was worse than a sales tax, that is why I always say "a sales tax/VAT".

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    But they won't do that. Both parties are not willing to reduce spending. And don't count on any new tax to replace old taxes- they will manage to become IN ADDITION to existing ones.
    We are discussing what should be done, what we will do if we ever gain power.
    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

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What if each State's Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill to extinguish an annual deficit which would be paid out of their own State's Treasury, and each State's share would be apportioned as its representation in Congress is apportioned? Would this not encourage each State's Congressional Delegation to avoid deficit spending?
    Not if a State gets more back from the federal government than it pays in federal taxes. This can vary dramatically from state to state.
    See https://www.theatlantic.com/business...takers/361668/

    Admittedly, this analysis was based on current federal taxation, which isn't apportioned. But there's no guarantee that federal benefits would necessarily be proportional to population if taxes were apportioned.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 10-18-2017 at 04:57 PM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

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

  8. #36
    Tax reform would mean congress did their job and passed appropriations for all government spending. Only a reduction of spending would represent a tax cut for all, everything else is picking winners and losers because our government wont do appropriations for spending or any real spending cuts we will all be the losers of any fax tax cuts or revenue neutral reforms they try to push.




  9. #37

    Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    This is why we need a flat tax for every man, woman, and child in America. The quickest way to downsizing the government is to send the bill.
    I have no idea what you mean by a "flat tax". If it is a direct tax it needs to be apportioned. What are your objections, if any, to return to our Constitution's original tax plan by adopting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?



    Let us take a look at the wisdom and brilliance of our Founder's original tax plan which is proposed as follows.


    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 failed 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 a 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
    Last edited by johnwk; 10-19-2017 at 07:50 AM.

  10. #38

    Rule of apportionment also applies to revenue disbursed to the States

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Originally Posted by johnwk

    What if each State's Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill to extinguish an annual deficit which would be paid out of their own State's Treasury, and each State's share would be apportioned as its representation in Congress is apportioned? Would this not encourage each State's Congressional Delegation to avoid deficit spending?

    Not if a State gets more back from the federal government than it pays in federal taxes. This can vary dramatically from state to state.
    See https://www.theatlantic.com/business...takers/361668/

    The rule of apportionment was intended by our founders to also apply to revenue disbursed from the federal treasury to the states and is documented in an Act of Congress passed in June of 1836 when all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and the rule of apportionment was strictly applied!


    The fact is, the legislative intent of our Constitution would have to be violated to do what you suggest.


    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)
    Last edited by johnwk; 10-19-2017 at 07:49 AM.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    The rule of apportionment was intended by our founders to also apply to revenue disbursed from the federal treasury to the states
    What evidence do you have that this was the founders' intent? The Constitution certainly doesn't require that federal expenditures be made on an apportioned basis, and federal spending from 1787 on has never been on such a basis.

    The "refund" of 1836 was in actuality a loan by Congress to the States, since the Secretary of the Treasury could require the States to repay the money on an installment basis whenever the Secretary needed it to cover federal expenditures. In essence, the States were being used as banks to hold the excess revenue until needed by the federal government.
    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

  12. #40
    The fact is, there is very little the federal government should be doing directly for anyone. Fund that and let the states worry about the rest of it.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    One option I like is a Federal tax on STATE cash-flow, all collection from citizens is localized and "tax and spend" is discouraged.
    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. #42
    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.
    Exactly how would this work? If the federal tax would be collected from the States themselves, it would violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine and would be unconstitutional.
    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

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Exactly how would this work? If the federal tax would be collected from the States themselves, it would violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine and would be unconstitutional.
    Where does the constitution say that?

    If it does require an amendment then like the income tax we can pass one 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

  17. #44

    rule of apportionment prohibits preferences among the states created by Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    What evidence do you have that this was the founders' intent? The Constitution certainly doesn't require that federal expenditures be made on an apportioned basis, and federal spending from 1787 on has never been on such a basis.

    The "refund" of 1836 was in actuality a loan by Congress to the States....
    I provided a link and it proves the money was disbursed from the federal treasury to the states using the rule of apportionment. The fact is, apportionment dates back to the 1600s and our early English Colonies.

    Let us refresh our memory by reading part of the New England Confederation of 1643 _ an agreement among the first English Colonies on America soil.


    "It is by these Confederates agreed that the charge of all just wars, whether offensive or defensive, upon what part or member of this Confederation soever they fall, shall both in men, provisions and all other disbursements be borne by all the parts of this Confederation in different proportions according to their different ability in the manner following, namely, that the Commissioners for each Jurisdiction from time to time, as there shall be occasion, bring a true account and number of all their males in every Plantation, or any way belonging to or under their several Jurisdictions, of what quality or condition soever they be, from sixteen years old to threescore, being inhabitants there. And that according to the different numbers which from time to time shall be found in each Jurisdiction upon a true and just account, the service of men and all charges of the war be borne by the poll: each Jurisdiction or Plantation being left to their own just course and custom of rating themselves and people according to their different estates with due respects to their qualities and exemptions amongst themselves though the Confederation take no notice of any such privilege: and that according to their different charge of each Jurisdiction and Plantation the whole advantage of the war (if it please God so to bless their endeavors) whether it be in lands, goods, or persons, shall be proportionately divided among the said Confederates."


    Note a specific rule is established among the members of the Confederacy under which their treasury is filled by each member supplying “men, provisions and all other disbursements“. There is no allowance for the burden being selectively placed upon one member at the expense of the others.

    Now, let us review the Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781


    VIII.

    "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

    The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled."



    Again we find a specific rule by which the member States each agree to contribute into a common treasury, by the same rule and without exemption or preference.

    Now, looking at the Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787 we find:

    Art. 4. .

    "The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other States;"


    Again we see a specific rule for financial contributions being applied equally within the territory as is applied to all other States and without exception or preference!

    And now we get to our existing Constitution and we find a specific rule by which each member state agrees to carry an apportioned share of any financial burden which is levied among the States.

    Article 1, Section 2 Clause 3.

    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the Several States…

    OUR CONSTITUTION’S FAIR SHARE FORMULAS MAY BE EXPRESSED AS FOLLOWS:


    State`s Pop.
    ___________ X size of Congress (435) = State`s number of Representatives
    Pop. of U.S.


    State`s Pop.
    -------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF BURDEN
    U.S. Pop.


    We also find in our Constitution a specific intention expressed to forbid federal force being used to create unequal burdens by any “Regulation of Commerce”:

    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6

    "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another."


    And so, it is an irrefutable fact that the rule of apportionment was adopted to insure federal power could not be used to place a disproportionate burden upon one state or several states to the advantage of another state or states, which is exactly what happens today when the rule of apportionment is ignored.

    In fact the Founder’s intentions for equality among the states with reference to federal power were eloquently stated by Representative John Page on February 7th 1792 while speaking before the House of Representatives:

    "The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” see Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative John Page LINK

    And as I previously pointed out, our Founders also applied the same rule of apportionment in the disbursement of federal revenue to the States, when all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and the rule of apportionment was strictly applied, and is documented in an Act of Congress passed in June of 1836 LINK


    And what has the Supreme Court stated in regard to the rule of apportionment?


    "The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made"___ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601


    The undeniable truth is, the rule of apportionment was intentionally adopted to set a rule to prevent Congress from giving preference to one state over another.


    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)

  18. #45

  19. #46

    History and facts are not your friend

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post


    Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
    One option I like is a Federal tax on STATE cash-flow, all collection from citizens is localized and "tax and spend" is discouraged.
    Exactly how would this work? If the federal tax would be collected from the States themselves, it would violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine and would be unconstitutional.
    Your absurd comments are made to intentionally deflect.

    An example showing our founder's intentions to allow a direct tax upon the states can be found in several of our Constitution’s ratification documents, such as the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:

    Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from …….


    The fact is a direct tax was laid upon the states a number of times in our nation's history, e. g., see Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

    And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

    Let us also review some of our founder’s thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:


    Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

    And see:

    “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

    Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

    “The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

    JWK


    Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    FTFY
    What you did was post an adolescent comment which you thought would be cute. GROW UP!





    JWK




    American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.


  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Your absurd comments are made to intentionally deflect.

    An example showing our founder's intentions to allow a direct tax upon the states can be found in several of our Constitution’s ratification documents, such as the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:

    Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from …….


    The fact is a direct tax was laid upon the states a number of times in our nation's history, e. g., see Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

    And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

    Let us also review some of our founder’s thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:


    Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

    And see:

    “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

    Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

    “The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

    JWK


    Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get
    My idea might require an amendment since it is not apportioned, but is a tax on a state a "direct" tax? Wouldn't that mean a tax on the people, while a tax on the state would be indirect?
    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. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    I provided a link and it proves the money was disbursed from the federal treasury to the states using the rule of apportionment.
    So what? It wasn't a true refund, and it provides no support for the notion that federal expenditures must be apportioned (it wasn't even an expenditure). The rest of your cites address only apportionment of direct taxes, not apportionment of expenditures.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    We also find in our Constitution a specific intention expressed to forbid federal force being used to create unequal burdens by any “Regulation of Commerce”:

    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6

    "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another."

    And so, it is an irrefutable fact that the rule of apportionment was adopted to insure federal power could not be used to place a disproportionate burden upon one state or several states to the advantage of another state or states, which is exactly what happens today when the rule of apportionment is ignored.
    The cited provision doesn't mean Congress must spend money in the States according to population. It doesn't even mean Congress can't do things that benefit one port and disadvantage another:

    The clause of the Constitution invoked is: 'No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.' The specified limitations on the power of Congress were set to prevent preference as between states in respect of their ports or the entry and clearance of vessels. It does not forbid such discriminations as between ports. Congress, acting under the commerce clause, causes many things to be done that greatly benefit particular ports and which incidentally result to the disadvantage of other ports in the same or neighboring states. The establishing of ports of entry, erection and operation of lighthouses, improvement of rivers and harbors, and the providing of structures for the convenient and economical handling of traffic, are examples. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Texas & N.O.R. Co., 284 U.S. 125, 131 (1931)
    There is nothing in what you posted that would support the notion that expenditures (as opposed to direct taxes) must be apportioned. Moreover, since it is clear that excises, imposts, and duties need not be apportioned but must only be geographically uniform and since all of the current federal revenue comes from these non-direct taxes, why in the world would you think that expenditures need to be apportioned, even if there were some textual support in the Constitution (which there isn't)?
    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

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Your absurd comments are made to intentionally deflect.
    And your asinine response simply demonstrates you didn't understand what the proposed tax on State cash flow really was: an unapportioned tax on the States.
    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

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    And your asinine response simply demonstrates you didn't understand what the proposed tax on State cash flow really was: an unapportioned tax on the States.
    But is a tax on a state a "direct" tax?
    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

  26. #52
    Cash flow taxes are basically value added taxes. If a company sells something, they are taxed on the money they received for that good or service. If they purchase supplies from a supplier, they pay taxes on that transaction (and the company they bought the supplies from are also taxed on the same transaction). State cash flow taxes tax the state on every dollar they collect in taxes or receive in fees or from whatever source as well as every dollar they spend. The citizens of the state would have their taxes raised to pay for the money the state pays to the federal government.

    Every time a dollar changes hands, the Federal Government would get a piece of it. It would lead to higher prices (and help hid actual taxes paid).
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 10-19-2017 at 05:26 PM.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Cash flow taxes are basically value added taxes. If a company sells something, they are taxed on the money they received for that good or service. If they purchase supplies from a supplier, they pay taxes on that transaction (and the company they bought the supplies from are also taxed on the same transaction). State cash flow taxes tax the state on every dollar they collect in taxes or receive in fees or from whatever source as well as every dollar they spend. The citizens of the state would have their taxes raised to pay for the money the state pays to the federal government.

    Every time a dollar changes hands, the Federal Government would get a piece of it. It would lead to higher prices (and help hid actual taxes paid).
    Only transactions taxed by that state would be affected, not all states tax everything, and any higher prices would be offset by the federal tax elimination, no taxes would be hidden and the local more easily influenced government would be held responsible.
    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

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What you did was post an adolescent comment which you thought would be cute. GROW UP!
    When I take property from my neighbor and give it to my sister that's not theft either then right? When I print money and devalue the currency that's not theft right? When I crash the housing market and sell your house to a bank for pennies on the dollar after it forecloses thats not theft right? When I start a war and arm both sides of it profiting off both sides thats not theft right? GROW UP!

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    But is a tax on a state a "direct" tax?
    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

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post



    There is nothing in what you posted that would support the notion that expenditures (as opposed to direct taxes) must be apportioned.



    We are talking about Congress giving financial preferences to one state over another. Post 44 and 46 documents our founder's intentions.



    JWK
    Last edited by johnwk; 10-20-2017 at 06:37 AM.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...ugh...quibbling about a dead, debauched 'constitution' again!!..[i certainly would not have signed the great con., would you?]

    ...how about issuing 'debt-free money' through a COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT, LOGICAL, etc., 'public treasury' as opposed to private, secret-squirrel banksters controlling the issuance of money through the COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT, INSANE, INTOLERABLE, etc., banking practice of 'fractional reserve deposit creation' through which said banksters acquire interest-bearing government bond$ [and nearly everything else] FOR NOTHING?

    ...[republicrat-level slave mentality abound$...ugh...]

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    We are talking about Congress giving financial preferences to one state over another. Post 44 and 46 documents our founder's intentions.
    Again, they only addressed the raising of revenue, not its expenditure. If the Framers had intended expenditures to be made on an apportioned basis don't you think that they would have expressed such an important principle in the Constitution?

    Good grief, do you really think that if Congress builds a $2 million lighthouse in Maine it must also spend $2 million on something in New Hampshire (similar population), $60 million for something in California (30 times Maine's population), and so on for things in the other states even though nothing in particular is needed in the other states? Requiring apportionment of expenditures would force Congress to spend money needlessly.
    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

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post


    We are talking about Congress giving financial preferences to one state over another. Post 44 and 46 documents our founder's intentions.



    JWK

    Again, they only addressed the raising of revenue, not its expenditure. ....

    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)
    Last edited by johnwk; 10-20-2017 at 08:57 AM.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.
    Be specific. What sort of grants are you talking about? Are you conceding that when Congress spends money on matters it has specific authority over under Article I, Section 8 it needn't do so on an apportioned basis?

    You will also need to explain why, if the rule of apportionment was intended to apply to expenditures as well as to direct taxes, the form of government crafted by the Framers included the Senate, which isn't based on population and which assures that States with smaller populations will have a disproportionate influence over spending legislation, resulting in expenditures that are clearly disproportionate to population (as evidenced by the article I linked to earlier).
    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

Page 2 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
  •