Thread: Massive tax package offers breaks for just about everyone

Originally Posted by Judy

I'm not enamored with the concept of "fair share" of anything. That is a socialist/communist notion.

You disagree with our Constitution's rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and any general tax laid among the states to be based upon a State's population size? If so why?


JWK

Originally Posted by Judy

HR 25 is the repeal of the Internal Revenue Act and the elimination of all income-based taxes that replaces this revenue with a national retail sales tax. Did you not know that HR 25 eliminates the income tax and replaces it with a national retail sales tax?

Did you know only a constitutional amendment can "repeal" Congress' taxing powers? H.R. 25 would repeal squat!

JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." ...Jefferson

Getting back to the subject of the thread see: WH Praises Spending Deal With GOP Congress: 'We Succeeded'


December 17, 2015


“(CNSNews.com) - The White House objects to a few Republican provisions in the omnibus $1.1-trillion spending bill, but overall, "We succeeded," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday.

"So we walked into these negotiations focused on making sure that Republicans would not succeed in advancing their ideological agenda through the budgetary process, and I think, based on all of the solid reporting work that you have done over the last several weeks, there were a variety of attempts that Republicans undertook\ to try to do exactly that, and we did succeed in fighting off those efforts.”


Hopefully voters will get rid of Paul Ryan this coming election and every Republican or Democrat who supports this plundering of America’s treasury.


JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

CLICK HERE for the list of Republicans who voted for Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House and gave the Chamber of Commerce, the Club for Growth and Obama exactly who they wanted as speaker of the House.

JWK




Members of Congress who supported Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House supported our Global Governance Crowd and their FAST TRACK, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and the Pacific Rim deal, each of which are used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

Originally Posted by Judy

We need to pass the FairTax Act of 2015 and end this disastrous income-based tax system that pits businesses against citizens and consumers and allows foreign interests and globalists to buy up our politicians over tax issues.

HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

Make it happen or live quietly with the consequences.

Trump has a pretty good tax plan too.

Originally Posted by johnwk

You disagree with our Constitution's rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and any general tax laid among the states to be based upon a State's population size? If so why?


JWK

I do not disagree with the Constitution on apportionment. But the apportionment method was in conjunction with the tariff method so that the apportionment method would be used rarely for shortfalls, emergencies or special situations, not on a regular normal basis, and never as the primary method and regular source of revenue for the federal government. The tariff revenue was intended to take care of regular annual revenue to fund government and pay for its operations.

And this worked fine until 1913 when the Democrats wanted to commence the notion of "free trade" and reduce tariffs dramatically, this plan on tariff reductions which were to the benefit of other countries, not ours nation or our producers, quite the opposite, there was oh guess what? A shortfall. So the Democrats needed another source to offset the lost tariff revenue. At the same time Democrats wanted to establish the Federal Reserve central banking system, and in order to print money and guarantee that the Government has the revenue to pay back the Federal Reserve Banks, they needed a mandatory federal tax, and that's why we have a mandatory income tax, which was unconstitutional, so the Democrats pushed through the 16th Amendment.

Now imagine. In less than 7 months, mid April to the end of October, the US Democratically controlled Congress under Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, they:

1. called a Special Session of Congress

2. reduced tariffs creating a dramatic shortfall

3. passed the Revenue Act of 1913 that created the income tax to pay for the shortfall and guarantee payments to the Federal Reserve

4. passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913

5. secured approval by 3/4 of our states of the 16th Amendment to make the income tax legal.

Today, there are 43 States with an Income Tax. So under your plan, the 43 States and possibly the other 7 would create their own income tax to pay the federal bills of apportionment. So what would you have gained? Their alternative is to pass additional sales taxes to pay the federal bills of apportionment or use some mix of the two systems. There are 45 States with sales taxes and so at least 43 States are already using the two systems in concert to pay their own bills.

Those of us who want to pass the FairTax on the federal level and eliminate federal income tax also want to eliminate state income and property taxes, so that there is no tyranny on any level of government against the people of the United States, so no federal, state, county or city can steal your property in a foreclosure, invade your privacy to calculate taxes, or put you in jail for being alive and unable to pay your taxes. There is no greater tyranny or threat to our liberty and freedom than the income and property tax tyranny.

The only appropriate type of domestic tax to fund government in a free land of free people is the sales tax on new goods and services at the retail final point of sale, at a level above necessities, and on a voluntary basis, which means you can choose to buy new and pay the tax or do without or purchase used and legally avoid the tax. That is freedom, that is liberty, that is how it should be, and the economists who worked on creating the FairTax, did a wonderful job coming up with such a system. The Rebate based on number of adults and number of children, provided they are US citizens or legal residents, and a universal Household Consumption Allowance guarantees everyone the same exemption for necessities, whether you're poor or rich, and this is also voluntary, you can sign up for it or not, your choice, and so everyone's rights are protected.

There is no better plan and hasn't been a better plan, this is the perfect tax plan for our country, and the one that will work best for the United States.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Did you know only a constitutional amendment can "repeal" Congress' taxing powers? H.R. 25 would repeal squat!

JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." ...Jefferson

Yes, I know that. Aren't you reading my posts? Only the States can repeal the 16th Amendment. It takes 3/4 of them which is 38 States. That may or may not ever happen. We still don't have ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. So don't hold your breath on that. The best hope to repeal the 16th Amendment is for Congress to pass the FairTax, repeal the income tax laws, create the FairTax national retail sales tax, and let people enjoy it. If it doesn't work out for some reason, then you can go back to your evil income tax, but why wouldn't a national retail sales tax work? Retail sales taxes work in 45 States, why wouldn't that work on a national basis? Of course it will work. And whereas state retail sales taxes were created to generate new revenue, the FairTax is not, it's replacing the income tax so there is no additional cost, it's just changing the way taxes are collected taxing voluntary consumption instead of stealing your money against your will through a mandated income tax.

Maybe most Americans prefer the authoritarianism of the income tax, maybe our citizenry is so infected and infested with socialists and communists that Americans no longer know what freedom really is any more. There's some reason the FairTax has been sitting in the US Congress buried in the Ways and Means Committee for 16 years as our country sinks and people who don't even belong in the country are mailed refund checks by the IRS for taxes they never paid to begin with.

Originally Posted by Goldendaze

Trump has a pretty good tax plan too.

Yes, it's a good plan as mandatory income tax plans go. I believe he'll support the FairTax once he's in office and can meet with Congress on HR 25. He wanted the FairTax but backed off, and at first I didn't understand why, but I believe it's because it takes too long to explain it to people who really don't understand taxation and the numbers to begin with so a campaign with 17 candidates in the primary just isn't going to have the time to do that. I mean all the media pundits haven't even bothered to read his detailed policy proposals on his website, so I guess an election year is not really the time to do it after all.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Getting back to the subject of the thread see: WH Praises Spending Deal With GOP Congress: 'We Succeeded'


December 17, 2015


“(CNSNews.com) - The White House objects to a few Republican provisions in the omnibus $1.1-trillion spending bill, but overall, "We succeeded," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday.

"So we walked into these negotiations focused on making sure that Republicans would not succeed in advancing their ideological agenda through the budgetary process, and I think, based on all of the solid reporting work that you have done over the last several weeks, there were a variety of attempts that Republicans undertook\ to try to do exactly that, and we did succeed in fighting off those efforts.”


Hopefully voters will get rid of Paul Ryan this coming election and every Republican or Democrat who supports this plundering of America’s treasury.


JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

You can only stop the "plundering" when you eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national retail sales tax on new consumption at the final point of sale.

Originally Posted by Judy

I do not disagree with the Constitution on apportionment. But the apportionment method was in conjunction with the tariff method so that the apportionment method would be used rarely for shortfalls, emergencies or special situations, not on a regular normal basis, and never as the primary method and regular source of revenue for the federal government. .

Under the alleged fairtax, which is sold as a national sales tax and would be Congress' primary method to raise a federal revenue, the rule of apportionment is both ignored and circumvented. So, how can you say you support our founder's rule of apportionment?


Let our founders tell you in their own words their intentions regarding apportionment as it applies to taxation:

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

The fairtax intentionally circumvents the rule that the people of each state, whenever a general tax is laid by our federal government among the states, are obligated to contribute a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress __ a rule demanding representation with a proportional financial obligation.


JWK