Thread: Do real conservatives support the alleged fair tax?

If one considers a “conservativeâ€

It's amazing that no one here, including Judy, has answer the question: Do real ``conservatives`` support the alleged fair tax ?


Our founding fathers created a system of taxation which allowed Congress to raise needed revenue, but wisely contained thoughtful checks and balances to control the actions of Congress, one of which would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable to their state legislature and governor should Congress engage in reckless spending leading to deficits and borrowing, which in turn would lead to the imposition of a general tax among the states to make up that shortfall. It is this provision of our Constitution’s original tax plan which the friends of big government find objectionable, and that includes the architects of the alleged fair tax who propose to subjugate this important provision, just as present taxation now does!

How dare our founding fathers provide a constitutional method to balance the budget which is controlled by a fixed rule and determines each state’s share of the burden based upon its voting strength in Congress. And also makes every member of Congress immediately accountable to the people of the state which elected them when imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes are insufficient to meet Congress‘s insatiable appetite.

How dare our founding fathers demand fiscal responsibility from Congress and require each state’s Congressional delegation to return home with a bill for their state’s apportioned share to extinguish a deficit created by Congress, and would leave the various state governors and legislatures with the burden and responsibility of having to transfer the state’s apportioned share from the state treasury into the treasury of the united states or leaving them with the job of having to raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to extinguish a deficit created by Congress.

How dare our founding fathers create a tax plan which is designed to encourage members of Congress to be the people’s servant and not their master.

In effect, our founding fathers intended, as a first method to raise a federal revenue, was to have Congress lay imposts and duties on articles of consumption at our water’s edge, which included nondiscriminatory tonnage taxes at our ports of entry and also included taxing specifically selected articles of consumption, preferable those considered luxury. The logic and fairness of these taxes on consumption is explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21:

The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

Under our founding father’s method of taxing consumption [see our nation’s first revenue Act note that each article was judiciously selected and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax.

In addition to the above tax our founders believed foreigners ought to pay for the privilege of doing business on American soil and taxing at our water’s edge with a nondiscriminatory tonnage tax accomplish that.

But if insufficient revenue was raised from the above mentioned “external taxes“ [taxing at our water‘s edge], then an internal tax on articles of consumption was intended to be used for additional revenue. And once again, each article was to be carefully selected for the appropriate amount of tax. But why select each article? It seems to be self evident that articles necessary to conduct business and those necessary to expand our nation’s industrial base ought to be excluded from the list of taxables to encourage a healthy and vibrant business economy on American soil so America can compete with foreign made goods, and to also form a strong domestic manufacturing capability which was thought essential to the survival of the nation by our founding fathers, and also provided needed employment! The founders also believed that articles of necessity, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses, etc., ought not be taxed to avoid an oppressive burden upon the poor and working classes which Hamilton points out above. But there is still another reason for selecting each specific article to be taxed ___ and that reason is to allow the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected! As Hamilton points out:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which can not be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue

The beauty of limiting Congress’ power to taxing specifically chosen articles of luxury is this. If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business and industry impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury, just as Hamilton explains above and is a self regulating system of taxation.


To summarize:

First source of federal revenue is to come from external taxes at our water’s edge, laid primarily on articles of luxury and nondiscriminatory tonnage taxes.

Second source of federal revenue is to come from miscellaneous internal excise taxes on consumption, preferably upon articles of luxury.

Third source of revenue, a general tax among the states, is to be used for extinguishing any shortfalls created by Congress‘s profligate spending and borrowing. And this tax is controlled by the rule of apportionment and requires each state to receive a bill adjusted by our Constitution's fair share formula:


State`s population

------------------------ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


Now why would any real conservative as defined in the first post in this thread support the alleged fair tax which is comparable to the principal under which the Marxist income tax is based? --- from each State according to its ability.


JWK

[b][i]“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.â€