Thread: FairTax and Trade

Originally Posted by jtdc

And you claim to not be into name-calling!

There you go again, lying by innuendo !

Originally Posted by jtdc

And I'll trust Hamilton's logic over yours any day. But what he talked of then doesn't work today.

With regard to taxation, and in particular direct taxation and apportionment, the Founder's principal behind the requirement of apportioning direct taxes is as valid today as when the rule was put into our Constitution ___ it prevents government force being used to impose unequal taxation whenever a direct tax is used. And by tying the rule of apportionment to both direct taxation and representation, a barrier is erected preventing the states from misrepresenting the size of their population in order to enlarge their representation in Congress as explain by Hamilton:

". . . it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality."

Today, look at California which has a massive population of illegal entrants which adds to their representation in Congress, and thus its influence when passing big spending socialist bills. Would they be so inclined to carry on this way if they had to pay an apportioned share of the tab whenever Congress spent more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on articles of consumption? I think not.

And that is why socialists hate with a passion the rule of apportionment being applied to direct taxation, but embrace the rule being applied to representation in Congress ___ they hate Representation with a proportional financial obligation, or one man one vote and one vote one dollar. And you seem to be in their camp when it comes to taxation.

JWK

“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____PENDLETON

Originally Posted by johnwk

With regard to taxation, and in particular direct taxation and apportionment,

Two different tax methods!

Originally Posted by johnwk

the Founder's principal behind the requirement of apportioning direct taxes is as valid today as when the rule was put into our Constitution

The "principal", yes! It is the method I disagree with!

Originally Posted by johnwk

it prevents government force being used to impose unequal taxation whenever a direct tax is used.

"Whenever"? When is it not being used today?

Originally Posted by johnwk

And by tying the rule of apportionment to both direct taxation

"Apportionment" is one type of taxation. You conflate Direct Taxation with it to justify your argument.

Originally Posted by johnwk

and representation, a barrier is erected preventing the states from misrepresenting the size of their population in order to enlarge their representation in Congress as explain by Hamilton:

But the Constitution did not address that. Article 1, Section 2 contains:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all ther Persons.

Illegal aliens are "free persons" by this description. So the number of representatives can be based on false data! And, of course, it did not count slaves or Indians. It wasn't the intent of the Founders, but that is my point, neither is the result of the tax method you advocate!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Would they be so inclined to carry on this way if they had to pay an apportioned share of the tab whenever Congress spent more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on articles of consumption?

There's the problem! Congress spending more than the government takes in. California is doing the same thing. And since they can't print money to cover it, they raise taxes...on everything!

Originally Posted by johnwk

And that is why socialists hate with a passion the rule of apportionment being applied to direct taxation

So now you claim to be able to read the mind of everybody else?

Originally Posted by jtdc

Two . . .

If you can't respond to my post without parsing words and phrases, and within the context in which my words appear, there is no reason to continue the conversation. I know you love to use that tactic to avoid a productive discussion and run down rabbit holes, but I will not entertain your stupid debating tricks.

Now, what I posted is as follows:

With regard to taxation, and in particular direct taxation and apportionment, the Founder's principal behind the requirement of apportioning direct taxes is as valid today as when the rule was put into our Constitution ___ it prevents government force being used to impose unequal taxation whenever a direct tax is used. And by tying the rule of apportionment to both direct taxation and representation, a barrier is erected preventing the states from misrepresenting the size of their population in order to enlarge their representation in Congress as explain by Hamilton:

". . . it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality."

Today, look at California which has a massive population of illegal entrants which adds to their representation in Congress, and thus its influence when passing big spending socialist bills. Would they be so inclined to carry on this way if they had to pay an apportioned share of the tab whenever Congress spent more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on articles of consumption? I think not.

And that is why socialists hate with a passion the rule of apportionment being applied to direct taxation, but embrace the rule being applied to representation in Congress ___ they hate Representation with a proportional financial obligation, or one man one vote and one vote one dollar. And you seem to be in their camp when it comes to taxation.

JWK

“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____PENDLETON

Originally Posted by johnwk

If you can't respond to my post without parsing words and phrases, and within the context in which my words appear, there is no reason to continue the conversation.

When you combine two type of taxes for an argument, I have to parse it because the answer to each is different.

Originally Posted by johnwk

I know you love to use that tactic to avoid a productive discussion and run down rabbit holes, but I will not entertain your stupid debating tricks.

And I know that you like to dictate what your ego wants and don't want anyone to disagree with you. When they do, you get all huffy and act offended.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Now, what I posted is as follows:

With regard to taxation, and in particular direct taxation and apportionment...

Then you go back to exactly what you posted before that I already commented about. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT TAX METHODS!

Originally Posted by johnwk

And by tying the rule of apportionment to both direct taxation and representation, a barrier is erected preventing the states from misrepresenting the size of their population in order to enlarge their representation in Congress as explain by Hamilton:

Again, "direct tax" is on the individual. "Apportioned tax" is on the whole state. "Direct Tax" is based on the individual's finances while "apportioned tax" is based solely on the number of people in the state, regardless of their, or the state's economy!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Today, look at California which has a massive population of illegal entrants which adds to their representation in Congress, and thus its influence when passing big spending socialist bills. Would they be so inclined to carry on this way if they had to pay an apportioned share of the tab whenever Congress spent more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on articles of consumption? I think not.

YOU ALREADY SAID THAT! You don't consider what I said, you just repeat your mantra over and over, thinking that I will agree with it. I DON'T!

Originally Posted by jtdc

When you . . .

If you can't respond to my post without parsing words and phrases, and within the context in which my words appear, there is no reason to continue the conversation. I know you love to use that tactic to avoid a productive discussion and run down rabbit holes, but I will not entertain your stupid debating tricks.

Originally Posted by jtdc

Again, "direct tax" is on the individual. "Apportioned tax" is on the whole state. "Direct Tax" is based on the individual's finances while "apportioned tax" is based solely on the number of people in the state, regardless of their, or the state's economy!

Wrong. When Congress decides to lay a direct tax upon the states as opposed to directly taxing the people, and as intended by our founders, Congress is to calculate each state’s share of a total sum being raised using the rule of apportionment after which each state is notified of is share of the direct tax and a time period in which the tax must be paid, and leaving each state free to raise its share in its own chosen way.


An example showing this legislative intent 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 …….

For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each state is notified of its share to be paid.

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.

JWK

“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.

Originally Posted by johnwk

If you can't respond to my post without parsing words and phrases, and within the context in which my words appear, there is no reason to continue the conversation. I know you love to use that tactic to avoid a productive discussion and run down rabbit holes, but I will not entertain your stupid debating tricks.

Is your mind stuck on "Recycle Mode"? You just keep repeating what you have already written!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Wrong. When Congress decides to lay a direct tax upon the states as opposed to directly taxing the people, and as intended by our founders, Congress is to calculate each state’s share of a total sum being raised using the rule of apportionment after which each state is notified of is share of the direct tax and a time period in which the tax must be paid, and leaving each state free to raise its share in its own chosen way.

Then they are both wrong! Like I said, that worked when the country first began with only 13 Colony/states, because their economies were very similar. But that method would not be equitable today!

The fact that Article 1, Section 2 used the words "and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons" for the Census shows that it is not applicable to today's America!

The world has changed John!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Wrong. When Congress decides to lay a direct tax upon the states as opposed to directly taxing the people, and as intended by our founders, Congress is to calculate each state’s share of a total sum being raised using the rule of apportionment after which each state is notified of is share of the direct tax and a time period in which the tax must be paid, and leaving each state free to raise its share in its own chosen way.


An example showing this legislative intent 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 …….

For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each state is notified of its share to be paid.

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.

JWK

“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.

Originally Posted by jtdc

Then they are both wrong! Like I said, that worked when the country first began with only 13 Colony/states, because their economies were very similar. But that method would not be equitable today!

The fact that Article 1, Section 2 used the words "and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons" for the Census shows that it is not applicable to today's America!

The world has changed John!

So, truth, facts and documentation are meaningless in your world. The fact is, you were wrong when you wrote "... direct tax" is on the individual. "Apportioned tax" is on the whole state. "Direct Tax" is based on the individual's finances while "apportioned tax" is based solely on the number of people in the state, regardless of their, or the state's economy!"


No wonder you can't participate in a meaningful discussion . . . you don't know what you are talking about, and are unwilling to learn, or, you intentionally look to obfuscate, misdirect and engage in adolescent stupid debating tricks.

Your above post has nothing to do with what I responded to which was an inaccurate assertion about direct taxation.


JWK