Judy, why do you misrepresent the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Judy
I understand you have a different plan that just bills the states for an amount of money and then the states come up with it however they choose.
Judy, why are you are misrepresenting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment? Adopting it would return us to our Constitution's original tax plan as our Founders intended it to operate and have Congress raising its revenue from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes levied upon specifically selected articles of consumption. It basically has Congress raising its revenue by taxing consumption. I thought that is what you desire.
Additionally, it forbids Congress to raise any revenue from taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries or any other lawfully realized money. Is this not what you want?
Finally, if Congress spends more than is brought in from the above mentioned sources, then, and only then, is Congress required to make up the difference with an apportioned direct tax. Do we not need to force this fiscal restraint upon Congress and end deficit spending?
JWK
Judy, why must you make stuff up when promoting the alleged fairtax?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Judy
The FairTax taxes consumption as the founders intended . . .
Judy, why are you misrepresenting how the founders intended to tax consumption?
The fact is, when taxing consumption, our Founders intended each article would be selected, and a specific amount of tax would be levied on each specific article selected. This of course allows the market place determine an allowable limit of tax on each article selected. If any article is taxed too high it would "... lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds."
Selecting each article also allows the necessities of life to be excluded from the list of taxable articles, and also allows 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."
The alleged fairtax, which is an across the board tax all consumer articles, and an across the board tax on the sale of labor, is not what our founders intended, nor is it allowable under the specific taxing powers granted to Congress.
Instead of misrepresenting the founders intentions to give legitimacy to the alleged fairtax, you ought to explain why it is superior to our founders method of taxing consumption.
Let us now review our founders true intentions with regard to taxing consumption.
Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. 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 counter balanced 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.
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 cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
For confirmation on how our founders intended to tax consumption here is a link to our countries first revenue raising act An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandise imported into the United States. Note how each article is selected and a specific amount of tax is laid upon the article selected.
Why must you make stuff up when promoting the alleged fairtax? The fact is, the alleged fairtax, an across the board tax on consumption removes the protections our founders intended by requiring each article to be selected and a specific amount of tax to be determine on each article selected. Why do you want to remove the protections intended by our founders?
JWK
“…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.”___ ___Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act