Thread: FairTax and Trade

Originally Posted by johnwk

You forget our Constitution's original tax plan, as intended by its framers, was to raise Congress' primary revenue from imposts, duties, and excise taxes on consumption. The direct tax was only to be used to extinguish and annual deficit, or if an emergency arose.

AND AS I SAID, THAT WAS FINE FOR THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL COLONIES/STATES SUPPORTING A SMALL, PRIMARILY ADMINISTRATIVE, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. BUT AS THE GOVERNMENT GREW, AND NEW STATES WERE ADDED, THAT WAS INADEQUATE!

I heard that President Abraham Lincoln had one secretary, and paid that salary out of his own pocket. Now we have an army of secretaries, assistants, chefs, security, and a host of other occupations to pay for. Government was much easier to finance back then.

Washington D.C. was originally a "district". It is now a high cost city! Government is no longer a public service, it is big business!

Originally Posted by jtdc

Again, a direct tax per capita means higher taxation in low income states . . .

An equal per capita tax is an equal tax for every taxpayer . . . something which socialists, progressives and communists fear with a passion, even if it is only used to supplement deficiencies from imposts, duties and taxes on consumption, which our founders intended to be Congress' primary source of revenue.

I don't see you complaining about apportionment being applied to the allotted number of representatives of high income states. So why complain about it when a state is asked to contribute and apportioned share of any direct tax?

If the tax were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of New York's larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula! Under our founders plan “Everyone pays the same” Whenever a direct tax is laid.



Why do you reject equal protection of the law?


JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

An equal per capita tax is an equal tax for every taxpayer . . . something which socialists, progressives and communists fear with a passion, even if it is only used to supplement deficiencies from imposts, duties and taxes on consumption, which our founders intended to be Congress' primary source of revenue.

As I have said a few times already, the imposts, duties and taxes on consumption (we don't have a federal consumption tax), are inadequate today!

Originally Posted by johnwk

I don't see you complaining about apportionment being applied to the allotted number of representatives of high income states.

We're talking about taxes, not representation. However, essentially, the number of Representatives is an approximation of the representation of approximately "one person, one vote", since they created a representative republic.The number of Representatives has since been frozen, so as the population increases, they each represent more citizens.

Senators is where an inequity exists. The Founders looked at states as sovereign entities that needed parity in representation. So each state has two without regard to their population.

Originally Posted by johnwk

So why complain about it when a state is asked to contribute and apportioned share of any direct tax?

Again, as I have said before, there is a disparity in the income between the various states.

Originally Posted by johnwk

If the tax were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho.

But the buying power of the dollar in Idaho may be twice that of a dollar in New York. So effectively, the people in New York would be paying twice the taxes per person as the people in Idaho.

Originally Posted by johnwk

And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of New York's larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!

But two different things!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Under our founders plan “Everyone pays the same” Whenever a direct tax is laid.

And in today's world, that wouldn't be fair!

With both the Income Tax and the FairTax, the local economy would determine the effective tax rate. If you live in an area where pay is $20,000 per year, the Income Tax rate would be lower than it would be for a person living in an area where the average pay is $40,000. And if the taxation was a sales tax, the price of everything would most likely lower in an area where the average income was only $20,000 per year than in an area where the average income is $40,000 per year. So the FairTax collected by the same quantity of an item in Idaho would be half the amount of FairTax collect for the same quantity of the same item in New York!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Why do you reject equal protection of the law?

Because it is not "equal" when it comes to the type of taxation you want. It is like saying a dollar is worth the same in Hong Kong. It is actually worth over 7 times what a dollar is worth in Hong Kong!

Originally Posted by jtdc

As I have said . . .

Originally Posted by johnwk

Originally Posted by jtdc

As I have said..

So once again, I have left you speechless!

I don't see you complaining about apportionment being applied to the allotted number of representatives of high income states. So why complain about it when a state is asked to contribute and apportioned share of any direct tax?

Originally Posted by jtdc

Again, as I have said before, there is a disparity in the income between the various states.

There is likewise a disparity in the population size between the various states.


The very reason for the rule of apportionment was to deal with the disparity by requiring both representatives and "direct taxes" to be apportioned.


In discussing this concern and the purpose for apportionment Hamilton says in Fed. No. 54:


". . . 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."


You, like socialists, do not like equal taxation.


JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

There is likewise a disparity in the population size between the various states.


The very reason for the rule of apportionment was to deal with the disparity by requiring both representatives and "direct taxes" to be apportioned.

It continues to go over your head, or you just don't want to accept reality. A thousand dollar tax for a New Yorker might be "crumbs", to use Nancy Pelosi's scale. But for that family in Idaho, that thousand dollar tax would be a major blow to their budget. Because of the differential, there would be a disparity between people in different areas of the country.

Originally Posted by jtdc

It continues to go over your head, .

I'll trust Hamilton's logic over yours any day.


". . . 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."

You, like socialists, do not like equal taxation.


JWK

New 1040 tax form will be the size of a postcard

"Tax reform is done for this decade."

Originally Posted by johnwk

I'll trust Hamilton's logic over yours any day.

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

Originally Posted by johnwk

". . . 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."

You bob around between direct tax and apportioned tax. The primary source was to be apportioned tax, which has the disparity I pointed out. A direct tax was only to be used when Congress over spent! Guess what? These days, it would be invoked every year. So in essence that is what we have in the Income Tax.

Unlike the apportioned tax, an income tax is relative to the local economy and income. So it compensates for the differential. But you don't like an income tax. Now of course Congress has perverted it over the years.

Originally Posted by johnwk

You, like socialists, do not like equal taxation.

And you claim to not be into name-calling!