Thread: FairTax and Trade

Originally Posted by johnwk

So, truth, facts and documentation are meaningless in your world.

No! There is a difference between "facts" and "opinion"! The Founders did not agree unanimously on the Constitution! It was the result of compromise among them. So while you may cite the opinion of one of them, which may be fact, it is not the opinion of all of them.

Originally Posted by johnwk

The fact is, you were wrong when you wrote "... direct tax" is on the individual.

And as I said, that makes both of them wrong for our time!

Originally Posted by johnwk

and are unwilling to learn, or, you intentionally look to obfuscate, misdirect and engage in adolescent stupid debating tricks.

That applied to you. You paste quotes of other people, and when someone disagrees with your conclusion, you just repost your exact comments again, as if one will draw a different conclusion if you repeat it. It is like speaking loudly to someone who doesn't speak your language as if they are deaf.

Originally Posted by johnwk

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

Only if we are talking about the time in which it was written. But what you "responded to" does not apply to the country today.

It becomes clear why 24 out of 25 publications would not print your lectures. You've been pushing this idea of going back in time for many years. It is like the FairTax which people have been pushing for 20 years, it just isn't popular with the majority of people. But rather than modifying what you propose, you keep pushing what doesn't work, and get mad at those who challenge it!

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

Originally Posted by jtdc

No! There is a difference between "facts" and "opinion"! The Founders

I posted the truth and documented facts. You were wrong and now revert to your old tactic of obfuscations, misdirection and taking my words out of context.


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.



JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

Originally Posted by jtdc

Originally Posted by jtdc

If you can't respond to posts that don't agree with your position without just reposting your same old talking points, there is no reason to continue the conversation.

23 of 24 or 24 of 25 publications turned down your letters. That is almost a unanimous opinion that you are wrong. You just don't get it!

Originally Posted by jtdc

If you can't respond to posts that don't agree with your position . . .

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.



JWK

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.



JWK

Still stuck in that loop? Can't think of anything original to post?

Originally Posted by jtdc

Still ...

Boring . . .

Originally Posted by johnwk

Boring . . .

Yes you are! And monotonous!

Ok, sometimes we just have to agree to disagree and walk away from a conversation. Please remember we are here united for the same purpose, mainly immigration topics. Thank you.

bttt.

Originally Posted by Judy

bttt.

It's time to agree to disagree!