The fairtax vs the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
.
While the ringleaders of the “fairtax” claim the IRS will be closed down, the fairtax is intentionally designed to create two new tax collecting agencies, the “Excise Tax Bureau” and a “Sales Tax Bureau”, not to mention it keeps the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” open for business. Additionally, under the alleged fairtax, fairtax returns are required to be filed twelve times a year, and Congress has power to require any type of record keeping it wants, however burdensome they may be.
If the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment were passed, there would be no more federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages or other incomes, and thus, no need for a federal agency collecting such taxes.
Because of its devastating effects [including a 23 percent tax on the necessities of life], if the alleged fairtax were adopted, it would create a new federal entitlement called the Family Consumption Allowance, and would send a monthly check to qualified families, which would allow them to purchase a rationed supplies of tax free articles. This, of course, makes the poor dependent upon a new federal handout and would encourage them to vote for socialists and progressives who promise to increase the monthly government check.
Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment each article to be taxed internally is to be chosen and a specific amount of tax may be placed on the article, while the necessities of life are intended to not be taxed, and thus the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment does not require a new federal entitlement to be created. Additionally, under the FSBA the marketplace determines the limit of tax on each article selected, which is in harmony with the free market system our Founders created.
While the alleged fairtax ringleaders boast it would end income based taxes, it does not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect income based taxes such as the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909. Likewise, it does not prevent Congress from laying and collecting excise taxes on individuals which may be calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes.
By Contrast, the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment does withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect any taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. In fact, the FSBA returns our founder’s intentions requiring our federal government to raise its primary revenue from taxes on consumption. Is this not what the ringleaders of the alleged fairtax say is their goal?
JWK
To support the "FairTax" (H.R. 25) is to support our Global Governance Crowd and their doings such as Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal ___ all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or ANY country.
Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Judy
Well, John, for years I've looked at your posts about your plan and can't figure out who it taxes, when it taxes, what it taxes or what the rate is, besides billing states for federal spending. .
It could be you have a reading comprehension problem, or, an intentional desire to ignore our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by the Founders. So, let us take a look at the wisdom and brilliance of our Founder's original tax plan which is proposed as follows.
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.
"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."
NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!
Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:
State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.
"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.
"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.
JWK
“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
The direct tax of 1798 and each state's share
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Judy
The Founders never used this apportionment plan they put in the Constitution, not once,not ever, in the history of the United States,
There you go again. Proving you have not done your homework.
Here is a LINK to the first use of the apportioned tax and the amount to be paid by each state.
It was also used a number of times after 1798.
JWK
The rule of apportionment, our Founders speak
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Judy
Oh absolutely. The apportionment plan in the US Constitution for direct taxes is the feudal lord system from Europe, a totally outrageous and foul concept. Completely hideous, a bold and disgusting defiance against the people of our country and the liberty for which we stand.
Representatives and direct taxes having to both be apportioned is a "feudal lord system from Europe"? What on earth are you talking about?
I think the apportionment requirement for direct taxes, which works out to be one man one vote, and one vote one dollar, which is an equal tax, is a just and thoughtful idea requiring each state, whenever Congress cannot live within the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes on articles of consumption and Creates creates a deficit, each state ought to be responsible in extinguishing that deficit by paying a share of the deficit proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.
And what did our Founders say with regard to the rule of apportionment?
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And see:
“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.
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally being designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“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
Tell us Judy, why do you have a problem with representation with a proportional financial obligation whenever a direct tax is laid? Why do you have a problem with an equal per capita tax whenever Congress lays a direct tax upon the people? Do you not think taxation and representation ought to be tied by the same standard?
What exactly is your beef, Judy?
JWK
They are not “liberals”. They are part of a Fifth Column movement which has no intention to adhere to our written Constitution and its legislative intent which gives context to its text.
