Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: The fairtax vs the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,661
    The Founders never used this apportionment plan they put in the Constitution, not once,not ever, in the history of the United States, when every government since our first one could have. Do you know why that is? With all these wars, all these deficits, not one Congress ever thought it appropriate to bill states for "shortfalls", something they could have done at any time?

    Very simple. The states won't pay it and the only alternative is a Civil War over the secession that would result from any attempt to do such a foul thing.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #12
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674

    The direct tax of 1798 and each state's share

    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    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

  3. #13
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,661
    Oh my lord, I've never heard of this, the federal government in 1798 assessed property owners to pay the federal bills. People had to go borrow money on their homes and farms and stores to pay the federal tax assessment, if they didn't pay then the federal government would have foreclosed on their homes and stores and farms. No wonder the government kept this a secret.

    That's your plan? Really? We've discussed this for years, Johnwk, even you kept it a secret knowing full well how absolutely foul such a thing is. No state will ever approve your Amendment. What are you thinking? What is wrong with you??!!! That's worst than the federal income tax.

    Good lord man, get a grip on yourself.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-19-2018 at 12:04 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #14
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Oh my lord, I've never heard of this . . .

    So, your assertion that "The Founders never used this apportionment plan they put in the Constitution, not once, not ever, in the history of the United States" turns out to be another misrepresentation of the facts.

    JWK


  5. #15
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,661
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, your assertion that "The Founders never used this apportionment plan they put in the Constitution, not once, not ever, in the history of the United States" turns out to be another misrepresentation of the facts.

    JWK

    I wouldn't go that far if I were you, John. I'll take your word for it on its face to simply illustrate the tyrannical insanity of your proposal, but I will not accept it as fact .... not yet anyway.

    It does however show that Congress at least tried, and maybe did, order mandatory federal property taxes to pay its bills through your apportionment plan.

    So Americans can decide do they want voluntary national retail sales taxes complete with a Rebate to offset spending for necessities under the FairTax plan or the tyranny of mandated federal property taxes on their homes, farms and business properties, subject to liens and foreclosures if they don't or can't pay.

    I think your revelation pretty much put the last nail in the coffin of your apportionment plan as a desirable alternative to the income tax. In other words, it back-fired.

    Just my opinion.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #16
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, your assertion that "The Founders never used this apportionment plan they put in the Constitution, not once, not ever, in the history of the United States" turns out to be another misrepresentation of the facts.

    JWK




    I wouldn't go that far if I were you, John. I'll take your word for it on its face to simply illustrate the tyrannical insanity of your proposal,

    So, now you are calling the founder's original tax plan "tyrannical insanity". Amazing. Simply amazing!



    JWK



    There is no better way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving country than by importing the world’s poverty stricken populations into that country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,661
    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.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #18
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674

    The rule of apportionment, our Founders speak

    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    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.


  9. #19
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,661
    Johnwk wrote

    What exactly is your beef, Judy?
    I'm opposed to mandated taxation.

    I find it vile and foul whether it's a mandated income tax, property tax, inventory state, earnings tax, federal, state or local tax. It's a bold disgusting defiance of liberty against the people of the United States. Why Americans have so quietly and meekly succumbed to any of it all these years is really quite a political phenomena that I find highly peculiar.

    The FairTax is a nice consumer friendly tax on new goods and services that are voluntarily paid through voluntary purchases. You can buy big or small, or not at all.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #20
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post


    I'm opposed to mandated taxation.
    .

    So why do you want to impose a mandatory 23 percent tax upon the property a farm brings to market for sale? Why do you want to impose a mandatory 23 percent tax upon the sale of property which a plumber has in his labor?

    Almost every time you post in this thread you contradict yourself.


    JWK
    jtdc likes this.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. House defeats balanced budget amendment
    By Newmexican in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2011, 12:23 PM
  2. Ken Blackwell and a phony balanced budget amendment!
    By johnwk in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-06-2011, 05:37 PM
  3. Senator Mike Lee calls for a balanced budget amendment?
    By johnwk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 12:21 AM
  4. Sen. DeMint’s deceptive balanced budget amendment
    By johnwk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-09-2010, 10:27 AM
  5. FOX FAIR AND BALANCED?
    By girlygirl369 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 09:53 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •