Thread: Massive tax package offers breaks for just about everyone

Originally Posted by johnwk

You disagree with our Constitution's rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and any general tax laid among the states to be based upon a State's population size? If so why?


JWK

I do not disagree with the Constitution on apportionment. But the apportionment method was in conjunction with the tariff method so that the apportionment method would be used rarely for shortfalls, emergencies or special situations, not on a regular normal basis, and never as the primary method and regular source of revenue for the federal government. The tariff revenue was intended to take care of regular annual revenue to fund government and pay for its operations.

And this worked fine until 1913 when the Democrats wanted to commence the notion of "free trade" and reduce tariffs dramatically, this plan on tariff reductions which were to the benefit of other countries, not ours nation or our producers, quite the opposite, there was oh guess what? A shortfall. So the Democrats needed another source to offset the lost tariff revenue. At the same time Democrats wanted to establish the Federal Reserve central banking system, and in order to print money and guarantee that the Government has the revenue to pay back the Federal Reserve Banks, they needed a mandatory federal tax, and that's why we have a mandatory income tax, which was unconstitutional, so the Democrats pushed through the 16th Amendment.

Now imagine. In less than 7 months, mid April to the end of October, the US Democratically controlled Congress under Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, they:

1. called a Special Session of Congress

2. reduced tariffs creating a dramatic shortfall

3. passed the Revenue Act of 1913 that created the income tax to pay for the shortfall and guarantee payments to the Federal Reserve

4. passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913

5. secured approval by 3/4 of our states of the 16th Amendment to make the income tax legal.

Today, there are 43 States with an Income Tax. So under your plan, the 43 States and possibly the other 7 would create their own income tax to pay the federal bills of apportionment. So what would you have gained? Their alternative is to pass additional sales taxes to pay the federal bills of apportionment or use some mix of the two systems. There are 45 States with sales taxes and so at least 43 States are already using the two systems in concert to pay their own bills.

Those of us who want to pass the FairTax on the federal level and eliminate federal income tax also want to eliminate state income and property taxes, so that there is no tyranny on any level of government against the people of the United States, so no federal, state, county or city can steal your property in a foreclosure, invade your privacy to calculate taxes, or put you in jail for being alive and unable to pay your taxes. There is no greater tyranny or threat to our liberty and freedom than the income and property tax tyranny.

The only appropriate type of domestic tax to fund government in a free land of free people is the sales tax on new goods and services at the retail final point of sale, at a level above necessities, and on a voluntary basis, which means you can choose to buy new and pay the tax or do without or purchase used and legally avoid the tax. That is freedom, that is liberty, that is how it should be, and the economists who worked on creating the FairTax, did a wonderful job coming up with such a system. The Rebate based on number of adults and number of children, provided they are US citizens or legal residents, and a universal Household Consumption Allowance guarantees everyone the same exemption for necessities, whether you're poor or rich, and this is also voluntary, you can sign up for it or not, your choice, and so everyone's rights are protected.

There is no better plan and hasn't been a better plan, this is the perfect tax plan for our country, and the one that will work best for the United States.

Originally Posted by Judy

I do not disagree with the Constitution on apportionment. But the apportionment method was in conjunction with the tariff method so that the apportionment method would be used rarely for shortfalls, emergencies or special situations, not on a regular normal basis, and never as the primary method and regular source of revenue for the federal government. .

Under the alleged fairtax, which is sold as a national sales tax and would be Congress' primary method to raise a federal revenue, the rule of apportionment is both ignored and circumvented. So, how can you say you support our founder's rule of apportionment?


Let our founders tell you in their own words their intentions regarding apportionment as it applies to taxation:

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 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

The fairtax intentionally circumvents the rule that the people of each state, whenever a general tax is laid by our federal government among the states, are obligated to contribute a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress __ a rule demanding representation with a proportional financial obligation.


JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

Under the alleged fairtax, which is sold as a national sales tax and would be Congress' primary method to raise a federal revenue, the rule of apportionment is both ignored and circumvented. So, how can you say you support our founder's rule of apportionment?


Let our founders tell you in their own words their intentions regarding apportionment as it applies to taxation:

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 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

The fairtax intentionally circumvents the rule that the people of each state, whenever a general tax is laid by our federal government among the states, are obligated to contribute a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress __ a rule demanding representation with a proportional financial obligation.


JWK

Apportionment applies to direct taxes which is income tax, property tax, taxes on assets, etc. Indirect taxes are sales taxes. Apportionment has nothing to do with indirect sales taxes under the US Constitution.

This is the clause in the US Constitution that you're talking about:

US Constitution

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Income and property taxes are direct taxes.

DEFINITION of 'Direct Tax '

A tax that is paid directly by an individual or organization to the imposing entity. A taxpayer pays a direct tax to a government for different purposes, including real property tax, personal property tax, income tax or taxes on assets. Direct taxes are different from indirect taxes, where the tax is levied on one entity, such as a seller, and paid by another, such a sales tax paid by the buyer in a retail setting.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/directtax.asp

The US government has the clear right under Article 1, Section 8 to lay indirect taxes in any manner it sees fit so long as they are uniform throughout the United States.

The FairTax is NOT a direct tax covered by Article 1, Section 2, it is a general indirect tax covered by Article 1, Section 8, and meets absolutely all original and current Constitutional requirements established by our Founders.

Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Apportionment only applies to direct taxes like income, property and asset taxes paid directly by the individual or entity to the taxing authority. Sales taxes are paid as part of the price of an item or service you purchase as a consumer and is paid to the seller who then pays them to the taxing authority. Sales taxes are voluntary, based on voluntary decision so to purchase an item or service. Direct taxes are mandated taxes on you because you work and earn or have assets or own real or personal property.

The FairTax is not a hoax, it's the real deal to set Americans free from the tyranny of income taxes that were essentially banned by the US Constitution which is why an Amendment to allow them was required in 1913. It's time to get back to where the Founders actually wanted us to be and thought we were.

You're absolutely right, johnwk, passing the unfair tax plan before repealing the 16th amendment is akin to placing the cart before the horse. It's a a bad idea and very risky. Actually there are many problem with the unfair tax. Your valid point is just one on a long list. Not to worry, the plan has been floating around for many years but never seems to get the traction it's supporters want or need (that's a good thing).

Originally Posted by MW

You're absolutely right, johnwk, passing the unfair tax plan before repealing the 16th amendment is akin to placing the cart before the horse. It's a a bad idea and very risky. Actually there are many problem with the unfair tax. Your valid point is just one on a long list. Not to worry, the plan has been floating around for many years but never seems to get the traction it's supporters want or need (that's a good thing).

That's funny! In 1913, they passed the income tax bill first, and then passed the 16th Amendment to make it legal. So now you want us to tell the States to repeal the 16th Amendment first rendering the income tax illegal, without having a sales tax bill to replace it. That's a sure fire way to shut down the federal government. How long would you be willing to wait for your checks while Congress is working out the details of an alternative plan?

I think the way we're doing it is the right way. You pass the FairTax, then send the States the Amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and some will ratify right away, others will wait and see how the FairTax works, meanwhile the States are all making money off the FairTax collection fee, and industries are moving home and investment is pouring in from offshore, Americans are getting their good jobs back, incomes are rising, poverty is declining, and those States that were slow to ratify will say "Oh my God, why didn't we do this years ago?" and the reason of course that they didn't is because of the deflections, misrepresentations, deceptions, misinformation and their own general ignorance of the entire topic and subject matter.

So people can continue to whine and complain and put up with the consequences as our country sinks into irreparable bankruptcy and despair, or they can wake up and start taking actions to reverse the policies that have caused this disaster including chief among them, the elimination of the income tax and replacing it with a national retail sales tax on new goods and services. So far, the best and only such plan is the FairTax, HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

Originally Posted by Judy

That's funny! In 1913, they passed the income tax bill first, and then passed the 16th Amendment to make it legal. So now you want us to tell the States to repeal the 16th Amendment first rendering the income tax illegal, without having a sales tax bill to replace it. That's a sure fire way to shut down the federal government. How long would you be willing to wait for your checks while Congress is working out the details of an alternative plan?

I think the way we're doing it is the right way. You pass the FairTax, then send the States the Amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and some will ratify right away, others will wait and see how the FairTax works, meanwhile the States are all making money off the FairTax collection fee, and industries are moving home and investment is pouring in from offshore, Americans are getting their good jobs back, incomes are rising, poverty is declining, and those States that were slow to ratify will say "Oh my God, why didn't we do this years ago?" and the reason of course that they didn't is because of the deflections, misrepresentations, deceptions, misinformation and their own general ignorance of the entire topic and subject matter.

So people can continue to whine and complain and put up with the consequences as our country sinks into irreparable bankruptcy and despair, or they can wake up and start taking actions to reverse the policies that have caused this disaster including chief among them, the elimination of the income tax and replacing it with a national retail sales tax on new goods and services. So far, the best and only such plan is the FairTax, HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

So even you admit there is no guarantee the 16th Amendment would be repealed.

Originally Posted by MW

So even you admit there is no guarantee the 16th Amendment would be repealed.

Absolutely. There's no guarantee what the States will do. Why would there be? Each state is free to make their own decision to ratify the repeal or not. But failing to repeal the 16th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating income based taxes and replacing them with a national retail sales tax. That is solely within the power of Congress to do, they can do it in 30 minutes, a 15 minute roll call vote in each Chamber, and a majority of the quorum in each Chamber, makes the income tax null and void as a matter of law, and the FairTax the law of the land.

I'm like the FairTax designers who didn't tie the two together. The plan is that as soon as the FairTax is passed, a second legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment will be passed and sent to the States. But that repeal legislation may not pass Congress, because you need a 2/3 majority vote in each Chamber just to get the legislation through Congress before it can even be sent to the States. Since 1789, there have been 11,000 attempts to amend the US Constitution and only 27 have passed and been ratified, so the odds are not with a desire to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Fortunately, a repeal of the 16th Amendment is not required to pass the FairTax, the FairTax legislation repeals the income tax as a matter of law and replaces it with the national retail sales tax. To pass the FairTax legislation which repeals the income tax by law only requires a simple majority vote in each Chamber. So I've never understood the obsession with repealing the 16th Amendment as a condition of repealing the income tax laws and replacing them with the FairTax through legislation. I mean it's possible and feasible once all the States are experiencing the many benefits of the FairTax, but even then, 2/3 vote in each Chamber of Congress and 3/4 of the States? Possible and likely, but not very likely or probable. Democrats will cling to their beloved income tax like matted hair on a stray cat.

Congress has the power to pass the FairTax legislation, and there's really no excuse that it hasn't already been passed. The corruption in our Congress is a truth that is self-evident, and it will take a real leaders to pass it. Unfortunately, we don't have any in Congress. Maybe when Trump is President, he'll be the leader who can get it done. The legislation has 75 co-sponsors in the US House of Representatives alone, so it has more than ample support to pass the House, but it's been buried in the Ways and Means Committee for 16 years without debate or a floor vote. By comparison, Obama Care had 8 co-sponsors. But the Democrats had leadership so they pushed it through.

Republicans aren't electing the right people to Congress. Something is very wrong with our process and the type of people we're sending to DC. Republicans in North Carolina sent Thom Tillis to DC as a US Senator, yet he not only supported and voted for this massive increase in H2B visas, he co-sponsored the Amendment. My county has 10% unemployment. So more H2B visa immigrants are going to be competing with these poor people who have been out of work for years. Tillis needs to be kicked to the curb his next election. What a disgrace. But he's Pro-Life and opposes gay marriage. Well, so what, Tom? Don't have an abortion and don't marry a gay person. What in the hell does your personal bigotry have to do with running the federal government and representing North Carolina? Well, obviously, not a damn thing.

Originally Posted by MW

You're absolutely right, johnwk, passing the unfair tax plan before repealing the 16th amendment is akin to placing the cart before the horse. It's a a bad idea and very risky. Actually there are many problem with the unfair tax. Your valid point is just one on a long list. Not to worry, the plan has been floating around for many years but never seems to get the traction it's supporters want or need (that's a good thing).

What I have never been able to get a straight answer to from the advocates of the alleged fairtax is, why do they reject the "FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT" which would withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect any tax calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned incomes and return us to our Constitution's original tax plan and force Congress to once again raise its revenue by taxing consumption.

I thought the proponents of the "fairtax" support taxing consumption. Why do they object to returning to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which would accomplish their goal?

In any event, at least there is universal agreement in wanting to withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from "incomes" and compel Congress to raise its revenue by taxing consumption.


JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “ProsperityRestored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

Originally Posted by johnwk

What I have never been able to get a straight answer to from the advocates of the alleged fairtax is, why do they reject the "FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT" which would withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect any tax calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned incomes and return us to our Constitution's original tax plan and force Congress to once again raise its revenue by taxing consumption.

I thought the proponents of the "fairtax" support taxing consumption. Why do they object to returning to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which would accomplish their goal?

In any event, at least there is universal agreement in wanting to withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from "incomes" and compel Congress to raise its revenue by taxing consumption.


JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “ProsperityRestored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

The FairTax by definition is an indirect tax on consumption that's collected by the States who then forward the revenue once a month to the Federal Government. It's constitutional, no amendment to the Constitution is required. It exempts necessities with a Rebate up to the Household Consumption Allowance for all citizens and legal residents, regardless of income, so much for an adult, so much for a child. Business to business transactions, exports, education services and used goods are exempt. It funds both General Revenue and Social Security/Medicare. The rate is split with 14.91% for General Revenue and 8.09% earmarked for SS and Medicare.

So why do you oppose it? Why do you call it a "hoax"?

I can't imagine what problem the Founders would have with it. It's as perfect a piece of tax and economic development legislation as has ever been presented to the American People. It helps curb illegal immigration because illegal aliens are not eligible for the Rebate which makes it almost impossible for them to undercut American workers. It helps balance our trade because imports are taxed the same as domestic products, in addition to any tariffs they pay because tariffs, duties, imposts and excise taxes are still in place under the FairTax. Because businesses no longer pay income tax and are exempt from the FairTax, we are a tax haven so our manufacturers will come back home and our investors will bring their capital back to the US plus foreign companies will rush in to operate and invest in our new tax haven.

It's a 360 degree improvement for our country, citizens, workers, earners, investors, businesses and taxpayers. Everybody wins except illegal aliens and importers. I mean what more can we and this one simple piece of legislation do for you?

Originally Posted by Judy

I can't imagine what problem the Founders would have with it.

I have explained that in detail and provided documentation, and you chose to ignore it.


JWK