Massive tax package offers breaks for just about everyone

Massive tax package offers breaks for just about everyone

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER 20 hours ago

• http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Ek...706700d5f4.jpg

WASHINGTON (AP) — From finance companies and manufacturers to teachers and the working poor, there is a tax break for almost everyone in the massive package unveiled by congressional leaders.

Related Stories

1. [$$] House Poised to Approve $600 Billion in Tax Cuts The Wall Street Journal
2. Pelosi says Republican tax package has 'massive giveaways' to corporationsReuters
3. Congressional tax bill would revive dozens of credits MarketWatch
4. Congress in final-stage talks on massive budget, tax bills Associated Press
5. White House, lawmakers hail year-end deal on spending, taxes Associated Press

But don't get too excited. Only a few of those breaks are new.
Most have been around for years — even decades — and are renewed every year or two, but only temporarily. More than 50 of the tax breaks expired at the start of the year.

The package would make more than 20 of them permanent, providing certainty to millions of businesses and individuals.

The other breaks would be extended for shorter periods.

The bill would save taxpayers about $680 billion over the next decade, adding that amount to the national debt, according to congressional estimates.

The tax bill, as well as a government spending package also unveiled this week, takes several swipes at the IRS, limiting the agency's ability to issue new rules for tax-exempt groups.

Business leaders have been complaining for years that they can't be certain from year to year that their tax breaks will be renewed.

"I cannot tell you how many times I've visited with small businesses and farmers who tell me, 'Give me some certainty in the tax code and I can go create jobs,'" said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "I'm excited about this huge win for families, for job creators, for certainty for our economy. I really think this is going to help us grow our economy."

"It's a significant tax relief measure and of course you know how Republicans like to cut taxes," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the package costs too much and favors businesses over families.
"In my view this is practically an immorality in terms of what it does, how it damages the future," Pelosi said Wednesday.

The White House indicated that President Barack Obama would sign the bill.
View gallery
"We are pleased that the deal will permanently extend tax credits that help working families make ends meet and pay for college, benefiting 24 million families a year," said White House spokeswoman Jen Friedman.

The tax package was negotiated mainly by Republicans from the House and Senate and Democrats from the Senate. It is unclear how many House Democrats will support it.

Ryan said the House will vote on the tax bill Thursday, sending it to the Senate.

Funding for the IRS would go up only slightly next year, to $11.2 billion. That's about $1 billion less than the agency received in 2010.

Also, the spending bill would prevent the IRS from issuing new rules for tax-exempt political groups next year. The IRS has been working on new rules since 2013, when agency officials acknowledged that agents had inappropriately singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has said the agency doesn't plan to finalize new rules for political groups until after next year's presidential election,

The tax package would let people who live in states without income taxes continue deducting local sales taxes when they file their federal returns. College students could keep their $2,500 tax credit for school expenses. Low-income people with three or more children could continue to claim a larger Earned Income Tax Credit.

Families that don't make enough money to pay federal income tax could continue to claim larger child tax credits.

Teachers could continue to deduct up to $250 a year if they spend their own money on classroom supplies and commuters could keep getting tax-free transit benefits from their employers.

Business groups praised the package, which would continue generous tax breaks for international finance firms, retailers and companies that spend a lot on research and development.
The generous R&D tax credit has been around since the 1980s, but it has always been temporary. The bill would expand it and make it permanent. The provision would save businesses $113 billion over the next decade, making it the single biggest tax break in the package.

Several provisions allow businesses to more quickly write off expenses for buying computers or equipment or to finance property upgrades. These provisions are important to restaurants and retailers.

Others make it easier for businesses and retirees to make tax-free charitable donations.

Still others encourage the use of alternative energy, including a tax credit for producing energy from wind.

Many of the tax breaks are obscure, including ones that benefit race horse owners, film producers and rum makers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Sen. Ron Wyden. D-Ore., has long championed a tax break for companies that make electric motorcycles (Oregon-based Brammo makes them). House Republicans killed the tax break last year after they blamed Wyden for helping to nix negotiations over a similar tax package.

The tax break would be revived and extended through 2016 in the new package.

http://news.yahoo.com/massive-tax-pa...162120680.html

Ah yes, our evil income-based tax system still at work destroying our country.

See: Jeff Sessions: Paul Ryan's Omnibus Spending Bill Explains "Why Voters Are In Open Rebellion"

December 16, 2015

” In the dead of night after 2am this morning, Congressional leadership unveiled a more than 2,000 page 'omnibus' year-end funding bill which would, among other things: fully-fund the President's refugee expansion; fully-fund sanctuary cities; fully-fund the resettlement of illegal aliens youth and their families crossing the border; lock-in tax credits for illegal aliens; and quadruple the highly controversial H-2B foreign worker visa being used to replace Americans as truck drivers, construction workers, theme park employees, and in blue collar jobs across the nation.”

This traitorous spending bill cooked up by Paul Ryan and his un-American pals on Capitol Hill is sufficient cause for loyal Americans in the House to immediately challenge Paul Ryan’s speakership. And any member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, which votes to pass this notoriously evil bill needs to be primaried this coming election and gotten rid of just like Eric Cantor was kicked out of the House for his evil doings, but has since been rewarded for his un-American activities with a $3.4 Million Job on Wall Street.

Those of us who warned the “Freedom Caucus” and naïve “conservative” talk show hosts that Ryan was a snake, have been vindicated by this treacherous act of evil. The question is, will any members of the House unite in removing this snake from the Speakership?

JWK





Members of Congress who supported Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House supported our Global Governance Crowd and their FAST TRACK, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership 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 nation.

We need to pass the FairTax Act of 2015 and end this disastrous income-based tax system that pits businesses against citizens and consumers and allows foreign interests and globalists to buy up our politicians over tax issues.

HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

Make it happen or live quietly with the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

We need to pass the FairTax Act of 2015 and end this disastrous income-based tax system .

---

Judy, contrary to popular belief, the FairTax Act of 2015 does not withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes. However, The "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment" would if adopted!


JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157U.S. 429 (1895)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnwk

Judy, contrary to popular belief, the FairTax Act of 2015 does not withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes. However, The "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment" would if adopted!


JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157U.S. 429 (1895)

---

Yes, I realize that, johnwk. We would need to repeal the 16th Amendment to withdraw Congress' power to do that, however, if Congress passes the FairTax, all taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes would be eliminated and replaced with the national sales tax.

Yes, I understand that until the 16th Amendment is repealed, then there is always the possibility that Congress might impose another income tax on something. I believe the American People and the States will be so happy with the FairTax, that I am not concerned with this issue, however, the FairTax legislation, HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate was changed to add a Sunset Provision in 7 years from the implementation date, so that it expires if States haven't repealed the 16th Amendment in 7 years, which would then require either an extension of the Sunset Provision, an Amendment to the FairTax Act, or termination of the FairTax if that's what the people want to do.

Personally, I was opposed to the Sunset Provision, but "conservatives" wanted to prolong the agony of the income tax by complaining that if we didn't repeal the 16th Amendment first, we could end up with both the national sales tax and an income tax, which is true, but most unlikely, because once this evil income tax is gone, no candidate for public office will ever win an election wanting to revive the federal income tax.

The FairTax is a like a tariff, perfectly legal and constitutional. No rights or freedoms, no privacy or civil liberties are violated, no one's income is stolen, no one is forced to pay it, only those who choose to purchase new goods and services at the final point of retail sale at levels above the Household Consumption Allowance actually pay it anyway, because they can use the Rebate if they wish to the FairTax on essentials up to the HCA, so for me, it is the perfect tax system for the United States.

I'm not enamored with the concept of "fair share" of anything. That is a socialist/communist notion. Free Choice to buy or not to buy, to pay or not to pay, and when you choose you pay the same as everyone else, those are the concepts with which my vision of liberty is enamored and upon which the notion of "fair" is defined in our language.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, I realize that, johnwk. We would need to repeal the 16th Amendment to withdraw Congress' power to do that, however, if Congress passes the FairTax, all taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes would be eliminated and replaced with the national sales tax.

---

The FairTax does not withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. H.R. 25 is a Hoax being perpetrated upon the American People.

JWK



Are we really to believe the founder of fairtax.org., Leo E. Linbeck Jr. and Herman Cain, both former ringleaders of the federal reserve banking cartel which plunders ournational treasury?

It's so sad that people just can't get their heads around the truth. The income tax is why we have a federal reserve, so anyone who wants to get rid of the income tax is not in anyway a "ringleader" of the federal reserve banking cartel "plundering our treasury". We are the ones trying to end the federal reserve and the plundering by ending the income tax upon which it depends. And for you or anyone else to call a national retail sales tax a "hoax" being perpetrated upon the American People is insanity. 45 States already collect retail sales taxes and no one whines about their liberties or hoaxes or anything else negative about those!! And under the FairTax, the States collect the FairTax from retail businesses the same way as they collect state sales taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

And for you or anyone else to call a national retail sales tax a "hoax" being perpetrated upon the American People is insanity. .

---

What I actually wrote was:


"The FairTax does not withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. H.R. 25 is a Hoax being perpetrated upon the American People."
JWK



Are we really to believe the founder of fairtax.org., Leo E. Linbeck Jr. and Herman Cain, both former ringleaders of the federal reserve banking cartel which plunders ournational treasury?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnwk

What I actually wrote was:


"The FairTax does not withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. H.R. 25 is a Hoax being perpetrated upon the American People."
JWK



Are we really to believe the founder of fairtax.org., Leo E. Linbeck Jr. and Herman Cain, both former ringleaders of the federal reserve banking cartel which plunders ournational treasury?

---

HR 25 is the repeal of the Internal Revenue Act and the elimination of all income-based taxes that replaces this revenue with a national retail sales tax. Did you not know that HR 25 eliminates the income tax and replaces it with a national retail sales tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I'm not enamored with the concept of "fair share" of anything. That is a socialist/communist notion.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

HR 25 is the repeal of the Internal Revenue Act and the elimination of all income-based taxes that replaces this revenue with a national retail sales tax. Did you not know that HR 25 eliminates the income tax and replaces it with a national retail sales tax?

---

Did you know only a constitutional amendment can "repeal" Congress' taxing powers? H.R. 25 would repeal squat!

JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." ...Jefferson

Getting back to the subject of the thread see: WH Praises Spending Deal With GOP Congress: 'We Succeeded'


December 17, 2015


“(CNSNews.com) - The White House objects to a few Republican provisions in the omnibus $1.1-trillion spending bill, but overall, "We succeeded," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday.

"So we walked into these negotiations focused on making sure that Republicans would not succeed in advancing their ideological agenda through the budgetary process, and I think, based on all of the solid reporting work that you have done over the last several weeks, there were a variety of attempts that Republicans undertook\ to try to do exactly that, and we did succeed in fighting off those efforts.”


Hopefully voters will get rid of Paul Ryan this coming election and every Republican or Democrat who supports this plundering of America’s treasury.


JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

CLICK HERE for the list of Republicans who voted for Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House and gave the Chamber of Commerce, the Club for Growth and Obama exactly who they wanted as speaker of the House.

JWK




Members of Congress who supported Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House supported our Global Governance Crowd and their FAST TRACK, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and the Pacific Rim deal, each of which are used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

We need to pass the FairTax Act of 2015 and end this disastrous income-based tax system that pits businesses against citizens and consumers and allows foreign interests and globalists to buy up our politicians over tax issues.

HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

Make it happen or live quietly with the consequences.

---

Trump has a pretty good tax plan too.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnwk

Did you know only a constitutional amendment can "repeal" Congress' taxing powers? H.R. 25 would repeal squat!

JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." ...Jefferson

---

Yes, I know that. Aren't you reading my posts? Only the States can repeal the 16th Amendment. It takes 3/4 of them which is 38 States. That may or may not ever happen. We still don't have ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. So don't hold your breath on that. The best hope to repeal the 16th Amendment is for Congress to pass the FairTax, repeal the income tax laws, create the FairTax national retail sales tax, and let people enjoy it. If it doesn't work out for some reason, then you can go back to your evil income tax, but why wouldn't a national retail sales tax work? Retail sales taxes work in 45 States, why wouldn't that work on a national basis? Of course it will work. And whereas state retail sales taxes were created to generate new revenue, the FairTax is not, it's replacing the income tax so there is no additional cost, it's just changing the way taxes are collected taxing voluntary consumption instead of stealing your money against your will through a mandated income tax.

Maybe most Americans prefer the authoritarianism of the income tax, maybe our citizenry is so infected and infested with socialists and communists that Americans no longer know what freedom really is any more. There's some reason the FairTax has been sitting in the US Congress buried in the Ways and Means Committee for 16 years as our country sinks and people who don't even belong in the country are mailed refund checks by the IRS for taxes they never paid to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldendaze

Trump has a pretty good tax plan too.

---

Yes, it's a good plan as mandatory income tax plans go. I believe he'll support the FairTax once he's in office and can meet with Congress on HR 25. He wanted the FairTax but backed off, and at first I didn't understand why, but I believe it's because it takes too long to explain it to people who really don't understand taxation and the numbers to begin with so a campaign with 17 candidates in the primary just isn't going to have the time to do that. I mean all the media pundits haven't even bothered to read his detailed policy proposals on his website, so I guess an election year is not really the time to do it after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnwk

Getting back to the subject of the thread see: WH Praises Spending Deal With GOP Congress: 'We Succeeded'


December 17, 2015


“(CNSNews.com) - The White House objects to a few Republican provisions in the omnibus $1.1-trillion spending bill, but overall, "We succeeded," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday.

"So we walked into these negotiations focused on making sure that Republicans would not succeed in advancing their ideological agenda through the budgetary process, and I think, based on all of the solid reporting work that you have done over the last several weeks, there were a variety of attempts that Republicans undertook\ to try to do exactly that, and we did succeed in fighting off those efforts.”


Hopefully voters will get rid of Paul Ryan this coming election and every Republican or Democrat who supports this plundering of America’s treasury.


JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

---

You can only stop the "plundering" when you eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national retail sales tax on new consumption at the final point of sale.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

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

---

Judy,

You are correct that the rule of apportionment was intended to apply to any direct tax laid among the states. But the rule of apportionment was also intended to apply to any "general tax" laid among the states, especially if it were the primary means to raise a federal revenue! I gave you the quotes confirming this. If you choose to ignore what our founders stated that is your choice.


Additionally, apportionment was also intended to apply if and when money was transferred from the federal government to the states! An example of this is found in the Act of Congress in June of 1836 in which all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.


The rule of apportioning both representatives and any general tax laid among the states was part of the “Great Compromise” which led to the ratification of our Constitution.

It should also be pointed out that the rule was not intended to apply to excise taxes which may be laid upon specifically chosen articles of consumption. Taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption were intended to be uniform though out the United States. But the alleged “fairtax” does not lay a specific tax on a specifically chosen article of consumption. It creates what you call a “sales tax” which was unknown to our founders and is nowhere to be found in any historical records of the time. And it proposes to create Congress’ primary method to raise a federal revenue and cleverly removes that part of the Great Compromise under which the people of each state agreed to contribute a share into the federal government proportionately equal to their representation in Congress.

I reject the fairtax because it violates the wisdom of our founding fathers under which they agreed that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned so that each state’s contribution of a total sum being collected would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress ___a rule based upon an idea commanding “representation with a proportional financial obligation”, or, one man, one vote, and one vote one dollar. Socialists love their one man one vote part of the rule of apportionment but fear with a passion one vote one dollar which is intentionally defeated under the alleged “fairtax”.

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and any general tax laid among the states “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “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.”

Under the “fairtax” although the people of a particular state may contribute a larger share to fund the federal government than another state, they may not get a proportionately equal say in Congress relative to their contribution when their money is spent. Why do you reject the wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to the “fair tax” so the people of each state only pay a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress?

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded [the rule of apportionment], would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnwk

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


JWK

---

No, that is wrong. This thread is on page 3 because I haven't ignored anything you've posted. I addressed your explanations with the fact that you were claiming the FairTax was a direct tax covered by apportionment under Article 1, Section 2, when it's an indirect tax covered by Article 1, Section 8 and not subject to apportionment. You claim you support the State Rate Tax Plan suggested by someone in an article written in 1984, which is a consumption tax collected by the States. The FairTax was introduced into the US Congress in 1999, and is a consumption tax collected by the States and forwarded to the Feds. A national retail sales tax on goods and services like the FairTax is an indirect consumption tax by definition, is not subject to apportionment as if it were a direct tax, is perfectly constitutional, and restores liberty, privacy and the power of the purse to the people.

So I think there is something about the FairTax that you're missing.

Is it because you want Congress to tax specific articles of consumption instead of all new goods and services as proposed in your State Tax Rate Plan?

From your State Tax Rate Plan article:

Quote:

---

By forcing Congress to select specific articles of consumption, as opposed to a blanket national sales tax, a system of taxation is achieved in which the general public may actively participate in the selection of the specific articles to be taxed, and, to what degree they will taxed.

---

Is this the bone you have to pick with the FairTax? Lets address that.

The FairTax is not a blanket national sales tax. It's a national retail sales tax on new goods and services at the final point of sale, taxed one time. Used goods and education services are exempt. Business to business sales are exempt. Exports are exempt. Charity giving is exempt, but charity retail sales and services are taxed the same as any other retail sale for money. Essentials and necessities are exempt through the Rebate for any citizen or legal resident who wants to sign up for it.

Your plan that you call the "original tax plan" is the use of excise taxes on articles of consumption. There is very little difference between an excise tax and the FairTax. They are both indirect taxes on consumption, both on goods and services, both are included in the price and by definition and practicality are the same thing, the difference is a sales tax like the FairTax is an inclusive tax on the price, whereas most excise taxes are taxes on the unit, but excise taxes are not restricted to taxes on the unit.

Quote:

---

An excise is considered an indirect tax, meaning that the producer or seller who pays the tax to the government is expected to try to recover or shift the tax by raising the price paid by the buyer. Excises are typically imposed in addition to another indirect tax such as a sales tax or value added tax (VAT). In common terminology (but not necessarily in law), an excise is distinguished from a sales tax or VAT in three ways:

an excise typically applies to a narrower range of products;
an excise is typically heavier, accounting for a higher fraction of the retail price of the targeted products; and
an excise is typically a per unit tax, costing a specific amount for a volume or unit of the item purchased, whereas a sales tax or VAT is an ad valorem tax and proportional to the price of the good.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise

Also, in your State Tax Rate Plan, it deals with another issue which is dealing with deficits and this rate plan according to your article is to raise the money annually from the states through a direct tax subject to apportionment to balance the budget every year. That's an entirely different and separate issue, an important issue, but not one that has anything to do with how we collect federal taxes throughout the year.

But in the FairTax legislation there is a shortfall provision for Social Security and Medicare funding to ensure no shortfalls occur. This provision requires Congress to assess the revenue versus expenditures and raise the SS/Medicare rate which starts out at 8.09% to account for any deficits in that funding, which from time to time may be necessary due to inflation, benefits, recession or any number of issues that could arise. As to the General Revenue rate, they have the authority to raise or lower the 14.91% any time Congress deems fit to do so, but it is not required, whereas with the SS/Medicare portion, they are required by statute to raise the rates to ensure funding.

Many people may not realize what's been happening in SS/Medicare. As more sign up and inflation raises benefits, one would think there would be payroll tax increases to account for this so SS/Medicare doesn't go broke or rob the Trust Fund. Yet, the last time Congress raised the payroll tax rates for SS/Medicare was in 1990, 25 years ago. They even reduced the rates for 2 years during the recession and in 2013 raised it slightly but only on high-income earners. Congress has intentionally tried to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, then wants to force Americans to work longer and receive less benefits. This betrayal scheme would never happen under the FairTax, as a matter of law under the FairTax statute.

In any event, there is nothing at all wrong with the FairTax. I realize there are income tax industry constituents who prefer the system the way it is. The income tax system runs deficits and has for 102 years, it bankrupts the country as we are now. which is the only inevitable outcome of such a system, it forces Americans into tax slavery and debt for benefits they don't receive, enables our Congress to manipulate our economy to suit its corporate and these days mostly foreign donors, and there is no end in sight with a system that hands over control of our government to globalists and socialists for the benefit of foreign interests and foreign governments, instead of our own citizens and national interest.

When solutions like the FairTax sit buried in committee for 16 years unattended to while America burns, something has gone very wrong not only with our government setting the fires but the citizenry itself that not only refuses to lift a pail of water to put them out but cries "unfair" or "hoax" to resist the needed correction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

No, that is wrong. This thread is on page 3 because I haven't ignored anything you've posted. I addressed your explanations with the fact that you were claiming the FairTax was a direct tax .

---

Judy,

you are in error, but you are entitled to your opinion. When you decide to address my actual words, and the documentation I provided, perhaps then I will continue discussing the issue. But for now, I have lost interest because of your repeated failure to address what I have posted to you. Instead of interpreting what I have written, you should quote my words and then respond to the particular passage you quote.

Have a great weekend!

JWK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnwk

Judy,

you are in error, but you are entitled to your opinion. When you decide to address my actual words, and the documentation I provided, perhaps then I will continue discussing the issue. But for now, I have lost interest because of your repeated failure to address what I have posted to you. Instead of interpreting what I have written, you should quote my words and then respond to the particular passage you quote.

Have a great weekend!

JWK

---

Well, JWK, obviously the only response I have is, you are in error, but of course you are entitled to your view.

You have a great weekend as well. How long have is it been that I've been trying to understand your issue? I think it's 8 years! Maybe one day you will articulate the issue in a manner that I can understand what it is that bothers you about the FairTax so I can address it.

I sure hope we have a breakthrough at some point!

:)