Thread: President Trump should work to repeal and replace Obamacare with nothing!

I believe our federal government now spends approximately $950 Billion on “health-care” [Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare, and Obamacare subsidies]. I see nothing wrong with reducing federal taxes by that amount, leaving this money within the States, which in turn allows the States and people therein to deal with “health-care” as they individually see fit. Just imagine the enormous saving from doing this ___ no more federal bureaucracy employees who now get outrageous salaries and pensions which hard working American citizens are taxed to finance. We need to rid ourselves of this federal welfare parasitic Cartel which lives large on the American taxpayer’s hard earned wages.


JWK

Our Washington Establishment welfare cartel, which has enslaved the American People, needs to be terminated, and powers not granted to the federal government must be returned the states and people therein.

If federal taxes were reduced in your State by the amount the Federal government now spends on Medicare, including its federal bureaucracy, and keeping that money in your State, could your State continue a Medicare program in your State in a much more efficient manner which would begin with abandoning all the federal regulations which have caused Medicare costs to skyrocket?

Seems to me our bloated federal government is the problem and not the solution. It is filled with a swarm of blood sucking parasitic employees who live large on every States taxpaying citizen’s dime.

JWK

The American People need to rid themselves of the Washington Establishment welfare cartel which has enslaved them, and return powers to the States and people therein which are not granted to the federal government

Do you mean Medicare or Medicaid? Medicare stays with Social Security. People worked for that and paid into it. Medicare is fine. It hasn't had a tax rate increase in 30 years so there's really no problem with Medicare or Social Security which hasn't had a tax rate increase in 26 years. Neither one of those are the cause of budget deficits or higher taxes or national debt.

Medicaid on the other hand is the biggest user/abuser/loser. I would like for the federal government to get completely out of the Medicaid program. Put it all on the States. It's their poverty and policies that cause and promote this expenditure. You get the federal government out of the Medicaid program and you won't have an illegal alien problem, you won't have a breeding problem, you won't have a jobs and wages problem.

But then the States won't be able to afford it unless the feds give up on the evil disgusting federal income tax, so pass the FairTax and turn Medicaid over to the states, lock stock and barrel. Problems solved in one swoop.

I realize you want to get rid of the federal income tax but want a different apportionment federal system. The problem I have with that plan is that now the states will have the big income tax and raise property taxes and have more sales taxes. Problem becomes even larger that way, it seems to me.

If the FairTax is passed at federal, then the states will see the wisdom and move all their taxes to the FairTax at State and Local levels, eliminating income and property taxes.

Judy,

We have been over this a number of times. The “fair tax” makes no attempt to withdraw from Congress’ power the ability to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned “income” as was upheld in Flint vs Stone Tracy.


Additionally, the “fair tax” does nothing to restore the protection of the rule of apportionment which was specifically agreed to to insure that each state’s representation would be based upon its population, and likewise insure each State’s Contribution in federal taxes would be apportioned, based upon its population size.

For a great article which explains why we need to restore the protection of apportionment see Congressional Seats and Federal Outlays.

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., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]

The FairTax repeals all the laws that pertain to profits, gains, salaries and other earned income. It doesn't repeal the 16th Amendment. That needs to be done by separate legislation.

The FairTax doesn't need to do anything about the rule of apportionment. The apportionment rule is in the Constitution ready and willing to be used at any time Congress deems it necessary to be used.

Originally Posted by Judy

The FairTax repeals all the laws that pertain to profits, gains, salaries and other earned income. It doesn't repeal the 16th Amendment. That needs to be done by separate legislation.

The FairTax doesn't need to do anything about the rule of apportionment. The apportionment rule is in the Constitution ready and willing to be used at any time Congress deems it necessary to be used.

The "fair tax" H.R. 25, makes no attempt to withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes. Why do you keep asserting is does?

And with regard to the rule of apportionment, it prevents the communist, Marxist notion of, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

You apparently did not read the article I provided a link to.

JWK

Where did I assert that the FairTax repeals the "power" of Congress? I said specifically it repeals the income tax laws, the power to collect is in the 16th Amendment and I assert that Congress will circulate a separate legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment. Congress as you know doesn't have the "power" to repeal its own "power". That power is repealed by the states with a ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Congress can repeal its laws by which it collects income taxes which is what the FairTax does, but Congress can't repeal the 16th Amendment which is the power to collect, it can offer up a proposal to circulate to the states to do that, but that is all it can do and all the people who want the FairTax legislation passed also want such a proposal to repeal the 16th Amendment, but with separate legislation.

You know that the rule of apportionment in the Constitution was not intended to pay for the regular costs of government, but to assess states when there were shortfalls in federal revenue, right? You know that the main source of revenue for the federal government was tariffs, taxes on imported goods which are ultimately paid by consumers, right? You know that the Federal Revenue Act of 1913 passed by Democrats that created the income tax and the subsequent 16th Amendment that was ratified by the states the same year to allow for the Federal Revenue Act was all done to make up for lost federal revenue caused by the simultaneous reduction of tariff rates to make foreign goods imported into the US cheaper?

The income tax is evil and needs to be abolished. I guess we agree on that. We disagree on how to replace it, you want states to come up with their own plan to fund the federal government. So far, the states use many and varied combinations of income tax, property tax and sales taxes, and 43 states have state income taxes, same tyranny as federal income tax. Would they do away with their own evil income taxes or raise them to pay the assessments? The tyranny of income taxation isn't limited to the federal government, but getting rid of it on the federal level and replacing it with a national sales tax seems to me the best and easiest place to begin and start to fix our country and the FairTax is the best and easiest proposal out there by which to do it in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Judy

The income tax is evil and needs to be abolished. .

What is "evil" is today's Congress laying and collecting taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned "incomes". H.R. 25 does not propose ending that.

Additionally, ignoring the protection intended by the rule of apportionment and allowing some states to exercise representation in Congress which is not proportionately equal to its contribution in federal taxes, has given rise to exactly what our founders sought to forbid!

Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding 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 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

JWK

Representation with a proportional financial obligation ___ our Founder's primary rule for taxation

Johnwk, the FairTax abolishes the federal income tax in the United States, it repeals every federal law that collects an income-based tax. It repeals personal income tax, corporate income tax, estate tax, dividends tax, interest tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax and gift tax. It abolishes the Internal Revenue Service. It removes 77,000 pages of income tax code from our laws. It also calls for separate legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment.

In its place it implements a retail sales tax on new goods and services of 23% which is the same amount of revenue that income tax rates in 1999 the first year the FairTax legislation was introduced provided for. It earmarks 8,09% of FairTaxes to fund Social Security and Medicare with the remaining 14.91% earmarked to fund general revenue.

It has a rebate that reimburses all citizens and legal residents who want to sign up for it every year for FairTaxes paid on essentials based on an actuarial formula so people aren't paying the sales tax on essential spending to live. The amount per citizen is based on age and is capped at the household consumption allowance determined annually by HHS plus 1 adult so the cap is a little higher than the poverty rate income, as it should be.

We're in the same black hole on this that we've always been in, Johnwk. I don't understand why you want to promote an existing apportionment rule in the US constitution that no one in our history has ever used to fund the federal government, not once, not even the Founders who wrote it in. It was never intended to be used as the regular revenue source, only for emergencies and shortfalls that couldn't be met otherwise, or they would have used it, Johnwk. But, they didn't. So, there is probably good reason for that. The Founders didn't want to tax states with mandates, they didn't want to tax our citizens with mandates, that's why there are no tax mandates in the US Constitution. They wanted to tax goods and services and pay for our government through taxes on trade and commerce, not states, not citizens, not people, not earnings, not incomes, bur purchases of products, voluntarily bought.

Using the apportionment rule as a primary means of funding the federal government is it's own form of tyranny, and was only a provision in the event of war or circumstances that might block trade that would result in shortfalls in tariff collections temporarily.

I want to make our country better by fixing it, not reinvent it. As a citizen, and speaking only for myself, I would prefer the FairTax because there is no mandate on me. As a business person if I sell or rent to consumers, then I'm responsible for collecting the FairTax at time of purchase or collection and sending it in to the States on a simple state sales tax form that I would have to file now for the state. As a consumer, I look at the price which has the FairTax built in to it and decide whether I want to buy it or not. If I do, I pay for it and am given a receipt for the portion of the price that is FairTax. I probably wouldn't mess with it, but if I wanted or need to, I could also sign up for the Rebate, a simple form to fill out, once a year, something you can probably do on line and the Social Security Administration handles it because it requires your social security number.

We're a Republic, and states have a lot of power and authority over things, but we're still a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, so the people should fund the federal government, because it is our government. I prefer to align directly with the funding of the federal government as a consumer, rather than a trapped slave of a state under apportionment. All the tyranny that we now face in this country has either been by the states or on their behalf.

There is no "sanctuary" for Americans in a State in my opinion. They are and have shown themselves to be the primary culprits behind most of the wrongs in our nation. The bigger the state, the more power, influence and corruption it has. Why would you want to realign one set of crooks in DC with 50 more sets in the States?

Makes no sense to me.

FAIRTAX NOW!!

HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 18 in the US Senate.

http://www.fairtaxfraud.com/fallout.asp