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

.

Those who support and defend our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and who especially support our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and federalism, certainly know our federal government has not be granted any authority whatsoever to enter the states to tax for, spend on, regulate and control the peoples' decisions and choices regarding their health-care needs. Keep in mind, however, that our federal government does have a legitimate responsibility to care for our military war veterans.


So, what is the proper path to follow? President Trump ought to promote legislation which repeals and replaces Obamacare with nothing! The legislation ought to first declare that in view of our federal government’s defined and limited powers, and that under the 10th Amendment all power not delegated to our federal government are reserved to the states and people therein, that Congress is not authorized to enter the States to tax for, spend on and regulate the people’s decisions and choices regarding their health-care needs.


The proposal ought to continue by setting a specific date, such as January 1st, 2018, when the federal government will no longer tax for, spend on nor regulate the people’s decisions regarding the health-care needs. In addition, the legislation must also stipulate that the federal government will reduce federal taxes, across the board, by the amount now spent on Medicaid and subsidies to the poor, leaving that money within the States so each State may have access to these funds in order to deal with their own poor and needy who now rely upon federal assistance for their health care.


This of course is very much in harmony with our Founders intentions which are summarized in Federalist No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”


And with regard to Congress’ legitimate power to regulate commerce among the states to insure free trade and competition among the States, The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 ought to be repealed by the proposed legislation, which would go a long way to end price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and a monopolizing of the insurance industry, which has without question allowed the cost of health insurance to skyrocket over the years.


Let us work to return to our founding principles, especially the Tenth Amendment and federalism, our Constitution’s plan.


JWK




"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, [the 10th amendment] would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Johnwk wrote:

Quote:

---

And with regard to Congress’ legitimate power to regulate commerce among the states to insure free trade and competition among the States, The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 ought to be repealed by the proposed legislation, which would go a long way to end price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and a monopolizing of the insurance industry, which has without question allowed the cost of health insurance to skyrocket over the years.

---

YES!! YES!! YES!! YES!! YES!!

Do this immediately, separately from anything else Congress and President want to do with Obamacare. Do this now and watch what happens. It will be amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Johnwk wrote:



YES!! YES!! YES!! YES!! YES!!

Do this immediately, separately from anything else Congress and President want to do with Obamacare. Do this now and watch what happens. It will be amazing.

---

I know the following is a bit long, but it is essential to know to understand our current situation and federal control over our decisions and choices regarding our health-care needs.

I have long stated that part of health insurance reform starts with a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Let me give you the background.

As a result of a Senate investigation in 1888-1889 which found a number of Trusts [sugar, beef, oil] were interfering with free trade among the States, the Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed to “protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.” But the Act remained, as noted by Supreme Court Justice Harlan, “a piece of useless legislation.”



But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Please keep these charges in mind because they are very pertinent to our current situation and seem to reflect what folks in government have been engaged in. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.” But the Supreme Court decided the insurance business was in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, Decided June 5, 1944


Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to overrule the Court’s decision and relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce “among the States”, but only with regard to the insurance industry! And by neglecting this power the various State Legislatures are allowed to engage in practices which would otherwise be indictable offenses under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, and so, the various State Legislatures decide to engage in such practices e.g., adopting discriminatory laws which work to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).


The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). The South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to prohibit the various states from imposing discriminatory law upon out of state entities and undermine free trade among the States.


But what is most amazing, when one realizes it, the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERSASSOCIATION case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERSASSOCIATION


And now comes Obamacare which in fact is designed to engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry on a federal level! Are these not indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN-UNDERWRITERS-ASSOCIATION?



You be the judge!

JWK

Yes, cannot wait a year for something to be done on the high premiums and very little doctor coverage.

All we here about is the supposedly 15 million people who will lose health insurance if Trump repeals Obamacare....

What about the 15 million in the Individual Market who lost there plans when the ACA went into effect?

What about the other 300 million people in the U.S. who got hit with the huge premiums in order to subsidize the
15 million extremely sick and illegal aliens covered under Obamacare?

I prefer to go back to the pre-Obamacare healthcare because it was PPO Plan and 1/4 of the price it is now.

I totally agree, lorrie. The repeal of Obamacare and Tax Reform must be done now. No excuses by the Congresscritters. No more talk, we want action.

Also, to simplify the issue of the McCarran-Ferguson Act Repeal, this is the action that Trump was talking about in all of his rallies, speeches, interviews and debates about "erasing the lines".

ERASE THE LINES NOW!! ERASE THE LINES NOW!! ERASE THE LINES NOW!!


It's a 1 sentence bill to achieve this and applies to not only health insurance companies but all insurance companies, fire, auto, health and so forth.

I was a licensed insurance agent in Upstate NY. I can attest the training is rigorous and the state licensing test is very hard to pass. You need a different license in every state you sell insurance in. Which mean additional training and another state licensing test and yes additional fees. This being said I went to a company awards dinner in 1995 one of the bosses laughed about a dinner he was at with other Insurance company heads a dinner meeting with President Bill Clinton. The guy laughed and said you can expect to be making more money as the premium's will be going up in the next 10-25 years. The government is going to make it mandatory that everyone has insurance or they will be fined. I though this guy was nuts. They have known this was coming and did nothing. Interesting fact - In 1995 20% of every premium went to cover people who were uninsured according to my class instructor. We still had affordable premiums and great coverage. Now according to this article it is at 1,000 +average for each policy a year. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7693848&page=1
Now you have to figure an extra 89 million people are here that weren't in 1995 our population has grown enormous.
http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table
It is quite obvious to everyone but politicians that premium's are so high it has become unaffordable to many Americans along with high deductibles and co-pays it is close to being useless insurance anyway. So the more uninsured, the higher the premium's grow and higher co-pays and deductibles. There is no end to this situation in site it will just continue.
But still the so called nonprofit insurance companies CEO make millions a year. The agent sure doesn't I can tell you that.
This is not going to get better until we scrap the whole U.S. healthcare system and start over again. It might work if we could open up American healthcare insurance to International foreign markets, they are already established and have steady income and lower premiums than the U.S. The prices should be lower spread across a larger group and other countries. Making it more affordable to Americans. More people could afford coverage. The uninsured would have to be covered by our government which it already does anyway with our medicare tax. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

This is not going to get better until we scrap the whole U.S. healthcare system and start over again. It might work if we could open up American healthcare insurance to International foreign markets, they are already established and have steady income and lower premiums that the U.S. The prices should be lower spread across a larger group and other countries. Making it more affordable to Americans. More people could afford coverage. The uninsured would have to be covered by our government which it already does anyway with our medicare tax. Just a thought.

---

This is the idea behind erasing the lines. Repeal of McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 doesn't have any effect on state regulations of insurance agents or additional laws that states may want to impose on insurance companies. McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts insurance companies from the Federal Trade Commission regulations and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. To take advantage of that exemption, insurance companies set up state based subsidiaries in all 50 states, each subsidiary only serves the people of that particular state, so the "pool" is very small compared to most businesses that trade on an interstate basis.

Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act not only does away with the Anti-Trust issues that raise premiums through monopoly and anti-competition behavior like collusion and price-fixing, it subjects the whole industry to other federal fair trade regulations to prevent predatory sales, fraud, schemes, negligence, discrimination, and other unfair illegal activity. But most importantly it expands the "pool" for each insurance company from the present state population to the population of the entire country. So instead of being 1 of 4 companies that serve Mississippi, they would be 1 of 1,000 that serve the whole nation and the broad spectrum of our national demographics.

Premiums will drop like rocks and services will increase. Co-pays and deductibles will be much smaller and the variety of services and different types of policies will be many, varied and very consumer oriented because there will be interstate national competition.

That doesn't change the underlying demographic problem of so many poor and unemployed in our country who can't afford health insurance at any price. Until we fix the economy we have no choice but to use tax dollars, more state than federal I would think, to pay for their health care until they have a good full time job and buy their own or hopefully have an employer plan they can sign up for.

Thank you for raising the point about the "pool", posylady, because that is a very very important advantage of repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 and "erasing the lines".

Good information. Thank you.

Judy, It might work and should of always been open on state lines. The only problem is that the pool will not be established already to cover millions and to take millions of people who have been uninsured at the start would drain a lot of their resources right off the bat. Uninsured people who become insured start going to the Dr. and many are sure to have serious health issues that will cost. It might work. It also may take a lot of insurance companies down with the added resource strain. Government might have to bail them out at some point. But after a few years of building up resources it could work. Most insurance companies are also insured by Lloyd's of London so most may be O.K. I am just not very trusting of our Health Insurance companies in the U.S. doing the right thing. They are a lot like the big Pharma companies. They want to be the only ones doing business in the U.S. so they can control the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by posylady

Judy, It might work and should of always been open on state lines. The only problem is that the pool will not be established already to cover millions and to take millions of people who have been uninsured at the start would drain a lot of their resources right off the bat. Uninsured people who become insured start going to the Dr. and many are sure to have serious health issues that will cost. It might work. It also may take a lot of insurance companies down with the added resource strain. Government might have to bail them out at some point. But after a few years of building up resources it could work. Most insurance companies are also insured by Lloyd's of London so most may be O.K. I am just not very trusting of our Health Insurance companies in the U.S. doing the right thing. They are a lot like the big Pharma companies. They want to be the only ones doing business in the U.S. so they can control the market.

---

That's right, posylady. That's why I said this:

Quote:

---

That doesn't change the underlying demographic problem of so many poor and unemployed in our country who can't afford health insurance at any price. Until we fix the economy we have no choice but to use tax dollars, more state than federal I would think, to pay for their health care until they have a good full time job and buy their own or hopefully have an employer plan they can sign up for.

---

We'll have to underwrite expanded Medicaid or what Trump said on the campaign trail that I liked better which is, if someone is sick without insurance and no money to pay the bill, then tax payers pay the hospital bill on a reduced negotiated rate, until the person can get a job, a better life and afford insurance of their own. If they have a good job but don't have any insurance, then they'll have to pay the bill, work out a payment plan with the hospital and pay it off over-time.

We right now have 75 million people on Medicaid, about 14 million on SCHIP plus about 50 million on Medicare. That's at least 140 million of our 330 million people already on government funded insurance. The SS Disability I'm not sure how that works, whether they have early Medicare of some kind or not, I would imagine they do, so that's probably another 5 million. So that's 145 million.

Now for me, I've no problem with this 50 million on Medicare or the 5 million or whatever the number is on Disability. But I have a helluva problem with this 75 million on Medicaid and the 14 million on SCHIP. About 5 million of the 75 million on Medicaid are Seniors who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. I've no problem with that 5 million or whatever the number is today, that's what it was a few years ago when I did all this research on the subject. Maybe's 6 million today, but whatever it is, I'm fine with that. But for the rest, the objective is to get that other 70 million of Medicaid and the 14 million on SCHIP, full time jobs with companies that either pay high enough wages so they can buy their own insurance or better, go back to the ole days and employers provide a company plan voluntarily, not by mandate.

So you take the other 180 million people who are above poverty and SCHIP levels who are not retired or disabled and that's a pretty large pool that will grow as we create jobs and the SCHIPS program is ended, and the Medicaid numbers drop from 70 million down to 20 million or less. That would be a national pool of employed people of 180 million self-sustaining plus 14 million from former SCHIPPERS which is combined 194 million plus the 50 million that drop off Medicaid to self-sustaining and that's 244 million people plus a good share of the 50 million seniors who want and need supplemental plans.

That's a big pool to work with, especially through employer provided plans.

Then you have to work with our hospitals and drug companies to get some of those crazy costs down. And that means hiring American Doctors. So many hospitals now have imported these foreign doctors who I can tell you many of them do not know what they're doing. I don't know if it's their basic educations, language issues, attitudes, cultural differences, arrogance, or what it is, but it's a problem, a huge problem. We have to get more Americans into medical school. We have to stress that this is a good field to go into and we have to expand our American Medical Schools so they can take on more Americans to attend medical school with priority to fill the need. We also need to encourage doctors to make house calls. This would dramatically reduce hospital costs because it reduces emergency room visits and subsequent "admissions" when all the person may have needed was a shot of penicillin or a prescription. When the hospitals see that you have great insurance, they book you in for a several day stay, drug you so you can't think straight, and milk it for all its worth.

I've posted about this McCarran-Ferguson Act for years, that's where it starts. It's a simple bill, a no-brainer, completely separate from "Obamacare" and with that one simple action, the industry itself will gear up into action and start funding competitive national plans, no government, no legislation, it will just happen. I do like the government rules concerning pre-existing conditions, as well as no drops just because you got sick and actually used your insurance, and also no rescission without cause. We do those simple things of repealing McCarran-Ferguson and have a simple little bill that covers pre-existin conditions, drops for use and no valid cause rescission and there will be companies and plans all over the place for the 180 million pool and then grow with the SCHIPPERS when they go off SCHIP, the former Medicaiders when they go off Medicaid and Seniors who want and need supplemental plans.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Johnwk, the FairTax abolishes the federal income tax in the United States,.

---

The "fairtax", H.R. 25, makes no attempt to withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned incomes. If the tax which you promote were adopted tomorrow, Congress would still have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned incomes as was done prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment. For example see Flint vs Stone Tracy which was decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

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.

---

Judy, what I have been promoting is very easy to understand and is our Founder's original tax plan.

What I promote is the following 32 words being added to our Constitution:

“The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money."

This means that Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties at our water's edge. But if that source is found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures, then Congress may lay and collect internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury, to raise additional revenue.

Finally, if there is a shortfall after following the above, Congress may then lay a "direct tax" in which each State's share is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.

Now, I suggest you study our nation's first revenue raising Act which partly confirms what I have been saying. See: An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandise imported into the United States. Note how each article is selected and a specific amount of tax is laid upon each selected article.

And with regard to the first "direct tax" to fund federal expenditures see: The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 under which each State's share is determined.

So, in fact, apportionment with regard to taxation, has been used, and it was used a number of other times in our nation's history.

Finally, with regard to the importance of apportionment, it was even used to return surplus revenue to the States. See Act of Congress in June of 1836 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.

Judy, why do you have a problem with returning to our Constitution's original tax plan?

JWK

Right, the FairTax repeals the income tax laws and replaces those with the FairTax national retail sales tax.

A separate legislation is required to repeal the 16th Amendment which the FairTax supporters in Congress will do, hopefully it would pass also, and then it's off to the States for ratification. You need 38 states to ratify. We might have 30 or 31, but I'm not sure about another 7 or 8. It could take awhile.

Meanwhile we are rid of the income tax code, the IRS has been abolished and defunded, the FairTax is working and serving America and all is well.

If the 16th Amendment is never repealed because enough states won't ratify it, does that means the federal government could re-impose some type of income tax? Sure, but that's highly unlikely from a political standpoint. Republicans would never support it, Independents would never support it, and by the time most Democrats see how great the FairTax works and how easy it is, re-imposing an income tax is just not politically viable. Could someone suggest well, lets just tax the rich and use it to tax a bunch of billionaires? Sure, and that's possible. So what if they do? I've found that Billionaires are usually quite capable of defending themselves, but lets say in the long haul they weren't able to for some reason, do you have a problem with Billionaires paying a 10% income tax in addition to their FairTaxes on new purchases? I'd really hate to see that happen to them, because it's not fair to them, but I could live with it. And eventually they'd make enough donations to enough campaigns to get rid of it and buy up the rest of the states we need to finish the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

The Democrats have done a lot of damage to our country, and some Republicans have too, so it's going to take a series of actions to put our Humpty Dumpty back together again, but the FairTax goes as far as any to do that with a single piece of legislation. It helps US control illegal immigration, puts our lower-income American Workers at a 23% comparative advantage in spending power and net realized income over illegal aliens trying to undercut their wages to steal their jobs, corrects our trade deficits almost over night by leveling the playing field between imports and our domestic producers and service-providers, saves all of our businesses billions of dollars in compliance costs, saves all of our citizens hundreds of billions in compliance costs and productivity. And the freedom and peace of mind it brings to our citizens, no paperwork, no worries, no forms, no booklets, no expenses, nothing to do with regards to paying your federal taxes. If you want to sign up for it, you can sign up for the Rebate and receive the refunds every month to offset FairTaxes you paid on your essentials and you don't even have to keep receipts or show them, it's set up on a uniform pre-calculated actuarial basis, one amount for adults and one must lower amount for children.

The benefits are endless. So I'm not concerned if the 16th Amendment isn't repealed right away, I hope it is and it's possible but with 38 states required, it will take some time.

Some people don't like the Rebate idea, and I understand that, but it's actually a very brilliant sensible solution to the regression of a sales tax. It's not mandatory, no one has to sign up for it who doesn't want it, it's voluntary. Every citizen and legal resident is eligible regardless of income. Personally, I'd prefer a lower rate of 20%, no rebate, but I totally understand the reasons to have this offset Rebate program available even though I wouldn't personally choose to sign up for it.

The original tax plan for general revenue was tariffs, taxes on goods and services. The FairTax is a return to the original tax plan. It taxes goods and services at the same rate, no different than a tariff, custom or duty, except it applies to domestic as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Right, the FairTax repeals the income tax laws and replaces those with the FairTax national retail sales tax.

.

---

Judy,

The fair tax, H.R. 25 does not withdraw, nor make any attempt to withdraw, Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes. Congress maintains this power under H.R. 25.

As to our Constitution's original tax plan, I have provided documentation to support my contentions and opinions.

The "fair tax" is designed to be Congress' primary source to fill the national treasury, and that violates the rule of apportionment which was specifically intended to insure that each state's contribution in filling the national treasury would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress. What is your objection to "representation with a proportional financial obligation"?

Tell me, did you read Congressional Seats and Federal Outlays by the Federation for American Immigration Reform? It explains one reason why the rule of apportionment needs to be followed.

JWK



”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, [the Obamacare tax] the rule of protection [apportionment] 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]

I understand that it maintains the power under the 16th Amendment, but it loses the laws that impact US. The 16th Amendment if not repealed can sit there as idle as the apportionment rule. The16th Amendment does not have to be repealed in order the end the income tax in the United States. To end the income tax in the US you have to repeal the income tax code and replace it what something else, and that is what the FairTax does. I'm okay with that. Our country is very divided, the Democrats who passed the 16th Amendment, the first Federal Revenue Act that taxed Americans on their incomes are the majority party, the control a majority of the states, and they love their income tax, they love the tyranny, the invasion of privacy, the control it has over citizens and businesses, the authoritarianism of it, they love it so it will take a few years of operating with the FairTax, and there may be some bugs in it that have to be worked out, but these will be few and far between and easily remedied, for skeptics and those who aren't sure or who didn't think they would like it or didn't understand how it would benefit not only themselves but our country and economy, to see what a beautiful system it will be. After living and working with it for a few years, Americans will love it, they'll see what a great plan it is, and how good it is for everyone, themselves, their families, their friends, their employers, our economy, our borders, our business and industry and our country in general.

And then after all the changeover is finished and the simplicity and ease are being enjoyed by all, then I would expect at least 38 states to ratify the repeal of the 16th Amendment, and to me, this is the right way to do it.

As to the apportionment rule, Johnwk, the apportionment rule didn't apply except to assessments for shortfalls. There have never been an assessment ever placed on the states that would trigger this rule. Not ever, not by the Founders, not ever, not once in the history of the United States. I think the better question is if assessments on states was the primary tax plan for the federal government why didn't the Founders use it? Based on the actual language in the Constitution, it was only to be used for shortfalls.

For example, the US Government today with $20 trillion of national debt has the constitutional authority under the apportionment clause to assess states their fair share based on population to pay it off immediately. What would your states share be of that $20 trillion, how much of it would you or the average citizen of your state be required to come up with to pay it off, and what method of tax collection would you propose your state use to tax its citizens to pay off the national debt?

It's my feeling that this is a provision of our Constitution that should rest in the idleness of its history. There's an ole saying about drawing unwanted attention to yourself. And the right of the government to assess states to pay for government spending is to me something that be kept in the closet, because you never know what someone might just get the bright idea to use it.

You realize that the Rebate sends money back to the people of the states based on population, so this feature of the FairTax goes quite a distance it seems to me to address your concerns of apportionment based on population. You might want to look into that and see if it mollifies your concern. Also, under the FairTax, the states actually collect the FairTax from the retail businesses and the retail businesses collect the FairTax from consumers at the final point of sale in a retail transaction that involves new products, not used, and services. Both the retail businesses and the states are paid a fee by statute for collecting it and the service they provided.

The FairTax is a really great tax plan, the best one I've ever seen presented to the Congress and the American People.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I understand that it maintains ....

---

Getting back to the subject of the thread, President Trump should work to repeal and replace Obamacare with nothing!

JWK