Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
Like Tree17Likes

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #21
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    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 View Post
    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    “The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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




    Last edited by johnwk; 02-10-2017 at 05:14 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    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.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

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

  3. #23
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    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]




  4. #24
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    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.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

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

  5. #25
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    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

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. No, Donald Trump Did Not Abandon Promise to Repeal Obamacare
    By lorrie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2016, 11:17 PM
  2. Wana Be President "Repeal Obamacare" BLA BLA BLA YOU FOOLED US ONCE. NOT AGAIN!
    By WalkerStephens in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-13-2015, 11:15 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-02-2014, 06:29 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 12:33 PM
  5. Waddoups says Legislature willing to repeal and replace HB11
    By Ratbstard in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-12-2011, 09:57 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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