Thread: The Ted Cruz’s Establishment friendly tax plan

If you don't mind, I'll rely on what Trump has said about the matter publicly when he was asked about it. Personally, I think he'll help promote the FairTax for passage at some point during his Presidency, because he's smart enough to know why it's the only long-term plan to fix the fiscal problem with our government while preserving liberty and prosperity for our citizens and their employers. And now that he's leading, and the Establishment is following him, the Establishment that has blocked the FairTax all these years will soon be brought to its knees and their blockades of tyranny busted through.

Originally Posted by Judy

If you don't mind, I'll rely on what Trump has said about the matter publicly when he was asked about it. Personally, I think he'll help promote the FairTax for passage at some point during his Presidency, because he's smart enough to know why it's the only long-term plan to fix the fiscal problem with our government while preserving liberty and prosperity for our citizens and their employers. And now that he's leading, and the Establishment is following him, the Establishment that has blocked the FairTax all these years will soon be brought to its knees and their blockades of tyranny busted through.

The establishment will only follow him if they think he will serve their best interest. Not exactly a feather in Trump's hat if someone were to ask me. It just happens to be the so-called establishment that some of us are fighting against.

I'm supporting Trump because he's not going to the Oval Office to "fight". He's going to DC to fix our country. And I"m sure he'll have plenty of amazing interludes with these stupid incompetent people, but he knows how to prevail and win the deal he wants and needs to fix our country. He's not interested in showing up to "vote" on a bill they know already passed or already failed, whatever the case may be. He's not interested in these incomprehensible games or ploys of "poison pills". Like most business people, he's interested in results, the end game, the solution.

On the top four issues of Immigration, Trade, National Security and the Economy ... when you think about it, he really doesn't need the Establishment to do his part of the job on any of those matters.

So, I'm very happy with his agenda, style, competency, will, skills, experience and attitude.

Originally Posted by MW

The establishment will only follow him if they think he will serve their best interest. Not exactly a feather in Trump's hat if someone were to ask me. It just happens to be the so-called establishment that some of us are fighting against.

Exactly! And from what I am seeing every one of the candidates, including Mike Huckabee, is promoting and Establishment Friendly tax plan, and they ignore the brilliance, wisdom and merits of our Constitution's original tax plan, and especially its rule of apportionment which the friends of big government and socialists fear with a passion.

And what was our founder's thinking with regard to 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


Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get

Then why didn't the Founders ever use it? I think you're mixing up the general tax with the direct tax. Only direct tax is apportioned and that is only to be used in emergencies and national times of crisis, because it is the definition of authoritarian communism. Under the original Constitution, the States were protected against such because they elected Senators through their state legislatures. When the Constitution was changed to allow the people directly to elect Senators, the States were no longer protected against such a tyranny.

Americans will never support nor should they ever support such a communist form of taxation. The federal government spending trillions a year, then assessing states for it as direct tax through apportionment when the states have no say at all regarding government expenditures after the amendment that changed Senators from being elected by state legislatures to Senators being elected by the people? I've often wondered why they made that change and how things would be had it not been changed. I imagine it was politics rather than something meaningful. I'm not suggesting it should be changed back, I've just never studied why it was done to begin with.

Do you happen to know?

Originally Posted by Judy

Then why didn't the Founders ever use it?

If you are talking about the direct tax, it was used a number of times!

The act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

The act of Aug. 2, 1813, c. 37, 3 id. 53. By this act the tax was imposed upon real estate and slaves, according to their respective values in money.

The act of Jan. 19, 1815, c. 21, id. 164. This act imposed the tax upon the same descriptions of property, and in like manner as the preceding act.

The act of Feb. 27, 1815, c. 60, id. 216, applied to the District of Columbia the provisions of the act of Jan. 19, 1815. [102 U.S. 586,599] The act of March 5, 1816, c. 24,id. 255, repealed the two preceding acts, and re-enacted their provisions to enforce the collection of the smaller amount of tax thereby prescribed.

The act of Aug. 5, 1861, c. 45, 12 id. 294, required the tax to be levied wholly on real estate.

The act of June 7, 1862, c. 98, id. 422, and the act of Feb.6, 1863, c. 21, id. 640, both relate only to the collection, in insurrectionary districts, of the direct tax imposed by the act of Aug. 5, 1861.

Why do you refer to our founder's plan as communistic?

JWK

Why do you refer to our founder's plan as communistic?

The founders had two plans, general taxation and direct taxation.

You're talking about apportionment which only applies to direct taxation which has to be done through the states. It's forced mandated taxation that either extorts payments or uses police power to extract property or other assets in lieu of payments. When government can do that, and then does it, it's communism by definition, taking from one to give to another against your will every year of your life. It can take possession of businesses, homes, property, farms, anything it wants.

The original plan of taxation per the Founders was general tax which is defined in the Constitution as tariffs, duties, imposts and excise taxes. These are taxes on voluntary purchases of goods and services, the same as the FairTax. The FairTax is as close as it gets to the original general tax plan of the Founders. Again, to my knowledge, the "direct tax plan", you seem to favor has never been used, not even when there were shortfalls or deficits, not even during war, emergencies or periods of national crisis.

And our country survived very well under the general tax plan until 1913 when devious deceptive Democrats led by the evil and wicked Woodrow Wilson wanted to reduce tariffs to create more imports so foreign companies could compete more easily with our businesses, the tariff reductions left a shortfall in revenue, so they combined the Revenue Act with the Tariff Reduction Act, to fill the gap with an income tax which was illegal, so they amended the US Constitution with the 16th Amendment, and with the 16th Amendment and legal authority to use police power to rob the people, passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, all done in less than 8 months, and here we are 103 years later with $19 trillion in debt, 73 million people on Medicaid, millions and millions of jobs lost and lives destroyed, 55,000 factory closings, trillions of investment shipped off-shore, with our once beautiful happy country on its way to being the World's Largest Banana Republic, and no end in sight. This time next year, there will be 83 million people on Medicaid, 60,000 factory closings, and the national debt will be $21 Trillion.

So, Donald Trump will have his hands full to reverse this disaster. What we're in is an economic catastrophe all related to government policies undertaken against the will of the people and almost solely enabled by the income tax.

One day everyone will understand that. But at that point, it will be way too late for that understanding to make any difference. There's an ole saying "too little, too late", it's actually a law of the universe, also called beyond the point of no return.

The actual reality of our House of Cards is too tragic to discuss here, so lets just focus on the positives, Donald Trump winning the election and moving as quickly as he can to fix what he still can starting with getting all these illegal aliens the hell out of here and reversing this trade disaster as soon as possible. Those two things will at least stop the bleeding. They will also remove millions and millions of people from Medicaid and other welfare spending programs that reduces federal, state and county/municipal budgets through illegal alien removal because 87% of them are on one form of welfare or more and Americans going back to work at great production jobs with sustainable wages and benefits and no longer needing these services. This at least stops the acts of fiscal asphyxiation and we can at least breathe again.

Originally Posted by Judy

Again, to my knowledge, the "direct tax plan", you seem to favor has never been used, not even when there were shortfalls or deficits, not even during war, emergencies or periods of national crisis.
.

Judy,

Are you intentionally being obtuse?


I just posted a link to the direct tax of 1798 and the amounts to be paid by each of the States.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720

JWK