Senator Cruz still promotes the socialist/progressive’s tax upon incomes?

2/4/14 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

SEE: Ted Cruz readies for next round of tea party-fueled fight
Gromer Jeffers Jr.
03 February 2014 10:36 PM

Now, Cruz said, he wants to engage voters on other issues as well. He said he hoped Congress would use this year to overhaul tax and regulatory policy. And later he expressed his support for ideas like a flat federal income tax rate for everyone, saying people should mail back their tax returns on a postcard.

“We need to get back to the policies that work, like fundamental tax reform,” he said.

This is very disturbing. What we really need to do is get back to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, especially with reference to direct taxation! I thought Senator Cruz wanted to abolish the IRS. As long as Congress exercises a power to lay and collect taxes calculated from wages, profits, gains and other “incomes”, the IRS will not be abolished nor will the countless acts of tyranny end which are now rained down upon the people under a tax which taxes the people directly.

Perhaps Senator Cruz ought to listen to what one of our early members of Congress had to say with respect to direct taxes:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."___Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797.

Why not work to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan by supporting the following H/S Resolution?

House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: 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.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.

I wonder if Senator Cruz has ever studied why our Founder’s demanded in our Constitution that Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States, and went on to further command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Is Senator Cruz really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population would be contributing into our federal treasury under his proposed tax reform and after filling out their tax return on a postcard?


Does Senator Cruz not realize the rule of apportionment, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that each state’s Congressional Delegation, whenever a direct tax is laid among the States to raise a specific sum, is to return home with a bill in hand proportionately equal to its voting strength in Congress, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote one dollar?

Is it impossible for Senator Cruz to imagine the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts if a direct tax were laid and their Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill in hand for their apportioned share of the tax and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their own state treasury and into the United States Treasury?

The truth is, our founder’s tax plan is based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time and if returned to, would reintroduce principles of fairness, such as the rule of apportionment. And what specifically did our Founders say with regard to the rule of apportionment? Let us review part of the historical record!

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 those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, 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

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


JWK


If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

[Nifster]

And so you won’t vote for him because the 16th amendment hasn’t been repealed???

Get real tax reform is exactly what we need....It may take many different forms but for nearly a century the income tax has been a ratified part of the constitution. IF you don’t like that then work to repeal it. Don’t take shots at a conservative who actually has a chance of helping us.

[BfloGuy]

It must be fun living in DreamWorld.

We are where we are, though, and Cruz is attempting to rectify it. If you think it will happen by a proclamation returning us to the world of the Founders, though, you're living a delusion.

Incremental change. That's what the communists have done to us and the best we can hope to do to them.

[TexasCajun]

-Thank You-

[kitkat]

Thank you, Nifster.

[kindred]

The only tax that should be levied is a sales tax on goods purchased, that would be enough to support the government and they should never be allowed to increase it over an acceptable amount of maybe 8%, an amount that should never increase a penny. Government is full of thieves and liars who hate those they are supposed to represent and have become slave-masters of American taxpayers who work hard to support these public disservice thieves who enrich themselves and their allies.
It would mean that people would keep their homes and goods purchased by hard earned dollars and would force the government to be small and streamlined. And it would force the thieves in government to seek gainful employment while allowing private companies to expand and grow and employ many people who would create and sell and spend monies, known as working capitalism that would float all those who work to benefit. But half of America, the left half, are fools and thieves and do not understand common basics of economy and , worse yet, morality and decency.

[amnestynone]

Another problem with flat taxes and so forth is the more we lower the taxes on the wealthy. The less they care about cutting spending. The more feckless upper class Republicans become and the more socialist upper class Democrats are. It is easy to be a welthy marxist when you dont really pay much in taxes and then you can continually live in your little New York City, Beverly Hills dream world. I would of agreed once. But when the people who run the country don’t pay thier taxes our experience is that we go into the fiscal toilet.

[cripplecreek]

I’d like to see the 17th amendment repealed but know that its a virtual impossibility so I would settle for the states dropping the popular vote for senators and going by number of districts won. (I’m not sure I want the legislatures picking senators anyway)

[bigheadfred]

As long as Congress exercises a power to lay and collect taxes calculated from wages, profits, gains and other “incomes”, the IRS will not be abolished nor will the countless acts of tyranny end which are now rained down upon the people under a tax which taxes the people directly.

Abolish Congress. By any means possible. And the other two can go with them.

[abb]

If “slavery” by definition is an income tax rate of 100%, then any lesser percentage is merely a matter of degree.

[bigheadfred]

break the chains of codependency and become a free agent harry reid and nazi pelosi say you can do it

just do it

[JSDude1]

So now Ted Cruz is the enemy? You really need to get a grip, a flat tax while not ideal, is MUCH better than the current system, ideally we do need to repeal the 16th.

The question becomes how do we get there?? Are you out talking to your neighbors daily about our need for less government and for repeal of the 16th, if not then let up on Mr. Cruz who’s done a heck of a job fighting the Federal Leviathan.

[cdcdawg]

Isn’t it quaint how 100 years ago they actually thought they had to amend the Constitution before they could impose an income tax?

[smoothsailing]

Hey JOHN W K, what's this bashing of Ted Cruz all about?

Cruz sounded familiar themes in his nearly half-hour speech to the crowd before leaving to catch a plane. He repeated his calls that Republicans fight for liberty, gun rights,

the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service

and the repeal of the health care act known as Obamacare.

http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20140201-sen.-ted-cruz-keynote-speaker-at-denton-county-gop-dinner.ece

[napscoordinator]

Well Cruz couldn’t repeal the 16th Amendment because he does not have any tangible results. He does talk well though. I just wish he would do something that will end up in some kind of completion. However, this article is just plain dumb. Obama is a guy who has not accomplished a thing but sure does have that gift to gab.

[JOHN W K]

Your insulting comment is absurd. Why do you have a problem with questioning a proposal which would keep alive the socialist/progressive's tax on incomes?

Are you trying to silence constructive criticism?

JWK

[JOHN W K]

What does your remark have to do with questioning the wisdom of keeping alive the socialist/progressive's tax calculated from incomes?

JWK

Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.

[bigbob]

Why not lay off the anti-Cruz rhetoric, stop lecturing, and come up with some practical ways of getting something done? You’re not even creating a base of support amongst conservatives with this approach.

[lonestar]

Hark! We agree!!!! :)

[jtonn]

Hear, Hear!