Posted on 02/04/2014 4:39:05 PM PST by JOHN W K
Although it is correct that a flat income tax is still a Progressive Income Tax (the more you make, the more you pay...that is progressive)...I am not going to dump Cruz over this.
It will take awhile to bring back our revenue gathering done by our Founding Fathers...tariffs and duties, w no income tax. Too many on here, and who are conservative, still fall for the Marxist theory of income taxes over tariffs
Cruz does stand for reduced government...and that is a start in the right direction
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Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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.
Why do you resent ending the socialist/progressive's tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes?
Why do you ignore the protection intended by our founders which commands that all direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States?
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
I just dong have patience for constantly trying to destroy any conservative that goes off the reservation just a little.
If someone has a pattern as RINO that’s one thing, but Ted Cruz is hardly that.
Now maybe you don’t intend this posting to be an attack on Cruz, and you are more concerned about policy, but I have seen too much of this around here.
It has to stop.
I am sorry for the parts of my post there were insulting/over the top.
-JS.
Do you not think proposing to end this horrid tax and returning to our Constitution's original tax plan would not unit America's productive citizens and business owners who now have their earnings stolen and redistributed to those who ride in Obama's free cheese wagon?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
BTTT!
Everything... Apparently you lack not only reading comprehension but practical real world experience.
Now tell me, what do you think about the proposal I offered?
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?
JWK
BWAHAHAHHAHAHA. I get more and better reposes than you do. Your thread lacks cogency.
In order to repeal the 16th amendment you need 2/3rd of congress, IOW 67 non rat/rino Senators. and then 3/4 of the states to ratify.
Think the establishment would ever buy into that?
REALLY??????????????????????????
Why should Cruz chase windmills? A flat ta is a possible, doable alternative. Cruz know that even if you don’t.
As Freidman said a national sales ta in the absence of repealing the 16th and we eventually end up with both.
I voted for Forbes in the primaries, when he ran for President. He was the original Tea PArty candidate IMO.
Cruz is as solid as Forbes and a much better speaker.
Our effective rates are decent, yet that certainly hasn't checked .gov. That's why I get sick of people running on taxes, fine, cut .gov first. Then cut taxes.
And ending the Washington Establishment's corruption and thievery carried out under existing taxation will not end until the rule of apportionment is observed as applied to taxation.
Why is it that those who talk the loudest about following the Founder's wisdom written into our Constitution are the first to object to defending our founder's intentions with regard to the rule of apportionment being applied to taxation?
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) [/size]
Do you even know the thinking behind our Constitution's original tax plan which paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world?
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print. JWK
The rule of apportion would require 50 different direct taxes for each of the states and commonwealths. The one with the smallest population and thus the lowest rate might readily ratify your amendment, figuring they’re getting a good deal compared to everyone else.
But all the rest would be less and less enthusiastic based on their population ranking from low to high. As many as half if not more might well conclude that they prefer the lowest rate or at least one lower than that apportioned to them.
I find it to be quite fanciful to believe that three quarters of the states would go along with such a scheme. They wouldn’t agree to it in 20 years or 100 years, much less the constitutionally binding seven.
You posted something which is nonsensical. Please refrain from further stupidities.
As for our economic marvel. Take a step back and look at the world today. The world has caught up to US, in different ways.
We by in large have succeeded in growth in the last century because parts of the rest of the world was destroyed, communist, or undeveloped and we grew in debt to fund our adventures. We will be paying for that for years.
Perot would have been the original tea party candidate.
That is not true. The fact is under the rule of apportionment, whenever Congress decides to lay a direct tax to raise a specific sum, the following formula would apply:
States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop.
Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with. And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
JWK
Are we 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 population has contributed into our federal treasury when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
Of course it is, I just called it a tax for the sake of simplicity. Do you prefer the word assessment? It is clearly obvious that each state would be required to pay a different amount, not matter what you call it.
What does your above comment have to do with our Constitution's original tax plan which was based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time?
Are you suggesting the founder's rule tying representation and direct taxation by the same standard is not as valid today as when it was adopted? Do you realize that by enforcing the rule of apportionment as applied to direct taxation would be a crushing blow to the progressive's redistribution of wealth carried out through taxation?
Keep in mind that socialists and progressives love their guarantee to one man, one vote, but they run and hide from the requirement of one vote, one dollar.
The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to protect against some states using their vote to increase the taxes on others without being subject to a proportional tax burden!
Did you miss what PENDLETON stated during the ratification debates?
“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
Do you really believe that representation with a proportional financial obligation is not a valid principle to be followed?
JWK
Are you 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 population has contributed into our federal treasury when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.