Herman Cains Phase one "enhanced plan" relies entirely on the "Super committee" And airy group of six that I defy anyone here to name, and a group that will no longer exist by the time of the election.
Posted on 10/01/2011 3:37:24 PM PDT by JOHN W K
I can’t imagine a true patriot proposing a new tax, a national consumption tax which would tax every necessity of life, in addition to keeping corporate taxes and taxes on the working person’s wage.
I also can’t imagine a true patriot proposing a new general tax among the States [Herman’s national sales tax] to feed the beast in Washington, and ignoring the rule of apportioning that tax among the States as required by our founding fathers clear intentions.
The rule of apportioning any general tax among the States was adopted by our founders to cure a vicious evil of democracy. The evil being, when 51 percent of the people in a “democracy” use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. Unfortunately we now have a situation in America under which 45 percent of the nation’s voting population pay no income tax and yet, they were instrumental in putting Obama in the White House!
Our founders saw this very kind of evil [representation in Congress without a proportional financial obligation] and to protect against such evil they adopted the rule of apportionment to be strictly enforced if imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and internal taxes on “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, in which case a general tax was then to be laid among the States but only in compliance with the rule of apportionment which predetermines each State’s share of a total sum being raised, the formula being:
FAIR SHARE OF ANY DIRECT TAX AMONG THE STATES
State`s Pop.
_________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. pop.
This rule of apportionment, which precludes the class warfare game now being played upon us by our folks in Washington, is articulated in several of our State Ratification documents, e.g.. see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788
Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-
While the rule of apportioning would still be applied to representation under Herman’s new national sales tax, i.e.,
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.
U.S. pop.
Herman ignores applying the rule of apportionment to his new tax and in so doing would deny the People of those States who pay the lion’s share under it their representation in Congress proportionately equal to the financial contribution.
Now, let us take a look at the founder’s clear intentions for any general tax laid among the States:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“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
Also 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” Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
And, 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‘s, 255
And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil of democracy being corrected by the rule of apportionment:
“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
So, for those who are loyal defenders of our Constitution, shouldn’t Herman Cain be asked the following question during Atlanta’s coming debate, perhaps by Michelle Bachmann?
“Mr. Cain,
In the implementation of your 999 plan proposing to tax incomes and tax the wages which working people earn when selling the property each has in their labor, you want an addition tax to feed the beast in Washington, a national sales tax.
Why have you not required your national sales tax to be apportioned among the States, as intended by our founder’s, and was intended to protect our nation from a vicious evil of democracy?”
BTW, as I pointed out elsewhere, the only reason why Herman won Florida’s straw poll is because the 3,500 delegates who voted in Florida’s poll were hand selected by the Republican party county’s executive committee and The Republican Party of Florida i.e., the freaken Establishment! And the Establishment has been trying to get an across the board federal tax on consumption [national sales tax, valued added tax, fairtax, etc.], for years, in addition to keeping existing income taxation, to feed to beast in Washington!
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?"___ Justice Story
Actually, it depends if you established a retirement income source outside of SSI. From the IRS:
You can do the following quick computation to determine whether some of your benefits may be taxable:
• First, add one-half of the total Social Security benefits you received to all your other income, including any tax exempt interest and other exclusions from income.
• Then, compare this total to the base amount for your filing status. If the total is more than your base amount, some of your benefits may be taxable.
The 2010 base amounts are:
• $32,000 for married couples filing jointly.
• $25,000 for single, head of household, qualifying widow/widower with a dependent child, or married individuals filing separately who did not live with their spouses at any time during the year.
• $0 for married persons filing separately who lived together during the year.
I agree. I don’t want a national sales tax that will be piggy-backing state sales tax. (I don’t think the states are going to be too fond of this, either)
It will hurt people. If we give out some type of tax exemption cards for those people...well, same as now just different. (what about those “empowerment” zones..puhleeese!)
I also don’t believe corporations will discount prices because they start paying lower taxes, so “that dog don’t hunt” with me.
Congress would never give up that national sales tax, those greedy SOB’s can’t help themselves and that 9.99 special—it is a *limited time offer*. We could never shake it off once it is levied on us!
Lower corporate taxes, go with a flat tax—drop the gimmicks. I hate the idea of a national sales tax—hate it!
...and while we are playing circular firing squad, Romney is walking away with the nomination.
One year from now, we will be sitting here asking ourselves how did this happen?
Yes.
My main contention that the flat tax cant be done because government is to convoluted and in trenched already and will fight him tooth and nail to maintain their empire of taxation.
My concern with Mr Cains Plan is that it.
A. Cant dislodge the cretins that run the convoluted system as it stands.
And
B. his simple straight forward plan isn’t really that simple or straight forward.
Its lovely to think that the mathematician Federal Reserve fellow really just wants to make life simple for us all.
But I have some reservations
True enough
Thank you again.
I tell ya what.
Before we even think of altering the tax code, I think we should look at reducing deficits.
I don’t understand how you can base your evaluation of a tax proposal on the basis of what’s “fair” to someone such as your mother.
Do you really think that a state, for example, will never raise its sale tax while she is living there on her fixed income?
Or that the FedGov might not impose new federal taxes on everything from OTC medicines to gasoline surcharges while she is living on her fixed income?
I don’t understand the point that you are trying to convey here. Yes, it can be difficult and may even seem unfair when the cost of necessities goes up for ANY reason, but how is it conservative to argue policy based on an individual’s circumstances?
I heard Herman last night on Jay Leno and he said there is no sales tax on used cars or used homes. There will only be sales tax on new homes and cars.
I heard Herman last night on Jay Leno and he said there is no sales tax on used cars or used homes. There will only be sales tax on new homes and cars.
Oh Ok. That should spur the economy along
At the time of the American Revolution the problem for the country was taxation without representation.
Today the problem for the country is representation without taxation.
Huh?
You seem to be assuming that the price of everything will stay the same and then a 9% surcharge will be added?
That is not the case. The costs of goods and services will change because the corporate tax rate will change and so will consumer demand.
If you paid a 4% sales tax on a doughnut that you were charged a dollar for, but a 9% sales tax on a doughnut that you were charged 50 cents for, you'll end up paying less.
Could I see a 9% FedZilla sales tax? Maybe. If they also shutdown the IRS, OSHA, EPA, NEA, repeal Obamacare, and pretty much permanently destroy the rest of the alphabet soup money wasters at the same time.
Give it a trial period. A couple years of no holds barred, rampant laissez fair capitalism, just to grease the machine. Find out if it can it be revived?
I'm enjoying an IRS audit regarding forms filed years ago. The glaring error is a form they lost somehow. I can't afford an accountant.
I'm giving an ear to anyone who wants to talk about fedzilla and it's wasted time and money for all involved.
I'm particularly impressed with these comments;
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
JWK
Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.
Herman Cains Phase one "enhanced plan" relies entirely on the "Super committee" And airy group of six that I defy anyone here to name, and a group that will no longer exist by the time of the election.
"Romney will be our nominee"
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.