Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama to perpetuate class warfare with Buffett Rule!
4-11-12 | JOHNWK

Posted on 04/11/2012 1:29:40 PM PDT by JOHN W K

See: Obama takes 'Buffett Rule' on the road

“The president believes in standing up for the middle class and making our tax system fairer, where everyone plays by the same set of rules, in order to ensure the economic security of the middle class,” the White House said in a release announcing the event at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.

For those who are not familiar with the ``Buffett Rule``, it is a class warfare tax whose roots are found in the Marxist handbook, and is designed by conniving politicians to buy the votes of one economic class by promising to tax another economic class at a higher rate, while subtly allowing 45-50 percent of our nation’s existing population who have been made dependent upon government for their subsistence to escape paying any income taxes whatsoever. In short, the Buffett Tax is nothing more than a political gimmick to buy enough votes for our existing Solyndra swindling crowd to remain in power and continue to plunder the wealth created by America’s labor and businesses.

Make no mistake, Obama has no intention of “standing up for the middle class” or making our tax system fairer. His ultimate goal is to keep the confiscatory iron fist of a Marxist taxing system around the necks of America’s middle class, while increasing the federal tax burden upon those who are an easy target because of their financial success, and he will demonize this group while panhandling his Buffett Tax in order to inflame emotions and take the focus off the financial destruction he has inflicted upon the nation while plundering our national treasury.

If Obama were sincere about standing up for America’s working “middle class” and making our federal tax system fair, he would promote an end to taxing working people’s earned wages which could be replaced with a federal luxury tax which imposes a specific amount of tax on each selected article of luxury. This of course would allow the market place to determine the limit of tax on each selected article; it would end the Washington Establishment‘s love affair with an evil and unjust class warfare tax; and rich and poor would voluntarily contribute in filling the national treasury when purchasing articles of luxury ___ including Obama’s captive voting block who are the 45-50 percent of the nation’s population who now pay no income taxes but still get to vote for Representatives who will spend our nation’s federal revenue.

And this brings us to some very important questions which need to be answered. When will our beloved media personalities compare Obama’s “Buffett Rule” to our Constitution’s Rule of Apportionment which states: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States? What were the Founders intentions for adopting these words? Could these words actually be a rule written into our Constitution to insure tax fairness, and are feared with a passion by every dishonest politician, especially Obama who wishes to circumvent the words with the Buffett Rule?

Well, let our Founding Fathers give their reasoning behind the adoption of the Rule of apportioning direct taxes:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention 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

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

And how is this direct tax to work? Here is the formula:

States’ population

---------------------------- X amount to be raised = STATE`S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population

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.

The bottom line is, tax fairness was written into our Constitution when the rule of apportionment was agreed to, and yet, not one of our elected members of Congress is willing to even mention the rule of apportionment. WHY?


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills____ Our Washington Establishment’s Republican/Democrat Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has produced.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: buffett; class; obama; warfare

1 posted on 04/11/2012 1:29:51 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


IRS sues Warren Buffet’s NetJets Inc. for $366.3 million
If you’re going to mess with the IRS, you should probably make sure you’ve paid your taxes first. That’s the moral you can extract from the tale of Warren Buffet’s private aircraft company, NetJets Inc, so far. In November 2011, NetJets, owned by Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., sued the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for $642.7 million in allegedly illegally imposed ticket taxes and penalties. Now, four months later, the IRS is suing NetJets for $366.3 million in unpaid taxes.
So This is how the rule works from OBOZO?

2 posted on 04/11/2012 1:53:17 PM PDT by OPS4 (Ops4 God Bless America!Jesus is Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Oh, if we just had not lost sight of the wisdom of America's founding generations, as illustrated in the following essay:

The Founders' Constitution

Document 51

Nathaniel Chipman, Sketches of the Principles of Government 177--82

- 1793

Of the Nature of Equality in Republics.

"Some of the most eminent writers on government, have supposed an equality of property, as well as of rights to be necessary in a republic. They have, therefore, prescribed limits to individual acquisition. The Reason given is, that riches give power to those who possess them, and that those who possess power, will always abuse it to the oppression of others. If this be a good reason for limiting the acquisition of riches, there is equal reason for limiting the improvement of bodily strength and mental abilities. Such a step would be an abridgement of the primary rights of man, and counteract almost all the laws of his nature. It would, perhaps, could it be reduced to practice, place the whole human race in a state of fearless quietude; but it would be a state of tasteless enjoyment, of stupid inactivity, not to be envied by the lowest tribes of the animal creation.

"If such be the principles of a republican government, it is a government out of nature. Those have made a wiser choice, who have submitted to the less tyrannical principles of absolute monarchy. These are not the principles of a republic. They are the principles of anarchy, and of popular tyranny.

We have just now enquired into the nature of equality among men, and have seen in what it consists; a free and equal enjoyment of the primary rights, which are, the intellectual rights, and the right which men have of using their powers and faculties, under certain reciprocal modifications, for their own convenience and happiness. The equality necessary in a republic, requires nothing more, than this equality of primary rights. I shall here instance in the right of acquisition only, as being sufficient for my present purpose.

"To the security of this right, certain regulations, as to the modes and conditions of enjoying the secondary rights, or in other words, of holding property, are necessary. Not, indeed, as to the quantity, but the freedom of acquisition, use, and disposal. To give to any individual, or class of men, a monopoly, an exclusive right of acquisition in those things, which nature has made the subjects of property, to perpetuate, and render them unalienable in their hands, is an exclusion of the rights of others. It is a violation of the equal rights of man. Of this nature are all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honor, and all the pretended rights of primogeniture. Inequality of property, in the possession of individuals, is not directly, nor by inevitable consequence, subversive of genuine liberty. Those laws are, indeed, subversive of liberty, which, by establishing perpetuities, deprive the owner of a right of disposal, and others, so far as they extend, of the right of acquisition; which annex privileges to property, and by making it a qualification in government, create a powerful aristocracy.

"Riches are the fruit of industry. Honor the fruit of merit. Both ought, as to their continuance, and the influence which attends them, to be left to the conduct of the possessor. If a man, who, by industry and economy, has acquired riches, become indolent, or profligate, let him sink into poverty. Let those who are still industrious and economical, succeed to his enjoyments, as to their just reward. If a man, who, by noble and virtuous actions, has acquired honor, the esteem of mankind, will behave infamously, let him sink into contempt. To exclude the meritorious from riches and honors, and to perpetuate either to the undeserving, are equally injurious to the rights of man in society. In both it is to counteract the laws of nature, which have, by the connection of cause and effect, annexed the proper rewards and punishments to the actions of men. Wealth, or at least, a competency, is the reward, provided by the laws of nature, for prudent industry; want, the punishment of idleness and profligacy.

"If we make equality of property necessary in a society, we must employ force, against both the industrious and the indolent. On the one hand, the industrious must be restrained, from every exertion, which may exceed the power, or inclination of common capacities; on the other hand, the indolent must be forcibly stimulated to common exertions. This would be acting the fable of Procrustes, who, by stretching, or lopping to his iron bedstead, would reduce every man to his own standard length.

"If this method should be deemed ineligible, the only alternative will be, either by open violence, or the secret fraud of the law, to turn a certain portion of the well-earned acquisitions of the vigilant and industrious, to the use of the indolent and neglectful.

"Let us not, in a Republic, attempt the extreme of equality: It verges on the extreme of tyranny. Guarantee to every man, the full enjoyment of his natural rights. Banish all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honors. Leave free the acquisition and disposal of property to supply the occasions of the owner, and to answer all claims of right, both of the society, and of individuals. To give a stimulus to industry, to provide solace and assistance, in the last helpless stages of life, and a reward for the attentions of humanity, confirm to the owner the power of directing, who shall succeed to his right of property after his death; but let it be without any limitation, or restraint upon the future use, or disposal. Divert not the consequences of actions, as to the individual actors, from their proper course. Let no preference be given to any one in government, but what his conduct can secure, from the sentiments of his fellow citizens. Of property, left to the disposal of the law, let a descent from parents to children, in equal portions, be held a sacred principle of the constitution. Secure but these, and every thing will flow in the channel intended by nature. The operation of the equal laws of nature, tend to exclude, or correct every dangerous excess.

"Thus industry will be excited; arts will flourish, and virtuous conduct meet its just reward, the esteem and confidence of mankind. Am I deceived? or are these the true principles of equality in a democratic republic? Principles, which will secure its prosperity, and, if any thing in this stage of existence can be durable, its perpetual duration.

The Founders' Constitution Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 51 - The University of Chicago Press

3 posted on 04/11/2012 2:05:22 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson