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

Skip to comments.

ALERT: H.J.RES.104 will not end taxes calculated from incomes!
4-15-14 | johnwk

Posted on 04/15/2014 10:49:15 AM PDT by JOHN W K

 

I am very disappointed to learn that some Tea Party Activists are now promoting Representative Jim Bridenstine’s H.J.RES. 104 as a way to “repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the income tax”.  Additionally, donations are being asked to support this movement.  The problem is, if H.J.RES. 104 was adopted and its proposed wording added to our Constitution, the 16th Amendment would indeed be repealed, but Congress would continue to have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes”. 

The important wording in Representative Jim Bridenstine’s proposed amendment declares:

`Effective 2 years after the ratification of this article of amendment, the sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, and the Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, except in time of war declared by the Congress.'

If the above wording were added to our Constitution Congress would still have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains salaries and other “incomes” by resorting to its power to lay and collect excises taxes!   For example, before the 16th Amendment was ratified Congress adopted the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 which was a tax upon the privilege [not upon income] of being a corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid by the taxpayer was measured from income realized under a corporate charter, see, FLINT v. STRONE TRACY CO., 220., U.S. 107 (1911) 

 

As you can see, the above example establishes the wording in H.J. RES. 104 would not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes and it is quite disturbing that Tea Party activists was solicit funds to support H.J.RES 104 which would not end taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

Whether intentional or by an oversight, this is the glaring loophole contained in the wording of H.R. RES. 104!  To correct the uncertainty and accomplish what I believe Tea Party activists want, which is to put an end to taxes calculated from “incomes” and close down the IRS as we know it and end the countless sufferings we now experience under taxes calculated from “incomes”, we must follow Jefferson’s sound reasoning:  "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”  And this is why I have worked on the following wording which ought to be added to H.J.RES. 104:

 

 

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.

 

It is also important to point out that if the above wording were added to our Constitution, which would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan, and was basically intended to allow Congress to raise its revenue by taxing consumption, if an emergency did develop Congress would still have power to lay and collect a direct tax apportioned among the States which can be used to raise a specific sum needed by Congress.  But to prevent the abuse of this direct taxing power our wise Founders created a fair share formula which they wrote into our Constitution.  Considering subsequent amendments added to our Constitution the formula for the direct tax may be expressed as follows:

 

   States’ Pop.

 

----------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

 

U.S. total Pop.

 

Those who are interested in how our Founders utilized this “direct” taxing power, CLICK HERE and scroll down  for an “Act laying a direct tax for $3 million, August 2, 1813”, and view each State’s share of the tax.  You may also CLICK HERE for Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas of the tax in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions.

Finally, those interested in how our Founders intended to allow Congress to raise its needed revenue ought to study our Nation’s FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT  An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandises imported into the United States, July 4, 1798

Note: use “NEXT IMAGE” at bottom of page to review the Act.

The bottom line is, we need to get back to the wisdom and brilliance of our Founders’ original tax plan which was never intended to allow the federal government to enter the States to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes which H.J.RES. 104 would perpetuate if adopted. 



Regards,

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.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: bridenstine; hjres104; income; repeal

1 posted on 04/15/2014 10:49:15 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

O.K.

I’ll take the bait.

What should be the ONLY basis of federal taxation???

Full disclosure: I am not defending the current direct personal income tax, or any variant of it. I am asking what is it those opposed to the proposed legislation think is the ONLY legitimate way of assessing federal taxation???


2 posted on 04/15/2014 12:42:24 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
...except in time of war declared by the Congress.

Expect to be in a perpetual state of war Folks.

3 posted on 04/15/2014 12:55:06 PM PDT by Doomonyou (Let them eat Lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
To answer your question, I believe we should return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders intended it to operate. To review our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders see the submission offered by the American Constitutional Research Service, during the 1995 hearings on “Replacing the Federal Income Tax: CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 687

JWK

4 posted on 04/15/2014 1:28:58 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doomonyou
Excellent point!

JWK

5 posted on 04/15/2014 2:00:51 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

perhaps you’d be so kind as to point specifically to where in your 1061 page submission that someone would look for the answer you are unable to succinctly articulate


6 posted on 04/15/2014 2:24:58 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

44MB pdf to download to read 1 paragraph? No.


7 posted on 04/15/2014 2:48:32 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I answered your question. I also provided a link in case you wanted to review our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders. Go to the link and scroll down to page 687.

If you are not interested, that is your choice.

JWK

8 posted on 04/15/2014 5:18:56 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
It's more than one paragraph, and it's well documented.

JWK

9 posted on 04/15/2014 5:20:27 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala

my G-d!!!!!

You were incapable of saying PRIMARILY (1)tariffs on imports + secondarily (2) “luxury” domestic national sales taxes (with the stinkin Congress determining what is and what is not a “luxury” and what each tax on each ‘luxury’ good would be) + (3) direct taxation of the states to apportion states share of any deficit.

I would not agree to (1) or (2) but (3) would be O.K.


10 posted on 04/15/2014 5:29:29 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Prior to 1913 there was no income tax. The VERY first piece of legislation passed by the FIRST congress and signed by President Washington as the tariff act.


11 posted on 04/15/2014 5:34:43 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Would not agree to tariffs because you are a progressive. A leftist Conservative, how odd.


12 posted on 04/15/2014 5:35:49 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I don’t agree to “raising” tariffs because they are counter-productive to trade, and if it is counter productive to trade it is counter productive to the domestic economy as well, and if it’s counter productive to the domestic economy then more Americans are hurt by higher tariffs than are the numbers of American’s that benefit from them AND tariffs have nothing to do with knowing, or determining or choosing what is “best”, $ and cents wise, they just assume that if they are “imported” they should be penalized. NOT supporting higher tariffs has nothing to do with being a “progressive” today.


13 posted on 04/15/2014 5:54:39 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“Prior to 1913 there was no income tax.”

You are preaching to the choir on that. At no point did I defend the “income tax”.


14 posted on 04/15/2014 5:56:07 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

All the founding fathers were for tariffs. You can use the excuse of trade, but by defending “Free Trade” you defend income taxes the status quo and this makes you a progressive. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.


15 posted on 04/15/2014 6:08:08 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

You are defending the income tax by defending the anti tariff position. YOU. ARE. A. PROGRESSIVE.


16 posted on 04/15/2014 6:09:38 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Your objection to our Constitution's original tax plan is misplaced and without merit!

There is no question in my mind that our federal government, which is charged with providing for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, must have sufficient taxing power to do so. This brings us to the question: How would Congress raise sufficient revenue if it no longer had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, wages, tips and other lawfully realized earnings?” The fact is, ending the above mentioned method to raise a federal revenue would bring us back to our Constitution’s original tax plan allowing Congress to raise its revenue from imposts, duties, and excise taxes. And if the above taxing powers were found insufficient and Congress were forced to borrow to meet its exigencies our founders expected Congress to immediately extinguish this deficit using the apportioned direct tax levied among the States. The formula being, considering existing amendments added to our Constitution would be:

States’ pop.
---------------- X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop.

An example showing this legislative intent can be found in several of our Constitution’s ratification documents, such as the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:

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 …….

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

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

So, as it turns out, our founding father’s method of raising a federal revenue would allow Congress to raise existing levels of revenue. But it would also encourage Congress to end wasteful spending and spending beyond the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes to avoid the dreaded apportioned direct tax. Keep in mind the direct tax would force each State’s Congressional Delegation to return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.

And with regard to the other taxes, which are basically upon consumption, the market place would determine the allowable limit! And this is explained in the Federalist Papers by Hamilton:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
___ Federalist No. 21


Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.


Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.


Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.


The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and New York’s big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible spending.

Why is it that not one of our “conservatives” in Congress will promote a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan when its thoughtful principles do not change with the passage of time? Why is it that our mainstream media will promote every imaginable tax plan [nations sales tax, flat tax, income tax, fairtax, value added tax, etc.] all of which keeps the iron fist of government around the American people’s necks, but never even mention how our founders intended to raise a federal revenue?

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.


17 posted on 04/15/2014 8:59:53 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“You are defending the income tax by defending the anti tariff position. YOU. ARE. A. PROGRESSIVE”

you sir are irrational

NOT defending tariffs, particularly NOT defending tariffs as the federal governments primary for of taxation IS NOT a “defense” of an income tax

excluding the former is not meant nor does it mean you MUST support the later

unfortunately, as to the income tax, you have a one note song, that mistakenly advances the idea that ONLY your way can a federal taxation scheme be established that also eliminates an income tax - you’re wrong


18 posted on 04/15/2014 9:30:05 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

GoodBye income tax lover and tariff hater. You are no founding father.


19 posted on 04/16/2014 3:48:49 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
The problem is, if H.J.RES. 104 was adopted

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

20 posted on 04/16/2014 3:51:18 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I would still like to know why Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots is supporting H.J.RES 104 and suggesting it would end taxes calculated from incomes when it would not.

Aside from that, what objections do you have regarding our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders?

JWK

21 posted on 04/16/2014 5:12:27 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I already said what my objections are. Go back and read the comments I already posted for you.


22 posted on 04/16/2014 5:12:27 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Wrongo pongo “tariff lover”, I am not any “income tax lover”, simply because I oppose a supremacy of tariffs on imports as a means of federal tax revenue collection.

And YOU are no “founding father”.


23 posted on 04/16/2014 5:18:01 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K; Wuli
Answering someones question by referring him to a thousand page plus document, without any further specification, is to concede your loss.
24 posted on 04/16/2014 5:29:11 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

But the fact is, the specific page number was given, page number 687. What is your point?

JWK


25 posted on 04/17/2014 5:15:39 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

You offered no objections to our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders.

JWK


26 posted on 04/17/2014 5:18:35 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | 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
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson