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

Skip to comments.

Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment
5-22-14 | johnwk

Posted on 05/22/2014 8:52:08 AM PDT by JOHN W K

 

 

Mark Levin loves to TALK ABOUT SOCIALISM and how it attacks rights associated with property ownership, and how government force is used under socialism to take and then transfer the property of one group of individuals to another group selectively determined by those who hold political power. This transfer of property is primarily accomplished through a socialist tax on profits, gains, and other “incomes” which seeks out the most productive hard working citizens, taxes them, and then redistributes the property they have earned to those who enjoy riding in government’s free cheese wagon who are expected to return the favor by prostituting their vote to those giving free government cheese which in turn keeps socialists at the helm of government power. So why does Mark Levin promote with one of his “liberty amendments” the socialist tax on profits, gains and other “incomes” which is the engine that fuels our socialist free cheese wagon?

 

Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment which proposes to perpetuate the socialist “income tax” reads as follows:

 

SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s annual income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.

SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.

SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.

SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

SECTION 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

 


If Mark Levin were sincere about ending the socialist state, would he not then promote the following H.J.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Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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.



These words, if added to our Constitution, would bring us back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our founders intended it to operate, and they would end the socialist experiment with taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.



JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: amendments; levin; liberty; taxes

1 posted on 05/22/2014 8:52:08 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Yup, Mark is a Socialist. Good call.... /sarc

Obviously he’s looking for an broadly palatable solution. Flat tax or Fair tax-— how would you fund the country’s (some long-off day’s Constitutional) operation?


2 posted on 05/22/2014 8:54:42 AM PDT by Phinneous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I wouldn’t call Mark Levin a socialist by any means.

But I do agree with you about this particular tax issue. We need to repeal the 16th Amendment.


3 posted on 05/22/2014 8:56:46 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Although the repeal of the 16th is an attractive idea, it is a bridge too far. There is insufficient political support for the amendment. Politicians and the public simply won’t go there at this point in history.

Levin’s proposed amendment will cause a lot of complaining among the socialists but it has the potential to gain steam and support.

Just one opinion—there may well be other issues here and it is certainly a worthy discussion. Thank you for your post.


4 posted on 05/22/2014 9:01:06 AM PDT by iacovatx (Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Levin in his book openly said that a convention can come up with its own amendments, that those in the book are his recommendations.

As for me, I would recommend an amendment to repeal the 16th amendment, with its arrogant language. Then work from there.


5 posted on 05/22/2014 9:04:28 AM PDT by cotton1706 (ThisRepublic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iacovatx
Although the repeal of the 16th is an attractive idea, it is a bridge too far.

How about the 17th? Surely the participating states would be on-board with that.

6 posted on 05/22/2014 9:04:45 AM PDT by Spirochete (GOP: Give Obama Power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I agree with Mark Levin on this. He is the antithesis of a socialist liberal and he has valid reasons as outlined here for doing what he is doing.


7 posted on 05/22/2014 9:05:13 AM PDT by ZULU (https://www.facebook.com/freejustina)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

BookMark.

BRB with popcorn ;)


8 posted on 05/22/2014 9:05:13 AM PDT by thesearethetimes... (Had I brought Christ with me, the outcome would have been different. Dr. Eric Cunningha.m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I never understood why Levin wants to ban the possibility of a Fair Tax. He says on his show that he’s open to it, but the Liberty Amendment is anti-Fair Tax.


9 posted on 05/22/2014 9:06:12 AM PDT by thetallguy24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phinneous
I already answered the question of how our federal government ought to be funded which is to return to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our Founders intended it to operate.

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.

10 posted on 05/22/2014 9:09:49 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

The Liberty Amendments and the Convention of States is a silly idea and doesn’t deserve as much attention as you’re giving it. How many laws will judges overturn or government ignore before we realize we have a people problem, not a policy problem?


11 posted on 05/22/2014 9:10:20 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
I have to agreee with you, the only way to control spending would be to repeal the Sixteenth Ammendment, and repeal the "Federal Reserve Act."

SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.

Mr. deep thinker did not think that one out well. With all the early voting, his proposal would move "tax day" to right after nearly everyone has voted.

12 posted on 05/22/2014 9:10:40 AM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
I didn't call Mark Levin a socialist, but his proposed liberty amendment dealing with taxation is a socialist system of taxation.

JWK

They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist thieves who use the cloak of government force to steal the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create

13 posted on 05/22/2014 9:13:59 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I like the concept of all taxes abolished except for those on purchased goods. The only thing though is the Marxists and RINO backstabbbers would want a 90% tax on everything you buy while making themselves exempt from it.


14 posted on 05/22/2014 9:14:04 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Hitlery: Incarnation of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
This thread brought to you by...

Weiner Nation

15 posted on 05/22/2014 9:16:47 AM PDT by lormand (Inside every liberal is a dung slinging monkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iacovatx
Although the repeal of the 16th is an attractive idea, it is a bridge too far.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that has put us right where we are today. It's time someone stand up and say enough is enough. Bipartisanship? Hogwash. Do the right thing or get out. I'm tired of seeing this country destroyed by wishywashy thinking that we have to be "bipartisan".

16 posted on 05/22/2014 9:17:21 AM PDT by dware (3 prohibited topics in mixed company: politics, religion and operating systems...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Would you support the following?

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.



These words, if added to our Constitution, would bring us back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our founders intended it to operate, and they would end the socialist experiment with taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

JWK

17 posted on 05/22/2014 9:17:31 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete

I’m with you.

IM not too HO, if the 17th were repealed, a lot of our troubles dissolve as the Senate is again filled with thoughtful statesmen, who should put the brakes on socialist pandering to the lowest desires of dishonest men.


18 posted on 05/22/2014 9:24:58 AM PDT by wolfpat (Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. -- Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24
If you are talking about H.R.25, that proposal is a Washington Establishment idea to enlarge Congress' taxing arm.

H.R. 25 proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, and would not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

Although H.R. 25 proposes under its “sunset provision” that after a seven year period once the “fair tax” is in operation and if the 16th Amendment is not repealed in that time period, the fairtax will be ended, it is important to note its companion legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment [H.R. 16], even if adopted into our Constitution, Congress would retain the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes as was done during the civil war when the first income tax was levied and was later upheld as being constitutional.

I also reject the fairtax because it violates the wisdom of our founding fathers under which they agreed that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned so that each state’s contribution of the total sum being collected would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress ___a rule based upon an idea of representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man, one vote, and one vote one dollar. Socialists love their one man one vote part of the rule of apportionment but fear with a passion one vote one dollar.

Under the “fairtax” although the people of a state may contribute a larger share to fund the federal government, they may not get a proportionately equal say in Congress relative to their contribution on how their money will be spent because the rule of apportionment would not be observed!

And what were the very intentions behind the rule of apportioning both representatives and any general tax laid among the States?

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:


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 each state 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

Having stated the above, I do support Congress raising its revenue from taxing consumption, but only as our Founders intended under our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN

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.

19 posted on 05/22/2014 9:25:26 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
The Liberty Amendments and the Convention of States is a silly idea

You sir, are an idiot.

 photo head-up-ass.jpg

20 posted on 05/22/2014 9:29:42 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

What do your liberal friends and GOP friends say when you tell them about COS and Liberty Amendments? Unconstitutional, fed is supreme law of the land? Their telegraphing their punch. They’re just going to brush all of it aside as if it never happened. That will be it. All the work being done now will be wasted. The idea that it will work is so unbelievably naive that I have to think the proponents, though sincere, still think this is a game of some kind. In Levin’s case, it’s totally an intellectual exercise.


21 posted on 05/22/2014 9:41:25 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda
 

 

I agree with you on having Congress raise its revenue from taxes on consumption.  Let us review why our founders adopted this idea.

 


Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

 


“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.”


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 big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.



Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?

 


Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitution’s original tax plan, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?



JWK



“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act


22 posted on 05/22/2014 9:45:18 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.

Best idea of the bunch....
23 posted on 05/22/2014 9:55:14 AM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dware
I agree with you that is the exact kind of thinking that has put us right where we are today!

Most of the sufferings we experience today can be linked to a corruptible system of taxation and a corruptible money system, both of which invite predators to flock to Washington to manipulate each in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s hard working citizens and business owners.


Our founding fathers suffered the miseries of dishonest money and dishonest taxation, and they provide a remedy for each. If America’s honor and greatness is to be restored, it will only happen if and when the people themselves rise up and take back their government, and what could be a more motivating force than a proposal put on the table to return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as it was intended to operate by our Founders?


Now Just imagine if Mark Levin and other “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] got behind and promoted the following:

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.


And imagine further if Mark Levin then called for a 2 million man march on Washington to demand Congress send to the states for ratification the above H.J.RES.

I think there would be no problem gathering 2 million patriots to join in such a demonstration, and that is why I believe our so called “conservative” media personalities will not promote what I suggest above.

But the bottom line is, “we the people” do have it in our power to take back our government, but it requires the people to rise up and actually participate in throwing off the yoke of tyranny! The following photos tell the tale! CLICK HERE

The future of America does rest in the hands of the American People!

JWK

If the people want to take back their government, then they must rise to the occasion. But to think those who now hold political power at the federal and state level will work in the people's best interest if a convention were called, is to believe the fox can be trusted to care for America’s chickens.

24 posted on 05/22/2014 9:57:14 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

“Would you support the following?”

Yes I would. I think we should get back to indirect taxes. Direct taxes have always been odious, which is why they were apportioned in the Constitution, so the burden was spread equally. The 16th amendment is basically a direct tax amendment.


25 posted on 05/22/2014 9:58:24 AM PDT by cotton1706 (ThisRepublic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

There has never been a better time to take out the IRS.

THE FAIR TAX WOULD BE THE BIGGEST TRANSFER OF POWER FROM DC BACK TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY’S HISTORY.

The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

The FairTax brings jobs back to America by allowing companies to operate on our soil tax free rather than paying the current corporate income tax of 35 percent. Under the FairTax, various economists have predicted higher economic growth ranging from 7 to 14 percent over the current system, more jobs, and higher wages.

With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone. The FairTax as proposed raises the economy’s capital stock by 42 percent, its labor supply by 4 percent, its output by 12 percent, and its real wage rate by 8 percent.

As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.


26 posted on 05/22/2014 10:10:17 AM PDT by redinIllinois (Pro-life, accountant, gun-totin' grandma - multi issue voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Phinneous

I like the Fair Tax, with the exception of that stupid subsidy notion. ANY such subsidy is a plan of redistribution, and consequently antithetical to the founding principles of this nation.

Apart from that, I endorse and support a consumption tax model to replace all forms of taxation calculated from income, regardless of source.


27 posted on 05/22/2014 10:11:56 AM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Mark a socialist? If so I wish we had a hundred million like him.


28 posted on 05/22/2014 10:15:25 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

LOL.


29 posted on 05/22/2014 10:17:15 AM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
If the people want to take back their government, then they must rise to the occasion.

"...derive their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed..."

We consent every time we file taxes.
We consent to the destruction of our 2A rights every time we walk into a FFL dealer and submit to a background check.
We consent further when we ask permission to perform a natural right (CCW)
And we consent to a corrupt financial system every time we hand over or accept a FRN

30 posted on 05/22/2014 10:19:34 AM PDT by dware (3 prohibited topics in mixed company: politics, religion and operating systems...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: redinIllinois
The truth is, the "fairtax" [H.R.25]if adopted would by THE BIGGEST ENLARGEMENT OF CONGRESS' TAXING POWER SINCE THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT! See: POST NO. 19 and get back to us.

JWK

31 posted on 05/22/2014 10:28:56 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
Who said Mark is a socialist? What was stated, and correctly so is, what Mark Levin promotes as tax reform is promoting a socialist idea.

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.

32 posted on 05/22/2014 10:33:25 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

You sir, are an idiot.


33 posted on 05/22/2014 11:18:09 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

HR 25 is an actual bill in congress with actual live sponsors, that is gaining momentum because of the IRS outrages:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cosponsors

People can look it up for themselves, and see that your misleading deceptions are not true.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks

When your plan has has momentum, and actual live sponsors of an actual bill, get back to us.


34 posted on 05/22/2014 11:22:16 AM PDT by redinIllinois (Pro-life, accountant, gun-totin' grandma - multi issue voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Keep spinning your wheels. Can you offer an intelligent rebuttal?


35 posted on 05/22/2014 11:27:35 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: redinIllinois
I know H.R. 25 [the fairtax] is proposed legislation and I explained how it would be the largest increase in Congress’ taxing arm if adopted in POST NO. 19

Why on earth would any freedom loving person promote two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes? Are you a socialist?

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along withFREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Democracy, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

36 posted on 05/22/2014 12:05:01 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod; FatherofFive
Name calling comes a lot easier to some folks and that is why we as a nation are where we are today.

JWK

Is America on the verge of submitting to communism without a shot being fired?

37 posted on 05/22/2014 12:09:07 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

How many kids does Mark Levin have? 5?


38 posted on 05/22/2014 12:13:05 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I’m the opposite of a socialist.

Take it from an accountant, most people can’t even imagine how monstrous and oppressive the IRS is, and how much the current tax code strangles our economy.

The National Retail Sales Tax, or Fair Tax, is a way to take power back from the politicians and lobbyists by doing away with all the federal income taxes (personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes)

The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It REPLACES federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

Repeat after me replacement, not reform.


39 posted on 05/22/2014 12:29:25 PM PDT by redinIllinois (Pro-life, accountant, gun-totin' grandma - multi issue voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
The Liberty Amendments and the Convention of States is a silly idea

Intelligent rebuttal to a profound statement like this? Get off the broadband, you jerk

Try reading the Liberty ammendments

40 posted on 05/22/2014 1:57:26 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Ok, since you’re so much smarter than me, you shouldn’t have any problem answering this question: How many laws will judges overturn or government ignore before we realize we have a people problem, not a policy problem?

You announced that I’m an idiot. Before I just accept your assertion, I’d like you to tell me what you think my argument is. If we were face to face you wouldn’t just call me an idiot. Unless you were a certified jerk.


41 posted on 05/22/2014 2:26:52 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

A joint House and Senate amendment instead of a state called Amendment Convention with its built in limitations? I think not.

Attaching Levin’s name to your own thread on your own scheme of what you would like to see done is discourteous and self promoting IMHO.


42 posted on 05/22/2014 3:03:48 PM PDT by KC Burke (Officially since Memorial Day they are the Gimmie-crat Party.ha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redinIllinois
You wrote:

The National Retail Sales Tax, or Fair Tax, is a way to take power back from the politicians and lobbyists by doing away with all the federal income taxes (personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes)

The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It REPLACES federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

Let us look at the facts.

  The “fairtax” does not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.  But it would, if adopted, create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, and it would keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes. The “fairtax” is a Washington Establishment cooked up scheme to enlarge our federal government’s taxing arm.

In addition, the “fairtax”, just as a national retail sales tax, would violate the wisdom and brilliance of our founding fathers rule of apportionment under which they agreed that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned so that each state’s contribution of the total sum being collected would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress ___a rule based upon an idea of representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man, one vote, and one vote one dollar. Socialists love their one man one vote part of the rule of apportionment but fear with a passion one vote one dollar.

Under the “fairtax” or a national retail sales tax, although the people of a state may contribute a larger share to fund the federal government, they may not get a proportionately equal say in Congress relative to their contribution on how their money will be spent because the rule of apportionment would not be observed!

And just what were the very intentions behind the rule of apportioning both representatives and any general tax laid among the States?

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:


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 each state 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

Having stated the above, I do support Congress raising its revenue from taxing consumption, but only as our Founders intended under our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN

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.


43 posted on 05/22/2014 3:05:22 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
I’d like you to tell me what you think my argument is.

Have you read the "Liberty Ammendments?"

And I do apologize for the name calling. Sorry.

44 posted on 05/22/2014 3:07:25 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Promoting a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan is discourteous and self-promoting? Really?

JWK

45 posted on 05/22/2014 3:14:37 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

What exactly is someone that promotes socialist ideas?


46 posted on 05/22/2014 3:37:28 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
Since we are not talking about "ideas" and are talking about an idea, your question is irrelevant and not worthy of an answer.

JWK

47 posted on 05/22/2014 7:13:04 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

That means you don’t have an answer that doesn’t contradict your assertion.


48 posted on 05/23/2014 12:05:34 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
Perhaps Bernie Sanders can answer your question.

JWK

They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

49 posted on 05/23/2014 4:11:05 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Stop digging - you can be sure that Bernie would not agree with any of Mark’s proposed amendments including the one you labeled socialist.


50 posted on 05/23/2014 10:13:48 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | 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