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Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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