Posted on 06/28/2012 10:25:00 AM PDT by Hostage
I pointed out in extensive discussions after March 21, 2010 and throughout 2011 that the democrats were following the FDR playbook on Social Security in pushing Obamacare.
I tried my best to point out that regardless of the Commerce Clause or any uniformity provisions of constitutional law, that the 16th Amendment would be used to characterize Obamacare as a tax.
Our enemy are those that impose on us and acquiesce to the 16th Amendment.
If you are for appealing the 16th Amendment, it does not mean you are a tax protester, it does not mean you are not wanting to pay your fair share of taxes, it means you are against the federal government gaining more and more power over your life.
The FairTax is a substitute tax code that operates without the 16th Amendment and is legal and constitutional under the original tax provisions of the US Constitution.
The FairTax is not an additional tax, it is not a tax on top of existing tax. It is a 'replacement' tax that replaces all the taxes currently in the supply and production chains of goods and services and bundles them all together as one retail sales tax.
The FairTax cannot coexist with an income tax and has a provision to sunset if the 16th Amendment is not repealed.
The FairTax will take power away from the ruling class to social engineer and tinker with our freedoms.
The FairTax will be easier to enforce and easier to administer.
The FairTax will boost GDP over 10% and eliminate a half trillion dollars in compliance costs to satisfy the income tax code.
The FairTax has far more sponsors in Congress than any other tax reform. The number of sponsors has recently increased.
The FairTax can be adopted by your local congressional representative if there are on average 3000 FairTax activists in your district. You need to get busy.
The SCOTUS/CONGRESS/PRESIDENT cannot impose any income tax if the 16th Amendment is repealed.
The 16th Amendment makes Obamacare legal and constitutional.
How about we shrink the federal government down enough so that it can be funded by a permanently capped 10% Tariff on imports?
Like in the good olde’ days....
So the Tariff would pay for National Defense and Border Security. The states can handle everything elsehowever they see fit.
[ “EVERYONE- except people who RECEIVE a government check.
“
So we’re back to 51% riding in the cart instead of helping pull the cart? ]
If they receive free money why can’t afford to send 10% back where it came from?
There was a very serious States Conventional Convention movement for the 17th Amendment. It was so serious that Congress was moved to take the matter into their hands.
So there is precedent that is more recent.
Sounds... “Utopian”
Do we force it on everyone that wants the government to wipe and powder their rears?
Not this nonsense again that was shot down already.
If you really believe in the concepts of the founding fathers of this country, then no individual should be paying income or property taxes.
This is the "put a gun to the head of Congress approach", and it worked in 1913. The other alternative is to follow 90% of the procedures in that download file and actually have an Amendments Convention with its purview delineated by the state legislatures. So there are two ways to put the gun in the hands of the states.
I was once a flat tax supporter but have now changed my mind. I have come to see how attempts to flatten the current system get undone almost as quickly as they are implemented. Reagan flattened it as much as anybody has ever done and he wasn't even out of office before his reforms started to be undone. I no longer see adjusting rates and closing exemptions as a long term viable solution. We are no longer at the point where taking a scalpel to the tax code will work, but rather we need to bring out a chainsaw.
My biggest concern is the class warfare involved in an income tax system. We are now at a dangerous tipping point where more people are becoming takers than givers with the federal coffers. Look at Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. The majority of citizens are on the receiving end and don't want to agree to give up any of their share. Those on the paying end have nothing left to give. We are about there too. The takers will vote for the politicians who promise more and, since they are the majority, there is nothing that will stop them until it all collapses.
I have come to be a proponent of the FairTax because everybody needs to see themselves as paying into the system. I want to see the income tax system completely scrapped and the 16th amendment repealed (along with the 17th). I don't want hidden taxes like the VAT. I don't like the euphemism "FairTax" either and would prefer a National Sales Tax with all other federal taxes be eliminated. I want everybody to see on every receipt for every item they purchase the line showing "Federal Tax:" so they see the exact cost of government they want on a daily basis. Every time I hear a person arguing about whether the FairTax is 23%, or 30%, or whatever I laugh. It could be set as a 50% sales tax for all I care. Is that too high? Absolutely! That's the point. If everyone can see what it takes to pay for the government the people want, they may actually end up wanting less. The problem with the FairTax rate is the spending that it is meant to cover, not the rate in the tax itself. The more transparent the tax the better. VAT taxes, employer paid payroll taxes, and the like are all meant to hide the cost of government. Only when EVERYONE has to pay and sees how much it is they are paying on a daily basis will there be any inclination to control the spending.
Yes, a flat 10% across the board with no exemptions would accomplish having everyone paying into the system. I would love to see that too, but I would prefer a complete end to the income tax altogether even more so as to minimize the class warfare and politics of envy that is a part of an income tax. I also don't want people to have the 10% (or whatever) tax rate hidden on their direct deposited paychecks and dealth with only on April 15. I want the Federal behemoth to confront them with a tax bill every single day.
Quite correct.
However, do you have any reason to believe that a movement unable to win a super-majority in Congress can somehow get a majority vote from 3/4 of the state legislatures? That means 13 of the 99 houses can block the measure.
An amendment is MUCH, MUCH harder than an election, yet people keep proposing an amendment as a fallback position when they can't win the elections.
It's like saying I can't run a mile without being forced to stop, so instead I'll run a marathon.
Who will be collecting the tax from the business owners?
“The 16th Amendment makes Obamacare legal and constitutional.”
Which clause does that?
IT'S TIME for a NEW WAY to do the same old thing, TAX us.
Some agree with you, others will tell you you're daft.
Nonetheless, "IT'S TIME for a NEW WAY to do the same old thing."
Hang in there. I'll listen to what you have to offer. May not always agree, but, I'll listen and evaluate your POV.
Are you going to support your previous statement by showing us the language in the bill that “mandates that the states piggyback in lieu of all the taxes that they now impose” or not?
I doubt that you will because there IS no such language in the bill.
The FairTax is not nonsense and it has not been shot down.
The FairTax is adding more Congressional sponsors every month and it is 10 times larger than any other tax reform in Congress.
This is a process of education. You are obviously not educated on this subject. Get serious and read the link above and study it.
Good information. Thanks.
Read the 16th Amendment. Congress has the power to tax ‘incomes’ from whatever source.
Congress can define the word ‘income’ any way it wants.
Your healthcare plan is ‘compensation’. Congress can declare this compensation as income.
If you don’t have a healthcare plan, Congress can now force you to get one or suffer a tax in the form of a penalty.
This is all made possible because of the 16th Amendment. Without the 16th, Congress would not have the power to tax whatever they want to call ‘income’.
You’re the advocate. How about you answer my question or I will answer it for you. The fairtax requires the states collecting the tax and piggybacking their own gross receipts or sales taxes on to it, and if they don’t a neighboring state will be authorized to go in and collect it.
If it’s not in the fair tax, then it has been changed since I last read it.
From the faq on the fairtax.org website. “Retail businesses collect the tax from the consumer, just as state sales tax systems already do in 45 states; the FairTax is simply an additional line on the current sales tax reporting form. Retailers simply collect the tax and send it to the state taxing authority. All businesses serving as collection agents receive a fee for collection, and the states also receive a collection fee. The tax revenues from the states are then sent to the U.S. Treasury. “
Some states may comply, and others will just have to have the IRS come in and do the collecting.
Your logic is very twisted. How is not having health insurance defined as income under the 16th amendment?
>”However, do you have any reason to believe that a movement unable to win a super-majority in Congress can somehow get a majority vote from 3/4 of the state legislatures?”
First, the Tea Party rout of Congress in 2010 was small compared to the TP victories in statehouses the same year.
The TP is much stronger at the state level than at the federal level.
Second, to create an amendment for ratification only requires 2/3s not 3/4s. Ratification takes 3/4s yes, but to get the amendment to the states for ratification requires only 2/3s.
Third, historically in 1913 Congress was moved to act by a serious state conventions movement (see discussion by Publius earlier in this thread).
The bottomline is that we are now a Socialist country and Socialism does not stop until all of our freedoms are under state control. We need to act in a much more bold manner now. State Conventions is the way to go. It need only go as far as having Congress get serious and take it up itself.
Well, good luck.
I will be very surprised if you can get 1/2, much less 2/3, of the states to vote for a repeal of the 16th.
The problem here is that about the first 25 states can essentially register a meaningless protest vote, making their constituents happy without causing any problems for themselves or their pals in government. As the proposal starts to approach 2/3, things get serious, and I think legislators will chicken out.
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.