Posted on 08/26/2015 6:47:59 AM PDT by HomerBohn
A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People. It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America's version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.
Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers. 1
Yet this monstrosity is pending in Michigan as SB 306 2 and in North Carolina as HB 366. 3 Legislators in four States, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi and North Dakota, have already passed it.
Let's look at Sections 1-6 of Compact for America's balanced budget amendment:
It does Nothing to Control Federal Spending
Section 1 allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes and add to the national debt. That's a good idea?
Sections 2 and 3 permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree. States are addicted to federal funds. Will 25 States agree not to take more federal funds?
Section 4 is a joke: Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to "impound" an appropriation made by Congress? Congress won't even impeach a President for Treason.
How Authorization for the New Taxes is Hidden
Section 5 says:
"No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress…." [italics mine]
What is a "general revenue tax"? Section 6 defines it:
"…'general revenue tax' means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…" [italics mine]
Now go back to Section 5 and substitute the definition of "general revenue tax" for that term:
"No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress…."
There it is: All that's needed is approval of two-thirds of the members of each House and a new national sales tax and/or value added tax is imposed on us. And they can increase it, along with increasing the income tax, whenever they get two-thirds of the members to vote for it.
Section 5 also permits Congress to make laws to impose a new "end user sales tax" 4 which would replace the income tax – this "end user sales tax" is passed by a simple majority of both houses.
So! Compact for America's balanced budget amendment provides two options to Congress: Two-thirds of the members of both Houses can impose a new sales tax and/or value-added tax in addition to the income tax; or A simple majority of both Houses can impose "a new end user sales tax" which replaces the income tax.
Which option will Congress choose?
Our Constitution Doesn't Now Authorize a National Sales Tax or Value-added Tax
Article I, §8, clause 1 says:
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…"
Principles of Compact for America say this clause already authorizes a national sales tax or value added tax. Board Vice-President Chip DeMoss said on Feb. 12, 2014:
"a national sales tax would be an "impost" (defined as a tax or similar compulsory payment) that is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…" [see comment 19].
We may not properly use DeMoss' redefinition of "impost"!
We must use the definition of "impost" our Framers used: The Federalist Papers say an "impost" is a tax or duty on imports. Type imposts in the search box [at the link] and the Papers discussing imposts will come up. See for yourself that an "impost" is a tax or duty on imports.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines "impost" as:
"…Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs."
Do you see?
National sales taxes and value-added taxes are also not "excise" taxes. Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. 5 It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§19 of the Act).
"Taxes" at Art. I, §8, clause 1 refers to the apportioned direct tax provided for at Art. I, §2, clause 3 of our Constitution.
Our Framers were specific about the kinds of taxes Congress is permitted to impose. Congress does not have the power to impose any kind of tax it wants. Our Framers limited Congress' taxing power to: the apportioned direct taxes at Art. I, §2, clause 3; the duties or imposts on imports at Art. I, §8, clause 1; and the excises at Art. I, §8, clause 1.
A sales tax is none of the above. A sales tax is a percentage of the retail price of goods. A value-added tax is a "turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions" and raises a "gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide".
We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country. Why? Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.
We were manipulated into supporting the 16th Amendment. We were told the income tax would "soak the rich" – and the envious drooled at the prospect.
And so again today, statists are seeking to trick us into supporting a national sales tax or a value added tax: first, by concealing it within the verbiage of the bill; 6 and then, once the trickery was exposed, by claiming the Constitution already authorizes these new types of taxes.
There is a Better Way: Downsize the Federal Government!
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money is a short list. See the list HERE.
Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated by the Constitution. Let's cut federal spending by downsizing the federal government to its enumerated powers and constitutional limits.
Endnotes:
1 Congress' spending is limited by the enumerated powers: If an object is on the list of enumerated powers (e.g., the patent & copyright office authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 8), Congress may lawfully spend money on it. That's how our Constitution already controls federal spending.
All versions of a balanced budget amendment change the constitutional standard for spending FROM whether an object is on the list of enumerated powers TO a limit on total spending where Congress may spend money on whatever they or the President put in the budget. This is what transforms our Constitution FROM one of enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. And that is the true purpose of a balanced budget amendment. It has nothing to do with limiting federal spending - the pretended spending limits are fictitious since they may be waived whenever the feds [and 26 of the States] want to waive them.
2 Leon Drolet's article of July 10, 2015, and Sam Easter's article of July 8, 2015, about SB 306 pending in Michigan don't mention the new national taxes.
3 Matthew Burns' article about the hearing on HB 366 before N. Carolina's House Judiciary Committee (which passed HB 366) doesn't mention the new national taxes. Burns quotes the Bill's sponsor, Rep. Chris Millis, as saying the problem is "Washington is unwilling or unable to limit itself." So the solution is to massively increase Congress' taxing powers?
4 "End user sales tax" is not defined in the balanced budget amendment.
5 Apparently, the practice of tarring & feathering "revenuers" began with the Whiskey Excise Tax.
6 The trickery was exposed over a year ago HERE. Since then, they have claimed the Constitution already authorizes the new taxes. Are we too gullible to be free?
A national sales tax would be the fairest and most beneficial way of taxing and to drastically reduce the size of the central socialist government.
It is impossible for politicians to raise taxes without everyone knowing and politician fearing an angry mob.
This might be a good time for the GOPers to “pick and chose” a “battle” to fight. Time to get off your butts boys!
> “A national sales tax would be the fairest and most beneficial way of taxing and to drastically reduce the size of the central socialist government.”
Your argument is fatally flawed. You are missing one word that changes the entire meaning and argument:
The word is ...... “RETAIL”
You really need to think before you post.
Here’s your sentence revised so that it doesn’t lead America down the road to Hell:
“A national RETAIL sales tax would be the fairest and most beneficial way of taxing and to drastically reduce the size of the central socialist government.”
And here is the link to the text of the legislation that refers to the National Retail Sales Tax (NRST):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr25ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr25ih.pdf
The problem with a consumption tax is not that it isn’t superior to an income or wealth tax. The problem is that the current US obsession with “fairness” would likely result in the addition of a consumption tax to the existing income tax, rather than a replacement of the income tax.
If spending isn’t cut, fighting over the most efficient effort of collection is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
The VAT is the way the European countries pay for all that Socialism.....and it doesn’t cover it. When I lived in Britain, the VAT was 15%.......on goods, but not food and clothing. It is now 20%. How do you think Americans will feel about every other thing they buy having another 20% tax assessed??
I’d favor a national sales tax if it meant the repealing of most other taxes (income, capital gains etc..).
Sorry, can’t read that long of post this early. What is wrong with a VAT or national sales tax IF it were to replace our income tax? That or a flat tax would be an improvement over our current system.
I fully support a consumption tax BUT only along with the elimination of the federal income tax. Huckabee spelled it out very nicely at the 1st debate only to have that bimbo Kelly make a comment that the debate was getting “X rated.” Trump is absolutely right in calling her a bimbo.
We all know that this would never happen unless Trump is elected and the present congressional leadership is removed.
You have fallen for a common miss representation of the sales tax. There is NOTHING that will limit the size or spending of the government in the national sales tax.
I think introducing a National Sales Tax is a GREAT IDEA ... a VAT... NO... VATS are hidden and can be manipulated - increased without public being fully aware...
A National Sales Tax introduced incrementally dovetailed with the Income Tax being reduced in a like fashion ... to where the National Sales Tax over 5 years replaces the income tax...
But so many would rather be a slave to income taxes than to venture into something news ... wienie public...
The method of tax collection is not the problem as the amount of taxes collected will remain roughly the same. The real problem is spending and Congress’s ability to have unlimited borrowing.
This is why I think that Cruz should drop out, endorse Trump and challenge/unseat McConnell in the Senate. He’d accomplish much more their. Trump can then appoint him to the Supreme Court before leaving office.
A value added tax is regressive. A retail sales tax is good so long as it REPLACES the current income tax. Ain’t gonna happen under this regime.
They say they want a national sales tax to replace the income tax, but that would not last. It would be in addition to the income tax.
Exactly!
CT is a perfect case in point.
It has a sales tax that was continually renewed beyond original sunset promise.
Then a state income tax was invoked in the early 90’s, with the promise that the sales tax would be significantly lowered, and all budget woes would forever be gone.
Reality - sales tax on Everything, including out of state purchases (literally called a Use Tax). Even tag sales on used items are supposed to collect a tax to remit to the state.
A National VAT tax will fix nothing, just as the case in europe.
Some wonder if it’s implementation will eventually become an electronic tool of big brother, ie: “no man shall buy or sell, without the mark of the beast”.
Tariffs are the way to go. The founders knew what they were doing. The plus side to tariffs are that they are voluntary and they also promote domestic industry.
Paging The Donald or any of his staff lurking here...how about it? Interesting concept.
“The problem is that the current US obsession with “fairness” would likely result in the addition of a consumption tax to the existing income tax, rather than a replacement of the income tax”.
You have stated what many overlook. Any new tax needs a corresponding elimination and replacement of a previous method of taxation. Hince, tea, taxed enough already.
The two items mentioned in the article quoted below also deserve comment:
We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country. Why? Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.
We were manipulated into supporting the 16th Amendment. We were told the income tax would “soak the rich” – and the envious drooled at the prospect.
First one is obvious as states generally charge the retail sales tax.
The soak the rich aspects of the Federal Income Tax are now laughable if not truly sad. It depends on the definition of “rich” and that has been downgraded to include the middle class, and no tax for anyone else, and thus the economic destruction of what made this country great.
The word is ...... “RETAIL”That's a little snarky for someone who didn't read or think before posting. I'm more than just a little familiar with the FairtaxYou really need to think before you post.
The word "retail" is not in the legislative language in the link you posted.
The reason? Because the tax is imposed on the gross payment (including itself) and it taxes virtually everything including, in some cases, (gross)self-employment income, wages and interest (AKA income).
It also allows SS bureaucrats to "determine" the rate every year with out a vote or a signature.
On day one of the tax your assets would lose the face value of whatever the tax rate is. In the case of your Fairtax it would be a 23% loss on day one.
Any after tax investments held now would be taxed again (23%) when you spend it.
The socialists will likely follow Europe and impose a VAT in addition to the income tax. Once interest rates rise then the interest on the debt will explode and they will need even more money
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.