Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread seems to confirm the American people are comfortable being enslaved.
JWK
Amen to that, my brother. \\
What is it that Marcuse once said? Free election of Masters does not end slavery?
We continue to march down that road ... to slavery. Many of us already cede over 50% of our income to taxes. At what point do we become slaves?
I like your proposal because it gets to the root of the matter. The feds cannot support this giant government and its giant bureaucracy under this proposed amendment. That puts the onus on the states for either raising revenue from residents OR letting the states deal with the many things the feds have usurped over the years, including education, housing, food stamps, and general welfare as we know it today. It recognizes that our income is our own, be we wage earners, salaried, business owners, etc. It incentivizes all of us to achieve!
I believe many would agree with you. To fully understand this issue one must first recall the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over America’s businesses and industries.
In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [that’s your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their “fair share” in taxes.
During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.”44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.
And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).
But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the imposition of the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942!
Roosevelt’s class warfare tax expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income”, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelt’s class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!
Now, with this in mind the question is, why is there not one media personality, and this includes Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and his proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation, ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan?
Why do they avoid getting to the root cause of our tax miseries which could be ended by adding the following 32 words to our Constitution?
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and 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
These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAXPLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the destructive power Congress now exercises which has socialized America‘s once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which America’s businesses and labor have produced.
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’sfuture Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”,no longer in print.
My simplistic view about taxes can be summed up in the old saying about putting all of your eggs in one basket.
I support the policy of the federal government in obtaining revenue from many different types of taxes. Each type of tax has its own particular set of vulnerabilities depending on the economic situation of the time. Spreading out the sources of tax revenue decreases the vulnerability of the revenue stream to the whims of economy or politics.
My simplistic view about taxes can be summed up in the old saying about putting all of your eggs in one basket.
I support the policy of the federal government in obtaining revenue from many different types of taxes. Each type of tax has its own particular set of vulnerabilities depending on the economic situation of the time. Spreading out the sources of tax revenue decreases the vulnerability of the revenue stream to the whims of economy or politics.
That's my story and...
Isnt the income tax exactly that? Putting all one's eggs into one basket?
What's worse, is that the federal tax code (and the various state tax codes by following federal example) nothing more than a magnet for corruption? How much effort, how much lobbying and the paying of bribes to our elected so called representatives, how much of the extortion wrought upon business and individuals the result of this thing we call the income tax?
Furthermore, is it the purpose of the federal government to engineer social policy through the tax code? Offering even more opportunity for corruption? We give you a tax break if you buy a home, we give you a tax break if you buy a GM car or truck, we give you a tax break if you just stop procreating (exaggeration to make a point) It this what government is?
Not going to happen. If you introduce a balanced budget amendment, republican voters would be furious about the results. As much as they think our out of control spending is due to food stamps and welfare, guess where the majority of our spending comes from, entitlements. Guess whats on the chopping block when spending has to be reduce, Medicare, Medicaid, and social security. Good luck with that.
Isnt the income tax exactly that? Putting all one's eggs into one basket?
What's worse, is that the federal tax code (and the various state tax codes by following federal example) nothing more than a magnet for corruption? How much effort, how much lobbying and the paying of bribes to our elected so called representatives, how much of the extortion wrought upon business and individuals the result of this thing we call the income tax?
Furthermore, is it the purpose of the federal government to engineer social policy through the tax code? Offering even more opportunity for corruption? We give you a tax break if you buy a home, we give you a tax break if you buy a GM car or truck, we give you a tax break if you just stop procreating (exaggeration to make a point) It this what government is?
Anything can be corrupted if there are people motivated enough to corrupt. The complexity of the current system and the opaqueness resulting from the complexity makes it that much easier to game the system.
Simplifying the process of collection while keeping a variety of collection sources feels like the right direction to me.
I can't name all of the different type of taxes that government collects; these are just off the top of my head: income, sales, property, import duties, inheritance, payroll, etc. The consolidation of tax collection to sales/excise and tariffs doesn't feel like the right course of action to me.
Levin proposes an amendment to limit federal taxing. It would limit the income tax at a rate no higher than 15%. It would eliminate the estate tax and prevent Congress from adding a value-added tax or a national sales tax on top of the income tax. Most interestingly, in order to remind Americans how much they hate federal taxes and to incentivize them to vote for someone who won’t raise taxes to an out-of-control rate, Levin’s amendment would move Tax Day to the day before Election Day.
What is most distressing is, Mark Levin appears to not only be ok with keeping alive thevery system of taxation which is the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon America’s businesses, industries and productive members of society, but Mr. Levin has totally ignored or perhaps overlooked that part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of1787 which was intended to tie both direct taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment___ a rule which boils down to “one man one vote”, and,”one vote one dollar” whenever a direct tax is laid upon the people of the United States.
A direct tax, if levied directly upon the people of the United States by Congress turns out to be an equal per capita tax! For example, if a “progressive” representative from a socialist state like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, etc., votes to federally fund a welfare program in their district, his immediate constituents who benefit from that “program” will be obligated to pay the same amount of tax as a constituent of another state who does not benefit from the program. The exception is when a direct tax is levied and a bill is sent to each state’s Governor and Legislature to pay their apportioned share of the tax and a provision is made in the levy to allow each state to raise its share in its own chosen way, as intended by our founding fathers.
[ OurFounding Fathers fair share formula for this tax is as follows:
States’pop.
---------------- X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
U.S.Pop.
As you can see the rule of apportioning direct taxes, which Mark seems to have overlooked but is still very much part of our Constitution, if enforced would discourage members of Congress to levy direct taxes except upon emergency because their immediate constituents would be subject to an equal share of the burden.
Although Mark Levin makes an attempt to soften the impact of direct taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, and make it a bit more palatable for those who have to pay a tax embraced by socialists and progressives, Mr. Levin makes no attempt to champion the brilliance of our Founders ingenious tax plan which was intended to protect the American people from the evil nature of direct taxation.
In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January18th, 1797:
"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."
And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct “taxation shall be in proportion to Representation" and they went on to command that ”No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
In referenceto the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
Pinckney, addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment said :
“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.”4Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And Mr.George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3Elliot’s, 244
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."3Elliot, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:
“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” 3Elliot’s 41
And so, Mr.Levin’s proposed tax amendment totally ignores the wisdom and legislative intent of our Constitution, and would keep alive the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon America’s businesses, industries and productive members of society. Why does he ignore the vital protection which the rule of apportionment was intended to provide?
JWK
"If theConstitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___Justice Story
Anything can be corrupted if there are people motivated enough to corrupt. The complexity of the current system and the opaqueness resulting from the complexity makes it that much easier to game the system.
Simplifying the process of collection while keeping a variety of collection sources feels like the right direction to me.
I can't name all of the different type of taxes that government collects; these are just off the top of my head: income, sales, property, import duties, inheritance, payroll, etc. The consolidation of tax collection to sales/excise and tariffs doesn't feel like the right course of action to me.
I’m not sure what you are suggesting above but each of the different types of taxes mentioned in our Constitution have specific limits which, if enforced by our Supreme Court and the American People, would actually encourage each State’s Congressional Delegation sent to Washington to adopt policies leading to a healthy and vibrant economy. For example, Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal “excise” taxes. This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
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 thecitizens 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, DocThompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original taxplan, 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 Actof Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excessof $ 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
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
\\
Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment on taxation is not what our Founders intended!
