Today on Glenn Beck’s TV show Glenn talked about our tax system and then went on to talk about needed tax reform, but focused on two alternatives to reform our current system. The two alternatives are offered by the establishment, the “fairtax” and the “flat tax”. Each of these proposals suspiciously keeps the federal government’s existing iron fist over the people alive via record keeping, audits, and filing tax returns under the penalty of perjury!

What Glenn seems to continue to avoid when discussing tax reform is, a return to our founding fathers original tax plan, as they intended it to operate, and was intended to keep the federal government out of the people’s lives when raising its needed revenue. Why does Glenn avoid a discussion of our Constitution‘s original tax plan?

Does Glenn Beck not realize our Founders created specific rules if Congress found imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes insufficient to meet Congress’s exigencies and it was forced to lay a general tax among the states?

These intentions were repeatedly stated during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution. For example: Mr. George Nicholas said: "the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil ___ Each State will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled." 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked 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.

The intended protection was those states carrying the lion’s share of a general tax among the states___ a primary tax to meet Congress’s expenditures laid within the various state borders which fell directly upon the people and their property ___ would be compensated by a vote in Congress Assembled proportionately equal to their financial contribution___ a vote to be exercised in determining how their money would be spent by Congress!

Our Constitution’s fair share formula, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:


STATE’S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX AMONG THE STATES



States’ population

----------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population




STATES NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED


State`s Population
______________ X size of Congress (435) = State`s No.of Representatives
population of U.S.



And what does the flat tax and fair tax which Glenn gives air time to offer? An outright subjugation of the rule of apportioning a general tax among the states, which is a corner stone of federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

Socialists and the friends of big government are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury with a general tax among the states they run and hide from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula that gave them their one man one vote.

Why does Glenn continue to ignore the rule of apportionment which was considered to be the great compromise which occurred during the framing of our Constitution?

My opinion is that we don’t need no stinking fair tax or flat tax to reform our federal tax system. We only need 32 words to be added 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

This would bring us back to our founding father’s original tax plan and force Congress to once again raise is normal revenue from taxes on consumption, as our founders intended them to be laid, and are explained in Federalist No. 21!


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

The founders were in favor of Tariffs as well, but if you even mention Tariffs these days people will just about break their fingers typing to be the first one to call you a nasty old "Protectionist".



Ray

(04-14-2009 09:25 PM)Raymond Wrote:  The founders were in favor of Tariffs as well, but if you even mention Tariffs these days people will just about break their fingers typing to be the first one to call you a nasty old "Protectionist".



Ray

Exactly!

Keep in mind what Madison stated during our nation’s first revenue raising act:


“…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

The Act went on to imposed taxes, not on Congress's constituents, but on specific "goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States", and not one dime was raised under the Act by internal taxation!

In addition to the above mentioned tax on specifically chosen articles of consumption, an across the board tonnage tax on imports was also laid by our founding fathers as a way to help raise a national revenue from foreign business owners wishing to sell their products on American soil --- sort of like an entry ticket into a flea market.

The alleged fair tax is the brainchild of internationalists who want to dump their foreign made products on American soil tax free, which have been made by workers in foreign countries who work for slave labor wages, which in turn will force American manufacturers out of business and create a monopoly for internationalists.

I cant imagine why so many Americans have fallen for the alleged fair tax which makes it an offense against the state for a person to exercise an inalienable right of mankind ___the right to sell the property which working people have in their labor___ unless that person registers with government, collects a tax for the federal government, keeps any records Congress may deem necessary, and this does not even take into account the audits which will be involved, all of which is what the America people now complain of under existing taxation! And Glenn Beck thinks this is tax reform which is beneficial for the American people?

Here are some pertinent provisions from the text of H.R.25 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.25:..

SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.

`(a) In General- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.


`(d) Liability for Tax-


`(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

`(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER-A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 510.

`(f) Barter Transactions- If gross payment for taxable property or services is made in other than money, then the person responsible for collecting and remitting the tax shall remit the tax to the sales tax administering authority in money as if gross payment had been made in money at the tax inclusive fair market value of the taxable property or services purchased

`(a) In General- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

`(e) Effect of Failure To Register- Any person that is required to register and who fails to do so is prohibited from selling taxable property or services [i.e., Mary and Joe Sixpack cannot sell the property they have in their labor!] The Secretary or a sales tax administering authority may bring an action seeking a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or such other order as may be appropriate to enforce this section.

In addition, I think most freedom loving people would agree that our progressives in government, as Glenn Beck calls them, always look for ways to make their constituencies dependant upon government for their subsistence, and that is exactly what the fair tax does with its family consumption allowance! It promises to send every household in America a monthly government check to be used to pay the 23 percent tax upon a limited quantity of necessities of life.

A $400 monthly government check sent out to a family of four with a total annual income of $50-65,000 to pay taxes on the necessities of life will more than likely make that family ready to vote for a candidate, such as Ted “progressive” Kennedy, who will surely promise to increase that monthly government check during election time to get re-elected! This in itself is very scary___ putting the majority of American voters on the public dole and making them dependent upon democrats in government for their subsistence!

Can you picture Ted “progressive” Kennedy on the Senate Floor giving a speech to increase the family consumption allowance to offset the taxes on the necessities of life?

“How dare those who have imposed the alleged fair tax on our nation’s poor, now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon other necessities of life under H.R. 25!

How dare those who have imposed the alleged fair tax on our nation‘s elderly who are both sickly and on fixed incomes, now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the very medical needs which keeps these people alive . . . Bla, bla, bla.”

Were we not warned in the Federalist Papers that control over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will?

In any event, I cannot force fair tax supporters to study the text of H.R. 25. I can only offer them what appears in the proposal Aside from that, my opinion is that we don’t need 134 pages of legal mumbo jumbo [H.R.25] to reform our federal tax system. We only need 32 words to be added 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

This would bring us back to our founding father’s original tax plan and taxes on consumption as our founders intended them to be laid, and are explained in Federalist No. 21.

BTW, I have repeatedly tried to get a message to Glenn about the alleged fair tax but his gate keepers seems to be shortstopping my message.


Regards,
JWK

If we can make the majority of voters dependent upon a federal government check, [the fair tax family consumption allowance] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills

(04-16-2009 07:16 AM)johnwk Wrote:  BTW, I have repeatedly tried to get a message to Glenn about the alleged fair tax but his gate keepers seems to be shortstopping my message.


Regards,
JWK

Perhaps you could try making your message shorter.

Thank you to johnwk for letting us know about this tax plan. I knew about the tariffs but not about the states (if needed) sending a certain amount to the federal gov't to help out. This would (once again) push power down to the states and be more in line with the intention of the 10th amendment. Our gov't strusture is designed ( I think) to be a pyramid, with the most power at the local level, less at the state level, and very little at the federal level. However, currently we are running an inverted, top-heavy pyramid. Yes, I mentioned in class that the "US Constitution provides that our main sourse of revenue is to be from tariffs and that if we want the benefits of the Constitution, we need to obey it in all of its forms". The teacher then said, "You must be a mercantilist" and then proceeded to ask the class a question that moved on to another topic.

Cuz he is an NWO media shill who acts like a phony patriot to throw the gullible off balance.

(04-16-2009 09:57 AM)Constitutional Craig Wrote:  Thank you to johnwk for letting us know about this tax plan. I knew about the tariffs but not about the states (if needed) sending a certain amount to the federal gov't to help out. This would (once again) push power down to the states and be more in line with the intention of the 10th amendment

Exactly!

The founder’s agreement to extinguish a deficit created by Congress was intended to be controlled by a basic and fundamental principle____ representation with proportional obligation!

The founders solution, when deficits are created, requires each state’s congressional delegation to return home with a bill for its apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress. Upon receiving their bill the Governor of each State and the State’s Legislature was to be left with the burden of remitting the State’s share in a time period set by Congress and would have to transfer the state’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s fair share obligation.

Fact is, our founder’s approach to Congress’s borrowing creates a very real moment of accountability for each state’s Congressional Delegation and would encourage them to practice sound fiscal policies while in Washington to avoid having to bring home a bill to their Governor and State Legislature who would be left with the responsibility of paying the bill in addition to meeting their own state’s existing economic needs. Following our founding father’s original tax plan, and their intended apportioned tax to extinguish deficits, would encourage the various state legislatures and Governors to rise up in vigorous protest against Washington’s wasteful spending, and would do so to avoid the necessity of a direct tax being laid which would deplete their state treasury.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if New York should receive a bill from Sen. Chucky-boy-Schumer for its apportioned share of the 2009 federal deficit which Chucky helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect they would meet him at the border of N.Y with tar and feather parties as they rightfully should!

In any event, here is an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million using the Founder’s rule of apportionment and showing each state’s share of the tax.

Also see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Bottom line is, we don’t need 134 pages of legal mumbo jumbo [H.R.25] to reform our federal tax system. We only need 32 words to be added 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

This would bring us back to our founding father’s original tax plan and taxes on consumption as our founders intended them to be laid, and are explained in Federalist No. 21, and also allows for an apportioned tax among the states intended to be used to extinguish deficits when Congress borrows to meet its expenses.


JWK

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson

16th Amendment improperly ratified.‏

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.

(04-17-2009 02:26 PM)Volitzer Wrote:  16th Amendment improperly ratified.‏

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument.

Why are you posting this stuff here? It has nothing to do with the subject of tax reform.

JWK

(04-17-2009 03:15 PM)johnwk Wrote:  

(04-17-2009 02:26 PM)Volitzer Wrote:  16th Amendment improperly ratified.‏

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument.

Why are you posting this stuff here? It has nothing to do with the subject of tax reform.

JWK

Why not? You post a lot of crap nobody reads. Get a life!