PDA

View Full Version : Neal Boortz supports the socialist friendly Fair Tax?



johnwk
January 22nd, 2005, 09:21 PM
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

1-16-05

In an article titled ANSWERING A FAIR TAX QUESTION (http://boortz.com/nuze/200412/12102004.html) in which Neal Boortz supports the so called Fair Tax proposal, he wrote:

“It doesn't matter that paying taxes will be voluntary under the Fair Tax plan. It doesn't matter that nobody pays the retail sales tax on the basic necessities of life.”

But the truth is basic necessities are taxed under the so called Fair Tax (FT) and all consumers pay the tax when purchasing basic necessities.

The architects of the plan have created what they call a “Family Consumption Allowance“ (FCA) which is a monthly check proposed to be sent by Congress to each American Household, intended to be earmarked by each household to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life, which in fact are to be taxed under the FT.

In essence, the so called FT proposal rations tax-free basic necessities, and rations them by the size of the FCA which is determined and set by folks in government.

Now, why should Neal Boortz be speaking out against the FCA rather then lend his support? Well, it promises to give Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy a very valuable gift: the family consumption carrot, which Kennedy and his socialists followers in Congress will promise to increase during election time to buy millions of votes to remain in power, just as these domestic enemies now do with the federal minimum wage, federal social security payments, federal aid to unwed mothers, and even federal corporate welfare___ the only difference is, the FCA, if enacted, would extend the socialist tentacles of government to every household in America with its monthly government check, completing the socialists takeover of America under a reform which promises to abolish the IRS and income taxation, but in substance and truth will only tighten the iron fist of government around the people’s productivity, while demanding the people to shamefully kneel [register with government] to feed from that same iron fist.


In support of the FT Neal writes in an article titled End of the income tax? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34039)

"The law establishing the federal income tax would be repealed, both for individuals and for businesses.”

“A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment would be sent to the states for ratification."

The old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

What Neal doesn’t tell you is that even if existing statutory law establishing the federal income tax is repealed, and a constitutional amendment is adopted by the states repealing the 16th Amendment, Congress still maintains constitutional authority to impose an excise tax and calculate the amount to be paid from income upon corporations, death taxes, and a wide variety of other taxes calculated from income. For example see: FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=220&invol=107) upholding such a tax prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and upon the privilege of doing business in the corporate capacity . Also, see SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=102&invol=586) another case upholding a tax calculated from income prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment.

Now, what about closing down the IRS? Is this a reason for Neal to support the FT proposed legislation?

Although the IRS may be abolished, the Fair Tax legislation creates a new internal revenue collection agency and would actually increase the number of tax gathers beyond businesses which are to collect the tax, expanding the federal governments reach over tax gatherers to include individual tradesmen and service people, entrepreneurs, and, even ordinary working people engaged in self employment, forcing them to "register" with folks in government in order to pursue a livelihood [see SEC. 502. REGISTRATION]. In short, the FT proposal would require these poor souls to become a modern-day regiment of enlisted tax gathers for government, increasing the number of tax gathers throughout the United States to an all time high, and compel them to maintain burdensome and inquisitorial records and reports under a penalty of perjury to satisfy the wants and fancies of tyrants in government___ all the above to be implemented under the pretext of the "Fair Tax" proposed reform which promises to abolish the IRS and income taxation, but in substance and truth both are empty promises!

As to Neal’s assertion that the FT is voluntary, the truth is, the tax is not voluntary in that it taxes the necessities of life! If it did not tax the necessities of life, as our Founding Fathers intended when allowing taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption, then, and only then could one truthfully assert the tax is voluntary. But the so called Fair Tax does burden the necessities of life at the point of every purchase.

So, what is the solution? The solution is found by compelling Congress to return to our Founding Father’s original tax plan which was never intended to allow Congress to create the oppressive and despotic system of taxation America’s labor, businesses and industry now suffers under. In addition to the fairness of our Founding Father's original tax plan, not only did it pave the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world, but it provided a number of built in checks and balances encouraging Congress to practice sound fiscal policies, and made each state’s Congressional delegation immediately accountable to its state’s legislature and governor if Congress created a deficit during the course of a fiscal period.

Can we compel Congress to return to our Founding Father’s original tax plan? Yes!

A return to our Founding Father’s original tax plan is far less complicated than the FT proposal. In addition, a return to our Founding Fathers plan does not make the promises of the FT, but rather, compels Congress to carry out those promises! How is this to be done? By following the advice of Thomas Jefferson:

"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."

A simple amendment to the Constitution repealing the 16th Amendment with specific wording that Congress is “…henceforth prohibited to lay any tax or burden which is calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, etc., i.e, any lawfully realized money…” will, unlike the so called Fair Tax, bring us back to a fair system of taxation and remove the burdens complained of by those promoting tax reform.

Those interested in a summary of the Founding Father’s original tax plan and how it was intended to work, can find this information in an article titled EXPOSING THE FAIR TAX HOAX (http://www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2002/06/18.shtml) ___ scroll down and start reading at:

American Constitutional Research Service
Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

To study the proposed Fair Tax legislation see: H.R.25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25:), and S.1493 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.01493:)

Sincerely,
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



[Permission is hereby given to reprint this post if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]

TomAuch
January 24th, 2005, 11:36 PM
A Consumption Tax is a great way to screw the poor. Why should Bush make every trip to the car dealer and every purchase of appliances a vitural trip to H&R Block? It would discourage people from spending, and because it is a regressive tax is will not make nearly as much money as the federal income tax does. Ironically, Republicans love to bash European "socialist" economies, but consumption/sales taxes are pretty popular in most European countries... just look at the high cost of consumer goods over there!

johnwk
January 25th, 2005, 07:03 AM
A Consumption Tax is a great way to screw the poor. !

Especially the consumption tax plan Neal Boortz is promoting!

It’s amazing that people like Boortz, who claim to uphold the intent of our Founding Fathers written Constitution, supports a consumption tax plan 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 the necessities of life!

But just what did the Founding Fathers intend?

To summarize our Founding Fathers tax plan, they intended to first rely upon external taxation___ duties and imposts on imported articles. As Madison states during the framing of 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.” see:Madison April 8, 1789 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

Take note at the above link that each articles is judicially selected by Congress and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax to be imposed upon each specific article chosen. In addition, the power of external taxation was also intended to be used by Congress to encourage America’s domestic industries and businesses and not businesses owned by internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation for that matter.

Example:

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specific articles of consumption which were imported, the first revenue raising Act (July 4th, 1789) also imposed an across- the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports shipped in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=150) the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

“a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof.

This patriotic and skillful use of external taxation not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's merchant marine becoming the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, when I visit the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area today, I am saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels.

Yes, there was a day when our national treasury was gladly filled by foreigners paying for the opportunity to do business on American soil. But this was when members of Congress, and those running for Office, put American interests first and would have considered the NAFTA, GATT and the WTO as acts of sedition, and would have tarred and feathered those participating in the surrender of America's sovereignty which such Acts have obviously accomplished.

A national sales tax plan which omits external taxation as a principal source to fill our national treasury and to encourage domestic industries and businesses, is in fact a surrender of national sovereignty to the advantage of foreign and/or international interests!

In effect, our founding fathers, as a first method of raising a revenue, had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on American soil.

But if insufficient revenue was raised from external taxation, then an internal tax on articles of consumption was intended to be resorted to. But once again, each article was to be specifically selected and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax. This of course allows Congress to exclude from taxation specifically chosen articles. But why omit certain articles of consumption?

It seems to be self evident that specific articles related to business and industry ought to be excluded from the list of taxables to encourage a healthy business environment on American soil in order for America to compete with foreign made goods, and to form a strong domestic manufacturing capability which is essential to the survival of our nation and providing good paying jobs. It also seems to be self evident that articles of necessity, such as food, clothing, medical expenses, etc., ought not be taxed to avoid an oppressive burden upon the poor and working class, but all such articles excluded must be excluded upon a truthful assessment of what constitutes luxury as opposed to a necessity.

Tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct business, food, shelter, clothing, and even medical expenses can truthfully be claimed to be both a necessity and luxury in particular instances, and the very reason why a close examination by Congress of each particular article in question is necessary, which is far different from an across the board tax on consumption as supported by Boortz.


As Hamilton states with reference to a tax on articles of consumption, they:


”__ 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 by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own 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__ 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 can not be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue__” See No. 21 of the Federalist (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/federalist/fed-21.htm)

Surely there is a clear enough distinction between such foods as caviar and chicken eggs, between wine and milk, between silk and cotton underwear, between a Chevy Nova and BMW to truthfully say one is a luxury and the other a necessity. And therefore, it is Congress’ rightful duty and responsibility to select such articles as done under our nation’s early revenue raising acts, and in so doing, ought to take into account the people’s overall perception which would help to diminish the outrageous inequalities and oppression now experienced under federal taxation.

But in the final analysis, it is far better to have Congress spend its time selecting specific articles of consumption for taxation than legislating our freedoms away and manipulating the definition of “taxable income” to mean whatever the powerful want it to mean and then place the burden of taxation “directly” upon particular economic classes from which they have no escape.

It should also be noted that it is far easier for the ordinary people, and those with little education, to keep track of and understand the validity of a tax placed on, or not placed on, a specific article of consumption, than to understand the complicated and incompressible tax code created by Congress in which Congress manipulates taxation with a slid of hand to favor some while burdening others.

But what happens if the above sources are insufficient to meet Congress’ exigencies or an emergency should occur causing Congress to borrow and thereby creates a deficit? Our Founding Fathers provided a thoughtful solution which not only imposes fiscal disciple upon Congress, but makes each states’ congressional delegation immediately accountable to their state Governor and Legislature by having a direct tax laid upon the states under the Founding Father’s Fair Share Formula___Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states___ as set forth in Article I, Section 2, clause 3, of the United Constitution.

Under the direct tax each state was intended to contribute a share of the total figure being raised by Congress, basing each state’s bill upon its number of votes in Congress,___ representation with proportional obligation, something which our big spenders in Congress dread! No loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, were to bring home to their state’s Governor a bill for the largest share of the direct tax ___ a very important check and balance of our founding fathers encouraging each state’s legislature and governor to keep a jealous eye on their congressional delegation’s spending habits while in Washington, which is no longer being practiced, but if practiced, would be an immediate cure for today’s irresponsible spending habits of Congress who have enslaved our nation’s younger generation with a national debt which now exceeds $50 trillion! see:Measuring the Federal Government's Unfunded Liability (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2003/pd103003a.html)

For a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, see HERE (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=326) and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward.

So, just why does Neal Boortz support a plan which ignores the important and necessary checks and balances of our founding fathers intended by a written constitution, and prefers to support a plan 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 the necessities of life?

Sorry for being so long winded, but Boortz needs to be exposed for his ignorance or intentional support of a plan designed to tighten the iron fist of government upon the people’s productivity, while it also makes the poor and needy to shamefully kneel to feed from that same iron fist. [see the plan’s required registration under its family consumption allowance___ an allowance which would not be necessary if the necessities of life were not taxed as our Founding Fathers intended!].

To study the proposed Fair Tax legislation see: H.R.25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25:), and S.1493 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.01493:)

Sincerely,
JWK
ACRS

“…..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

johnwk
December 10th, 2005, 06:25 PM
Another observation concerning H.R. 25, the alleged Fair Tax.


Another objection to H.R. 25, the alleged FairTax, is its attempt to resurrect a socialist type of tax allowable under the Articles of Confederation___ a general across the board tax based upon wealth in which each member state agreed to contribute into the common treasury in proportion to its assessed wealth.

Article VIII. of the Articles of Confederation states:

All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.”

But this kind of tax, a general tax based upon wealth by which the various member states agreed to contribute into the common treasury under the Articles of Confederation, was rejected during the Convention of 1787 and protection was afforded against it by a new rule requiring the general tax to be apportioned among the states and basing each state's share, not upon wealth, not upon “income”, but upon each state’s number of representatives in Congress---in other words representation with proportional obligation___ the new rule for a general tax which socialists and the friends a profligate big government hate with a passion because it is an antidote to a spendthrift big government and takes the socialist sting out of a general across the board tax upon wealth in which member states are to contribute into the common treasury.

Although H.R. 25 does not calculate each state’s share of the tax upon its assessed land value as done under the Articles of Confederation, it attempts to accomplish the same socialist objective by calculating the contributions of each member state by the value of property sold and its economic enterprises as reflected in business transactions within each particular state, and is, without question, a general wealth based tax which the wise Framers agreed, and those ratifying our Constitution agreed, may be laid among the states, but requires an apportionment based upon each state’s number of representatives in Congress Assembled, which was an important compromise during the Convention of 1787!


H.R. 25 is another attack upon federalism, attempts to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution was intended to forbid directly, and seeks to establish a socialist friendly type of wealth based tax in which the most productive member states in the Union would be compelled to carry the burden of taxation while the least productive states may feed from the public trough using their vote without contributing in proportion to their voting strength.


In harmony with the new rule of apportionment agreed to by the ratification of our Constitution, and when the various states are required to contribute into the common treasury in a general tax such as H.R. 25 is, Congress is required to determine a total sum needed to be collected under the general tax and then notify each member state of its share of the total amount to being collected, basing each state’s apportioned share on its allotted number of representatives, and, when each state`s share of the total being collected is raised and deposited with the Treasury of the United States, the tax is to be suspended in those states having paid their apportioned share of the general tax being collected.

Now, how does one confirm the historical truth of this matter, and, was this the intention of the framers and ratifiers of our Constitution? Well, we can do this by reading from the state ratification documents as to what the founders intended with regard to the various member states contributing into the common treasury in a general direct tax.

EXAMPLE:

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratnh.htm)

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

But were the above stated intentions generally understood and agreed to by the founders and then practiced by actual legislation for a general tax which would confirm such intentions? Well, let us read from the legislative Acts in which the general tax is involved:
APPORTIONMENT OF A DIRECT TAX TO RAISE A TOTAL OF $ 2 MILLION TREASURY DEPARTMENT MAY 25TH 1798 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=590)

An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the united states (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720) [1st direct tax July 14, 1789 for $2 million and each state’s share of the $2million being raised.]

An Act to repeal the internal taxes April 3rd, 1802 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=185)

An Act for the assessment and collection of direct taxes, July 22, 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=63)

Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax

Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.

And, for a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, CLICK HERE (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=326)

Bottom line: the only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation’s original tax plan:

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

I apologize for the length of the post, but I thought the documentation and background information may be useful and interesting to some.


Regards,
JWK

To see what freedom loving Americans are promoting with regard to raising a federal revenue, CLICK HERE (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Taxes) and go to “Taxes”.

Those who are unfamiliar with our Founding Fathers original tax plan, as they intended it to work, a plan which also includes a specific method to extinguish an annual deficit, CLICK HERE (http://www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2002/06/18.shtml) and scroll down to :

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

The strength of our constitutional system is found in the people’s will to rise up and defend their constitution--- it is not found in a piece of paper which merely guarantees the right to rise up

johnwk
December 23rd, 2005, 05:00 PM
BTW,

H.R. 25, the alleged FairTax would create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year! The cost of this entitlement to the American Taxpayers would make the projected cost of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed.

Of course, those who support this socialist friendly tax reform plan, [Neal Boortz] ignore the fact that those who do not contribute into the common treasury may receive the entitlement upon registering with government. For example, un-wed moms, who now sit at home and make babies to increase their monthly government check, would be receiving a bonus of about $ 400 per month, just to sit at home and make babies which hard working Americans are then forced to support!

In this respect, the Fair Tax Con Artists are unwilling to admit H.R. 25 is a windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress would gladly increase the family consumption allowance to buy votes and remain in power!

Regards,
JWK

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation’s original tax plan:

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.

ZippyTheChimp
December 23rd, 2005, 05:31 PM
And a partridge in a pear tree.

johnwk
December 23rd, 2005, 09:21 PM
And a partridge in a pear tree.


I don’t know Zippy! I guess people are not really interested in removing the misery they now suffer under existing federal taxation. Sad thing is, the misery only get worse.

Glad to see the trains and buses are running again. I remember the strike back in 1977/8? just before I left N.Y. and the police were down at the Mayor’s Office surrounding it in protest and garbage pile up to the 1st floor in some places. But the truth is, I still miss N.Y.! Ain’t no freaken place like N.Y.C.!

Regards,

JWK

P.S. Have a Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Ninjahedge
December 24th, 2005, 12:47 PM
Actually, we sould tax drug dealers..... ;)


Any monies made by these guys or seized should be immediately subject to tax. Why should it sit in an evidence room?

:D

johnwk
December 24th, 2005, 02:46 PM
Actually, we sould tax drug dealers..... ;)


Any monies made by these guys or seized should be immediately subject to tax. Why should it sit in an evidence room?

:D

Hey, the FairTax Con Artists tell us that under their plan this underground economy will start paying taxes. Too funny for me to imaging all the drug dealers, hookers, fence operations selling stolen goods, illegal gambling operations, etc., all lining up to pay the 23 percent consumption tax on the sales and services listed above.

Have a great Christmas!

Regards,

JWK

johnwk
January 10th, 2006, 08:26 PM
It’s absolutely amazing that our Republican Party leaders and many of their supporters, when it comes to factual information concerning taxation, “conservatism” and tax reform, are suspiciously deaf to an important provision of our Constitution which the Founding Fathers agreed upon to provide protection against mob rule vote [democracy] which now works to allow the spending of federal revenue without a proportional obligation in filling our national treasury.

This is particularly evident when considering specific Republicans who support H.R. 25 as being “conservative tax reform“___ a proposal which violates the founding fathers agreed upon rule intended to protect us from “democracy” when a general tax is laid among the States to fill the national treasury.

Of course, Republican Conservatives who doubt our founding fathers intentionally agreed upon a specific rule to protect us from “democracy” and its inherent and devastating financial consequences as applied to taxing and spending, need to study the debates during which time our Constitution was framed.

Those who take the time and study the debates will discover a specific rule was in fact created to protect us from democracy when the states are called upon to contribute into the common treasury and wealth is used to measured each state’s contribution in a general tax.

The following quotes from Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm) expose the true nature of Republicans who support H. R. 25, a proposal which turns out to be another twist on income taxation which is a political attack on property ownership___ from each state according to their ability, to our constituents according to their needs.

JULY 5TH

Mr. Govr. MORRIS … thought property ought to be taken into the estimate as well as the number of inhabitants. Life & liberty were generally said to be of more value, than property. An accurate view of the matter would nevertheless prove that property was the main object of Society. . . . These ideas might appear to some new, but they were nevertheless just. If property then was the main object of Govt. certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due to those who were to be affected by the Governmt. … He thought the rule of representation ought to be so fixed as to secure to the Atlantic States a prevalence in the National Councils….”

Mr. RUTLIDGE. The gentleman last up had spoken some of his sentiments precisely. Property was certainly the principal object of Society. If numbers should be made the rule of representation, the Atlantic States will be subjected to the Western. He moved . . . "that the suffrages of the several States be regulated and proportioned according to the sums to be paid towards the general revenue by the inhabitants of each State respectively.”

July 6

Mr. PINKNEY“ The value of land had been found on full investigation to be an impracticable rule. The contributions of revenue including imports & exports, must be too changeable in their amount; too difficult to be adjusted; and too injurious to the non-commercial States. The number of inhabitants appeared to him the only just & practicable rule.

July 9

Mr. Govr. MORRIS “…the Legislature shall possess authority to regulate the number of Representatives in any of the foregoing cases, upon the principles of their wealth and number of inhabitants."

Mr. BUTLER urged warmly the justice & necessity of regarding wealth in the apportionment of Representation.

July 10

Genl. PINKNEY dwelt on the superior wealth of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the Government.

July 11

Mr. WILLIAMSON was for making it the duty of the Legislature to do what was right & not leaving it at liberty to do or not do it. He moved that Mr. Randolph's proposition be postpond in order to consider the following "that in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population & wealth of the several States, a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants and 3/5 ths. of those of other descriptions on the 1st. year after this Government shall have been adopted and every year thereafter; and that the Representation be regulated accordingly."

Mr. RUTLIDGE contended for the admission of wealth in the estimate by which Representation should be regulated. …. He moved that "at the end of years after the 1st. meeting of the Legislature, and of every years thereafter, the Legislature shall proportion the Representation according to the principles of wealth & population"

Mr. SHERMAN thought the number of people alone the best rule for measuring wealth as well as representation; and that if the Legislature were to be governed by wealth, they would be obliged to estimate it by numbers. He was at first for leaving the matter wholly to the discretion of the Legislature; but he had been convinced by the observations of [Mr. Randolph & Mr. Mason,] that the periods & the rule, of revising the Representation ought to be fixt by the Constitution

Mr. MADISON, Future contributions it seemed to be understood on all hands would be principally levied on imports & exports. …He could not agree that any substantial objection lay agst. fixig numbers for the perpetual standard of Representation…It was said that Representation & taxation were to go together; that taxation and wealth ought to go together, that population & wealth were not measures of each other.

July 12

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to add to the clause empowering the Legislature to vary the Representation according to the principles of wealth & number of inhabts. a "proviso that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."

General PINKNEY liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution.

Mr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

In conclusion, the tax described in H.R. 25 is a tax calculated from the value of property within each particular state and determines the amount of tax contributed into the common treasury by each particular state based upon an assessed value of property therein. But the rule requiring such a tax to be apportioned among the states based upon each states’ number of allotted representatives is ignored under H.R. 25, and thereby subjugates the agreed upon rule that taxation and representation shall be fixed by the same standard!

Ignoring this rule allows the various State Delegates in Congress Assembled to vote to spend money without a fear of proportional obligation in contributing the money spent___ one of the major defects of income taxation and democracy___ which our founding fathers corrected by the rule of apportioning such a tax based upon representation, the new rule intended to guarantee Representation with proportional obligation!

H.R. 25 is another attack upon property ownership and gives in to “democracy”.

Madison, in talking about democracy, in Federalist Paper No. 10 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm) talks about “the violence of faction” and also emphatically states: “ that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

And so, as Madison continues: "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."

In controlling the “means“, the founding fathers provided a specific rule by which the various states are to contribute into the federal treasury…a rule which was specifically intended to thwart an evil of democracy.

Sorry for the length of the post, but I though the information may be useful to some, especially those who are conned by fraudulent Republican conservatives in Congress!.

Regards,

JWK

Ninjahedge
January 11th, 2006, 09:06 AM
John, I do agree that this is a splitting of the two, but the thing is, it does not address the fact that, at least in our areas, the states that have the most people ARE the states with the highest property value AND are the ones that are currently being taxed the most.


I think it would have little impact on us now in regards to taxation/representation, but it may have a much bigger impact down the road.

johnwk
January 17th, 2006, 09:20 AM
John, I do agree that this is a splitting of the two, but the thing is, it does not address the fact that, at least in our areas, the states that have the most people ARE the states with the highest property value AND are the ones that are currently being taxed the most.

I think it would have little impact on us now in regards to taxation/representation, but it may have a much bigger impact down the road.

Ninjahedge,

Sorry for not getting to you sooner. The information and documentation I provided regarding the Founder’s original tax plan was meant to give some of the reasons behind the Founder’s plan

As to H.R. 25, it really is amazing many of those who support H.R. 25, and especially “conservatives” and “Republicans” who support the idea, when confronted with legitimate concerns about the proposal run and hide or avoid acknowledging there are some very serious flaws in H.R. 25___ flaws which make the alleged FairTax proposal as bad as existing taxation or in some cases, even worse!

Those who support H.R. 25 are knowingly or unknowingly working to perpetuate the necessary means allowing Congress to continue in its reckless spending a borrowing practices, and would also provide the means to help keep America's Congress infested with socialists.


For example, H.R. 25 would create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year, and the cost of this entitlement to the American Taxpayers would make the projected cost of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed.

The family consumption allowance under H.R. 25 also entitles those who do not work for a living nor contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance! Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; prostitutes and bookies and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but makes babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. As a matter of fact the above would be getting an approximate $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25 for either breaking the law or sitting at home making babies. And conservative Republicans support this plan?

H.R. 25 happens to be a socialist windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and, would be a gift to Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress who would gladly promise to increase the family consumption allowance during elections to buy votes and remain in power!

In addition, one of the featured attractions of H.R. 25 is that it will cut the billions and billions of dollars and the man hours now wasted, in the collection and administration of the tax. This turns out to be another fraud being perpetrated upon the people. Why? Well, for example, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and other tradesmen who are now self employed will pay the 23 % tax on the supplies they purchase at retail. These poor souls will also have to register with the federal government to engage in their occupations and also keep burdensome records and reports as Congress may so desire, creating a new army of enlisted tax gathers for the feds. The path which leads to such oppression is found in the language of H.R. 25 which the unsuspecting may have missed and reads:

SEC. 407. JURISDICTION.

`(a) STATE JURISDICTION- A sales tax administering authority shall have jurisdiction over any gross payments made which have a destination (as determined in accordance with section 405) within the State of said sales tax administering authority. This grant of jurisdiction is not exclusive of any other jurisdiction that such sales tax administering authority may have.

(b) FEDERAL JURISDICTION- The grant of jurisdiction in subsection (a) shall not be in derogation of Federal jurisdiction over the same matter. The Federal Government shall have the right to exercise preemptive jurisdiction over matters relating to the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

I should also point out Representative John Linder, says: (http://linder.house.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Resources.Home&Resource_id=1)

I am the primary sponsor of the FairTax, legislation that will repeal all corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes - and replace it with a revenue-neutral personal consumption tax.


After reading the language of H.R. 25 it becomes quite obvious, the above statement is weasel wording at its best! The truth is, there is no attempt to repeal or prevent Congress from laying and collecting an excise tax as upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=220&invol=107), a case decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment. And why is this case important? Because the tax upheld in the FLINT CASE is not an income tax, but an excise tax, and the amount of tax to be paid is calculated from “income’’ and does not rely upon the IRS CODE or income taxation which H.R. 25 mentions. But in substance and truth it is an income tax…acts, smells and looks like an income tax and therefore must be an income tax.

Under the language of H.R. 25, the tax mentioned in the FLINT CASE remains untouched and is a loophole cleverly left which allows Congress, in keeping within the language of H.R. 25, to impose an excise tax upon Corporations, certain privileged occupations, individuals and events, and then calculate the amount of tax to be paid from profits and/or gains (income)!

So, in spite of all the talk about repealing various sections of the IRS Code and closing it down as portrayed on the cover of the Fair Tax Book, the same type of misery now suffered under income taxation, the Internal Revenue Service and the IRS Code, appears to remain very much alive under H.R. 25 by a subtle loophole left by the architects of the proposal!

If H.R.25 is adopted and Congress followed it to the letter with the loophole the architects have left, Congress is invited to simply erase the word “Internal” from “Internal Revenue Code” and replace that word with “Corporate“, as in “Corporate Revenue Code,” and, likewise erase the word “Internal” from “Internal Revenue Service” and replace it with “Corporate“, as in “Corporate Revenue Service“, and go about its business inflicting the same time consuming and costly misery upon Corporations and individuals as now done, but in addition, these corporations will also have to abide by and follow an additional rule book, the newly created H.R. 25 rule book, with all its new regulations for record keeping as will be created under H.R. 25!

H.R. 25, in all honesty, doesn’t “eliminate” squat as Neal Boortz portrays on the cover of his book. And it especially does not even make an attempt to stop Congress from calculating a tax from corporate income.

H.R. 25 has carefully left the above mentioned loophole so Congress, especially a future socialist dominated Congress, even if the 16th Amendment is repealed as promised, to enact, say a small tax upon those wealthy evil corporations and scoundrels who make millions of dollars a year and bleed the poor working people, such as was alleged about Leona Helmsley who they sent to jail for an alleged tax fraud, but who actually contributed into the common treasury more in taxes than any twenty average working people in New York.

Why on earth do “conservative” Republicans support H.R. 25? My answer is, because H.R. 25 is nothing more than a bread and circus game intentionally designed to confuse the people and keep the tools of oppression in the hands of Congress.

The only tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Founding Father’s original tax plan:

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

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship and entrench our nation with more socialism…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our Founder’s original plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!

CLICK HERE (http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/kurowski.htm) for the Founder’s Plan___ scroll down to:
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

To study what thinking Americans are promoting CLICK HERE (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Taxes)

Regards,
JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

MrSpice
January 17th, 2006, 12:47 PM
The consumption tax has 2 benefits:

1. It is very simple, easy to enforce and requires no tax forms, no extra time to prepare tax and track down the ones who don't pay. Therefore, the overall tax level should go down because so many people dudge at least a portion of their taxes and a lot of resources (time and money) is spent filling out the tax forms every year and also result in lost revenues.

2. When you don't tax income and capital, it creates a significal insentive to invest which in turn creates jobs and opportunity.

There's a way to make this tax more fair to the poor by, for example, only taxing items that cost, say, over 100 dollars (this number can be 200 or more) and keep the income tax at a lower level. Say, reduce income tax by 50% and introduce some form of consumption tax. But that will probably never happen because most people don't like change even if it's change for the better. And those who benefit from so many deductions, won't want anything to change and will lobby against it.

Ninjahedge
January 17th, 2006, 03:36 PM
Try Luxury consumption tax.

NJ has no tax on food, and I am not sure about clothing...

Certain things need to foster the government programs that help everyone.

BUT, the problem is, when you start climbing above the COL in your area, the amount you spend is very little in comparison to the ammount you earn. Making a blanket consumption tax, even if you put dollar ammount strictures can be killer to the working man that needs a car to get in ($2000 used).

There are rarely simple solutions. There are plenty of simple mistakes.

johnwk
January 21st, 2006, 08:14 PM
Try Luxury consumption tax.



BINGO!


Our founding fathers thinking in regard to taxing consumption is in harmony with your response, and they never intended such a tax to be laid upon the tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct America’s businesses nor the necessities of life!

See Federalist #21: (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed21.htm)



"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. " "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."

Now, what is Hamilton talking about? How may the amounts to be contributed by the rich and poor to be determined by one’s own option? And, how is private oppression of taxes on articles of consumption to be avoided?

Surprise! The answer is to be found in that part of the quote which says, “by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions” which is not the kind of tax H.R. 25 is and would tax necessities.

An across the board NRST [national retail sales tax or the so-called Fair Tax], in addition to being oppressive upon America’s businesses, is a plan to tax 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 the necessities of life!

The words of Hamilton obviously indicate certain articles of consumption ought to be excluded from the list of taxable items___ the necessities of life, tools of production and supplies necessary to conduct American businesses___ thereby removing the oppressive nature of such a tax and making the tax a more voluntarily paid type of tax, which is exactly what our founding fathers practiced.

A consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in THE FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT FOR OUR COUNTRY (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)! NOTE: those interested may use the PREV IMAGE and NEXT IMAGE buttons at the above link to study the bill___it is refreshing to study statesmen creating a revenue raising bill beneficial for America’s businesses, industries and labor force, as opposed to politicians acting in their own self interest and on behalf of internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation [the NAFTA - CAFTA CROWD] !

Limiting the tax to articles of luxury, and requiring each article to be individually selected and having Congress place a specific amount of tax upon each article chosen, as our founding fathers intended, creates a self regulating check and balance upon Congress, just as Hamilton indicates!

If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury. But, if the legislative policies of Congress are burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation’s labor force impede a flourishing economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed by Congress, the first sign would be is a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury and thereby defeat an extension of the revenue, just as Hamilton explains above!

For a recent example of how effective the founder's method of taxing consumption works to control the amount of tax on a specific article chosen by Congress see: Fed luxury tax 1990 (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/econ/stiglitz/ch5pp.htm) in which Congress attempted to lay an outrageous 10 percent tax on boats. And then see: 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263)

Had the tax been one or two percent rather than the outrageous 10 percent, it probably would have been paid without much resistance and not adversely affect the industries involved which caused Congress to immediately repeal the tax!


It must also be noted that any shortfall in revenue which may occur from imposts, duties and excise taxes needed to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government, and Congress borrows to meet such expenses, triggers the laying of the apportioned general tax [explained in POST 10 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=78682&postcount=10)].

This tax not only provides an emergency means to meet Congress exigencies, but it also creates an important moment of accountability in which each States’ Congressional Delegation would have to return to their own state with a bill for their States’ apportioned share of the general tax to extinguish a deficit created by Congress___ leaving the various State Legislatures and Governors with the responsibility of raising that revenue, but having to send it off to Washington, D.C. because Congress was better at spending revenue than raising it!

Unlike the establishment proposed NRST, [H.R. 25] our founder's plan grants almost unlimited power [imposts, duties and excise taxes and the direct apportioned tax to meet shortfalls] to raise essential revenue, but also provides various checks and balances to control the actions of Congress, and contains a method to balance the budget, which none of the establishment tax reforms proposals provides.

Bottom line…the Founder’s Plan worked so well that by the close of the year 1835, 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 Act of Congress in June of 1836 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=005/llsl005.db&recNum=92) all surplus revenue in excess of $ 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.

Regards,

JWK

P.S. Sorry for not getting back sooner.

johnwk
May 13th, 2006, 11:05 AM
I am curious if anyone here knows if Sean Hannity actually supports H.R. 25, or if he is undecided and merely leaning in favor of H.R. 25. I understand he is scheduling a public event the 24th of this month with Neal Boortz who promotes H.R. 25.

I am also curious to know if anyone here knows if Sean Hannity has ever compaired H.R. 25 to our nations original tax plan which contains a number of self regulating checks and balances which were intentionally designed to create a fair tax system and also designed to control the fiscal conduct of Congress.

For example, the founder’s plan provides a method to extinguish deficits in a timely manner and by a fixed rule of apportionment which today‘s socialists in Congress and friends of big government dread. H. R. 25 by contrast is designed to support existing big government and socialist programs which are financed by borrowing and deficit spending, without a fixed rule to extinguish deficits.

Our founding fathers’ original tax plan was also designed to allow Congress to tax consumption, but in a manner in which the limit of tax on each particular article taxed would be determined by the market place, and was intended to not tax the necessities of life nor tools of production and supplies necessary in conducting trade.

The founder’s intended each specific article of consumption to be intentionally selected for taxation, and then an appropriate amount of tax levied upon each specific article chosen. By contrast, H.R. 25 is an across the board percentage tax on the sale of property which interferes with the market place determining the limit of taxation on each specific article chosen for taxation.

H. R. 25 also defies the founder’s intention to limit taxes on consumption to articles of luxury. H.R. 25 seemingly addresses this important concern by creating a “family consumption allowance”, but which rations tax-free necessities of life by the dollar amount of the allowance.

In addition, the family consumption allowance entitles those who do not work for a living nor contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance. Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; prostitutes and bookies and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but makes babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. As a matter of fact the above would be getting an approximate $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25 for either breaking the law or sitting at home making babies.

The family consumption allowance happens to be a socialist windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and, would be a gift to Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress who would gladly promise to increase the family consumption allowance during elections to buy votes and remain in power!

The family consumption allowance would create a new and massive voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check. Why in the world would any freedom loving person support such a plan over our founding fathers original tax plan?

Hopefully Sean Hannity, if he has not already done so, will take the time to compare the founding fathers original tax plan to H.R. 25 and then discuss the two with Neal Boortz who has failed to compare the two plans on his show. The Boortz show has become a platform to pimp his book and promote H.R. 25 with a grab bag of misleading information, inaccurate statements, and even outright lies. Boortz appears to be intentionally avoiding the undesirable consequences which H.R. 25 would bring if the plan were to be adopted.

In my opinion, the only tax reform freedom loving Americans need is to have the following words 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

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship and entrench our nation with more socialism and big government…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our Founder’s original plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!

Regards,

JWK___ a proud supporter of our founding father’s original tax reform plan. (http://usafoundingfathers.blogspot.com/2006/03/founding-fathers-original-tax-plan.html)

johnwk
August 14th, 2006, 08:44 PM
Just thought it would be interesting to establish the misleading and inaccurate information given by the ringleaders of H.R. 25 to gain the unsuspecting support of Mary and Joe Six-pack who were recently encourage to show up for two rallies promoting H.R. 25.


Under the Neal Boortz fairy tale version of H.R. 25, Mary and Joe Six-pack were told that the 23 percent tax calculated from the American people’s property, real and personal, will “replace…virtually all taxes with one national retail sales tax.” [see: Today's Nuze: October 18, 2004 (http://boortz.com/nuze/200410/10182004.html)]


Under the grassfire.org’s fairy tale version of H.R. 25, Mary and Joe Six-pack were told that H.R. 25, a 23 percent tax calculated from the American people’s property, real and personal, “would eliminate the IRS and replace every current federal tax”[see: grassfire.org (http://www.grassfire.org/84/petition.asp?PID=11561037&NID=1)]


And, under the fairtax.org’s fairy tale version of H.R. 25, Mary and Joe Six-pack were told that H.R. 25, a 23 percent tax calculated from the American people’s property, real and personal, “replaces the income tax and all other federal taxes with a national consumption tax.” [see: fairtax.org] (http://fairtax.org/index.html)]

So, does H.R. 25 replace all federal taxes with one 23 percent tax calculated from the American People’s property, real and personal as Mary and Joe Six-pack were told by the ringleaders promoting H.R. 25?

Seems to me the ringleaders are telling Mary and Joe Six-pack a fairy tale because H.R. 25, by its very language under Sec. 302 creates a new federal agency, called the "Excise Tax Bureau"!

SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATION OF OTHER FEDERAL TAXES.

(d) Excise Tax Bureau- There shall be in the Department of the Treasury an Excise Tax Bureau to administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.


So, does the language of H.R. 25 replace “ the income tax and all other federal taxes with a national consumption tax.” as Neal Boortz and others have suggested?

Let’s get to the facts and truth and stop creating a fairy tale version of H.R. 25 like Neal Boortz and other ringleaders of the proposal are doing.

Fact is, the proposed 23 percent tax to be calculated from the American people’s property is a tax proposed which will be in addition to any and all excise taxes which Congress may decide to lay upon businesses, corporations, occupations and individuals which may be calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “income” derived under the subject matter an excise tax may be laid, and, this is in addition to existing excise taxes which are now collected by the BATF.

Be cautious of the Fairy Tale version of H.R. 25 which Neal Boortz and others are feeding you.

Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our employees add the following 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"

The above words, if added to our Constitution, would in fact make the Neal Boortz Fairy Tale version of H.R. 25 a reality!

Regards

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

johnwk
September 7th, 2006, 08:34 AM
Fair Tax? Did you say "fair tax" Rep. Linder? Sorry to disagree with you but H.R. 25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.25.IH:) is not a "fair tax", at least not according to our Constitution! As a matter of fact, H.R. 25 proposes to subjugate our Constitution’s agreed upon fair share formula articulated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 for a fair tax among the states to fill the national treasury! Unfortunately, not too many people in America are aware of our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

That formula may be expressed as follows:


States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population



The agreed upon formula amounts to an equal per capita tax among the states. Our Founding Fathers agreed that if Congress were unable to raise sufficient revenue from imposts duties and excise taxes and found it necessary to lay a general tax among the States to fill the national treasury and laid the general tax, if each person living in New York paid one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share under the Constitution‘s fair share formula, each person living in Delaware would likewise only have to pay one dollar if each person in Delaware contributed to meet their state’s apportioned share.


NOTE: In the event Congress found it necessary to lay the above mentioned tax, our founding fathers intended to leave the states at liberty to raise their share of the tax in their own chosen way. But if any state refused or neglected to pay their share, Congress was then intended to Assess & Levy such States proportion together with Interest thereon.

Contrary to our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states, Representative Linder’s H.R. 25 proposes to calculate each states contribution in a general tax among the states from the value of real and personal property within the state, and would place the lions’ share of the federal tax burden on the most productive and industrious states ___ exactly what our founding fathers debated during the Convention of 1787 and intended to provide protection against in that our founding fathers provided a fair share formula requiring those states paying the lions share of the tab, would also exercise a proportionate voting strength in Congress equal to their contribution…representation with proportional obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government hate with a passion.

In 1895 the Supreme Court of the United States in a case carefully documenting the founding fathers intentions, POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=157&page=429), struck down an Act of Congress to lay a general tax among the states calculated from income realized from property. The language of the Act stated:

"there shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and every person residing therein, whether said gains, profits, or income be derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, a tax of two per centum on the amount so derived over and above four thousand dollars, and a like tax shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing without the United States."


But the Court correctly ruled that earnings realized from property, if calculated into a federal tax, were direct, and if laid by Congress, required Congress to apportion the tax among the states in compliance with the Constitution’s fair share formula [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3]!


Socialists in America and the friends of big government disgruntled with the decision of the Supreme Court, went on to work very hard during the early 1900’s to override the rule of apportionment with regard to Congress calculating a tax from “income“. Their prize was the socialist 16th Amendment adopted in 1913:


“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”

Now they are back, again under the guise of “fair taxation“, and want to establish a new tax in America, a 23 percent tax calculated from the value of property, real and personal, in addition to Congress calculating taxes from “income”, and they want Congress to lay such a tax without abiding by the rule of apportionment, just like they did with a tax calculated from “income“.


Just goes to show you how socialists and the friends of big government never sleep___ always scheming up new ways to feed off the wealth and success of the most productive and hard working citizens under the guise of “fair” taxation, but in truth and substance work to subjugate our Constitution’s fair share formula!

HERE IS A LIST (http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/asupp.html) of members of Congress who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula.

Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following 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

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship, keep the tools of tax oppression alive and entrench our nation with more socialism and big government…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our Founder’s original plan, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!

Regards,

JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

johnwk
October 4th, 2006, 11:55 PM
Well, not only does Neal Boortz make things up when talking to his listening audience about H.R 25, but now he has made something up while testifying before a Congressional Committee!

Neal Boortz testified: (http://boortz.com/more/092606_senate_testamony.html)



Secondly, the FairTax relieves all households of the responsibility for paying sales taxes on the basic necessities of life through a rebate system. Nobody pays federal taxes on the basic necessities of life. This means that The FairTax is truly the only tax reform plan that completely eliminates the responsibility for the payment of any federal taxes whatsoever on the poor. (my emphasis.)

This turns out to be an outright lie! The truth is, all consumers pay the 23 percent tax on the basic necessities of life under H.R.25. The authors of H.R.25 concocted what they call a “family consumption allowance”__ a monthly check which is doled out by folks in government to qualified households who must register with government to receive the allowance. The family consumption entitlement is intended to be earmarked by each consumer to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life.

In essence, the so called fair tax rations tax-free basic necessities of life, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each household. Those who are sickly and have enormous doctor and medical bills, once exceeding the rationing allowance, will in fact pay federal taxes on the necessities of life and not with money from the family consumption entitlement check.

Hey Boortz, why did you give your fairy tale version of H.R. 25 to Congress? It's not nice to make things up Neal, especially to a Congressional Committee!

Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following 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

Regards,

JWK

johnwk
December 24th, 2006, 12:05 PM
Good News!


The alleged fair tax, H.R.25, is now being rejected at a conservative site in a
NEW POLL (http://hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139451&page=28) by more than a two to one margin in favor of our Constitution's original tax plan!

Latest results are H.R.25, alleged fair tax 19 votes, Constitution’s original tax plan 51 votes!

Seems the supporters of H.R. 25 are unable to defend their socialist friendly proposal against the wisdom of our Founder’s original tax plan in an non manipulated debate.

The only tax reform we need is to have the following words 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

Here is a telling COMPARISON (http://hannity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5867711&postcount=155) between H.R. 25 and our Constitution's original tax plan.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL YA ALL!

Regards,
JWK

johnwk
January 9th, 2007, 11:40 PM
.
Representative John Linder has reintroduced H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-25), in the House of Representatives and there are 27 co-sponsors supporting this proposal which is designed to subjugate, as income taxation now does, our Constitution’s fair share formula stated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 which commands the tax described in H.R. 25 “shall be apportioned among the several states”.




State`s population

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

Total U.S. Population

Keep in mind our socialist friends in American and the friends of big government worked very hard in the early 1900’s to have a constitutional amendment adopted to remove the requirement of apportioning a specific wealth based tax among the states involving “taxes on incomes“ [see the 16th Amendment]..

Now they are back and want to tax property, real and personal [proposed to be taxed by H.R. 25] without apportionment among the states and without regard to any census or enumeration as required by our Constitution, and thereby close the circle of a socialist and big government friendly taxing structure which reaches not only “property“, real and personal, but keeps alive Congress‘s power to also tax “incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”

Here is a list of those who are working to further erode federalism and subjugate the rule of apportionment which our founding fathers intended to apply to wealth based taxes:

Rep. John Linder [R-GA]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL]
Rep. Dan Boren [D-OK]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R-TX]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R-FL]
Rep. John Culberson [R-TX]
Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA]
Rep. Kay Granger [R-TX]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX]
Rep. Charles Norwood [R-GA]
Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Tom Price [R-GA]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL]
Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. Donald Young [R-AK]


For a great article on taxation in America see: Taxation and Representation (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no08/vo11no08_taxation.htm) which concludes:






Any long-term strategy for relieving the American people of the inquisitorial, inefficient income tax must begin with a withdrawal of the United States from the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although the WTO was sold to the American public as a step toward international tax reduction (by cutting tariff revenues), the WTO and previous GATT agreements merely proposed to transfer tax collecting from the U.S. Customs Department to the IRS. To overturn the income tax will require that the American people demand that Congress abolish this tax and replace that remnant of Marxism with the system which America's Founders designed.

Funny that Rep. John Linder is the mouthpiece on Capitol Hill for the internationalist one world crowd who are behind the NAFTA, WTO, GATT, CAFTA, etc.

The only tax reform freedom loving people need is to have the following words added to their Constitution, bringing us back to our founding father’s original tax plan which was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than have Congress control the people:

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


Regards,

JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

johnwk
May 6th, 2007, 06:33 PM
Those who are interested in real tax reform, check this out!

Rep. Ron Paul is not a co-sponsor, nor supports the alleged fair tax (H.R.25)! (http://hannity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8795002&postcount=532)

Also visit THE POLL! (http://hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139451&page=54) Truth is, the alleged fair tax really sucks!

Regards,

JWK

johnwk
May 11th, 2007, 08:02 PM
JUST A NOTE!

Fair Tax Blog started the following conversation:

Direct Taxation vs. Indirect Taxation (http://www.fairtaxblog.com/20061114/direct-taxation-vs-indirect-taxation/)

Of course, I had to correct inaccurate information [see my post posted May 11, 2007 at 4:34 pm]. Wonder how long my post will stay there.

JWK

Punzie
May 14th, 2007, 12:58 AM
The subject line of this topic captivated me, but in the interest of time, I'll have to wait for the movie to come out.

johnwk
July 9th, 2007, 08:52 AM
.

It is simply amazing that Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, after courageously rising up to fight against the amnesty bill, would both favor the alleged fair tax proposal [H.R. 25]. The provisions of H.R. 25 if adopted and enforced would not only tighten the iron fist of the federal government over the productivity of the American People and their property, but the proposal is an outright assault upon our Constitution’s rule by which the people of the various States agreed to contribute in a general tax among the states if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures!

During the framing of our Constitution states with superior wealth objected to granting a power of taxation to Congress based upon wealth and would leave them paying more of a federal tax than poorer states. The wealthier States believed they should have a larger voting strength in Congress if they were asked to contribute a larger share of revenue into the federal treasury then poorer states.

Eventually, a compromise was reached [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3] “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention of the above wording, which is contrary to the popular myth that it made Blacks 3/5 of a person, was an agreed upon rule determining each states’ voting strength in Congress Assembled, and also was intended to determine each states’ share of a general tax if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures.

NOTE: imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were intended by the founders to be Congress’s primary means for raising a federal revenue, not a general tax among the states!

Our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the States may be expressed as follows:


State`s population

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

Total U.S. Population

Keep in mind our Constitution’s fair share formula represents a cornerstone of federalism and meant to protect an economic right of the people within each of the various State borders, it is explicitly intended to determine a specific proportion of a tax the people of each state are obligated to contribute if a general tax among the states is imposed by Congress.

Thinking conservatives are fully aware that 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 determine how money shall be spent from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the States, they create every artful means to allow themselves to run and hide from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution. If H.R. 25 were adopted and enforced it would subjugate our Constitution‘s rule of representation with proportional obligation!

Keep in mind our socialist friends in American, the Populist Party during the late 1800’s early 1900’s, worked very hard to have a constitutional amendment adopted to remove the requirement of apportioning a specific wealth based tax among the states involving taxes calculated from “incomes” [see the 16th Amendment]. H.R. 25 by its very language, proposes to extend the reach of Congress and allow a tax to be calculated from the value of property, real and personal, and would do so without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration. In addition, H.R. 25 would keep alive Congress’s power to calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”, and does not even suggest to withdrawn this taxing power from Congress‘s powers!

Question is, why would Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo support this expansion of Congress’s taxing powers, allowing Congress to tax our property, real and personal, when all that is necessary for real tax reform is to have the following words added to our Constitution which would bring us back to our founder’s intended original tax plan ___ a plan created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than having Congress control the people:

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

Regards,

JWK

KeithInTampa
July 12th, 2008, 03:30 PM
Talk about some ignorant, misguided rhetoric and dogma! Several years ago, Johnwk, ("JWK") (who I just noted has been banned, writes:

"The architects of the plan have created what they call a “Family Consumption Allowance“ (FCA) which is a monthly check proposed to be sent by Congress to each American Household, intended to be earmarked by each household to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life, which in fact are to be taxed under the FT."

Then, in his infinite wisdom, Tom Auch wrote:


A Consumption Tax is a great way to screw the poor. Why should Bush make every trip to the car dealer and every purchase of appliances a vitural trip to H&R Block? It would discourage people from spending, and because it is a regressive tax is will not make nearly as much money as the federal income tax does. Ironically, Republicans love to bash European "socialist" economies, but consumption/sales taxes are pretty popular in most European countries... just look at the high cost of consumer goods over there!

The conversation goes downhill from there, but my first point, is that what JWK wrote is absolutely fictitious. There is no "monthy check to each American household", and goods and services such as food, clothing, etc., are not taxed under the Proposed Fair Tax Legislation. Tom's observations are just as convoluted....First, the "Fair Tax Legislation" is not just a "consumption tax, it is a fair, reasoned approach to comprehensive tax reform in this Nation, and if one would take the time to read and understand the policy and legislation, there is literally no one that could come to the conclusion that we should NOT adopt this comprehensive tax reform plan NOW! There is no politician in this Nation, who could have our best interests at heart, and not support the Fair Tax Legislation! READ THE INFORMATION ON THE WEB SITE!!

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main)

Jasonik
July 13th, 2008, 01:05 AM
...goods and services such as food, clothing, etc., are not taxed under the Proposed Fair Tax Legislation
:D

There is no politician in this Nation, who could have our best interests at heart, and not support the Fair Tax Legislation!
:D

The inflation tax not being enough, the Treasury Dept. wants to get a hand into each and every cash register in the country. IOW, there is already a rent charged on held money, now they want to add a user fee as well.

A consumption tax will only ever be fair if and when saving is not penalized by the inflationary erosion of the dollar caused by the deficit enabling federal reserve system currently holding our money's value hostage.

Officially, it is unclear just "who is in charge of the dollar." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ritv_YrCJak) Some further remarks. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px9pW5M2sqw)