I’m still waiting to hear Carly Fiorina's three page tax plan

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
4,031
1,931
200
Both the Republican Party Leadership and the Democrat Party Leadership have one thing in common when it comes to tax reform. They both want to keep alive the socialist and failed experiment of allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages, tips, and other lawfully earned incomes.

Of course, I’m sure a thinking person such as Carly Fiorina knows that our Congress critters love this particular tax because it not only allows our Washington Establishment to engage in all sorts of nefarious and corruptible schemes to fatten the fortunes of friends and donors, but also provides an irresistible and intoxicating power to enslave the American people and manipulate almost every aspect of their lives. After listening to last night’s presidential debate is it not obvious the tax reform plans offered by Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Ran Paul are intentionally designed to keep alive the worm at the root of the tree which causes an infectious disease?

If Carly Fiorina is sincere about real tax reform and ending the corruption she noted which is tied to existing federal taxation, would it not be logical to end the socialist and failed experiment of allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from “incomes”? Would it not be a blessing to the American People for Carly to offer the following in her three page reform which would end a vast majority of the corruption and abuse now inflicted upon the American people by our federal government?


The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:


States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!



Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.



"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“
___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
 
Would it be fair to have only a tax on consumption? The very wealthy would end up paying a tax on only 1% of their income while those at the bottom of the economic ladder would pay tax on virtually 100% of their income, almost guaranteeing that they would stay there.
I'm sure the economic elites think it would be fair.
 
Would it be fair to have only a tax on consumption? The very wealthy would end up paying a tax on only 1% of their income while those at the bottom of the economic ladder would pay tax on virtually 100% of their income, almost guaranteeing that they would stay there.
I'm sure the economic elites think it would be fair.


Your assertions are without foundation if taxing consumption was carried out as our founders intended.


JWK
 
Would it be fair to have only a tax on consumption? The very wealthy would end up paying a tax on only 1% of their income while those at the bottom of the economic ladder would pay tax on virtually 100% of their income, almost guaranteeing that they would stay there.
I'm sure the economic elites think it would be fair.


Your assertions are without foundation if taxing consumption was carried out as our founders intended.


JWK
People of little means spend virtually all their income on the necessities of life, in other words consumption. The very wealthy also consume the necessities of life but it represents a minuscule portion of their income. There's the foundation, explain how I'm wrong.
 
Would it be fair to have only a tax on consumption? The very wealthy would end up paying a tax on only 1% of their income while those at the bottom of the economic ladder would pay tax on virtually 100% of their income, almost guaranteeing that they would stay there.
I'm sure the economic elites think it would be fair.


Your assertions are without foundation if taxing consumption was carried out as our founders intended.


JWK
People of little means spend virtually all their income on the necessities of life, in other words consumption. The very wealthy also consume the necessities of life but it represents a minuscule portion of their income. There's the foundation, explain how I'm wrong.


You never explained how taxing consumption as our founders intended is a burden upon the poor.


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

 
Would it be fair to have only a tax on consumption? The very wealthy would end up paying a tax on only 1% of their income while those at the bottom of the economic ladder would pay tax on virtually 100% of their income, almost guaranteeing that they would stay there.
I'm sure the economic elites think it would be fair.


Your assertions are without foundation if taxing consumption was carried out as our founders intended.


JWK
People of little means spend virtually all their income on the necessities of life, in other words consumption. The very wealthy also consume the necessities of life but it represents a minuscule portion of their income. There's the foundation, explain how I'm wrong.


You never explained how taxing consumption as our founders intended is a burden upon the poor.


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

It's a burden compared to our current system since the poor currently pay little or no income tax.
 
Well, here's a scale model of page one:

IMG_2435.JPG
 
The OP tax plan is close to nuts...

What is states is a flat tax to be imposed on states by there population. So rich states pay the same per head as poor states...

So Maryland which has twice the income of Mississippi will pay the same per capita. Give you 18 months before the poorest states (i.e. Red ones) will raise the white flag...

In general the blue states would be big winners in the short to medium term, but they know it would be bad long term as it would create third world states inside the US.

Sorry idea is a crazy as let everyone pay the exact same...
 
Would it be fair to have only a tax on consumption? The very wealthy would end up paying a tax on only 1% of their income while those at the bottom of the economic ladder would pay tax on virtually 100% of their income, almost guaranteeing that they would stay there.
I'm sure the economic elites think it would be fair.


Your assertions are without foundation if taxing consumption was carried out as our founders intended.


JWK
People of little means spend virtually all their income on the necessities of life, in other words consumption. The very wealthy also consume the necessities of life but it represents a minuscule portion of their income. There's the foundation, explain how I'm wrong.


You never explained how taxing consumption as our founders intended is a burden upon the poor.


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

It's a burden compared to our current system since the poor currently pay little or no income tax.

Our founder's method of taxing consumption allowed the poor to pay little to no federal tax.


JWK
 
Would it be fair to have only a tax on consumption? The very wealthy would end up paying a tax on only 1% of their income while those at the bottom of the economic ladder would pay tax on virtually 100% of their income, almost guaranteeing that they would stay there.
I'm sure the economic elites think it would be fair.


Your assertions are without foundation if taxing consumption was carried out as our founders intended.


JWK
People of little means spend virtually all their income on the necessities of life, in other words consumption. The very wealthy also consume the necessities of life but it represents a minuscule portion of their income. There's the foundation, explain how I'm wrong.


You never explained how taxing consumption as our founders intended is a burden upon the poor.


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

It's a burden compared to our current system since the poor currently pay little or no income tax.

Our founder's method of taxing consumption allowed the poor to pay little to no federal tax.


JWK

This isn't 1789. FYI.
 
While the author of the OP waits, here, to make things easier for folks to follow along, is the Democrat Parody simplified Tax plan.

If it is made in America, tax the production.

If it is purchased in America, tax the purchase.

If an income is earned in America, Tax it.

If it is alive, Tax it.

If it is dead, Tax it.

If it breathes, Tax it.

If it moves, Tax it.

If anything is left over, tax that too.
 
Your assertions are without foundation if taxing consumption was carried out as our founders intended.


JWK
People of little means spend virtually all their income on the necessities of life, in other words consumption. The very wealthy also consume the necessities of life but it represents a minuscule portion of their income. There's the foundation, explain how I'm wrong.


You never explained how taxing consumption as our founders intended is a burden upon the poor.


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

It's a burden compared to our current system since the poor currently pay little or no income tax.

Our founder's method of taxing consumption allowed the poor to pay little to no federal tax.


JWK

This isn't 1789. FYI.


And what is your point with reference to taxing our founders way as opposed to the socialist tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned income?

JWK
 
Would it be fair to have only a tax on consumption? The very wealthy would end up paying a tax on only 1% of their income while those at the bottom of the economic ladder would pay tax on virtually 100% of their income, almost guaranteeing that they would stay there.
I'm sure the economic elites think it would be fair.
I even wonder how a federal VAT would be compatible with the US Constitution, granted that it applies to commerce within a state. In Europe, they exempt VAT on staples to address the issue that you bring up, but they don't try to use sales tax as their only tax measure.
 
People of little means spend virtually all their income on the necessities of life, in other words consumption. The very wealthy also consume the necessities of life but it represents a minuscule portion of their income. There's the foundation, explain how I'm wrong.


You never explained how taxing consumption as our founders intended is a burden upon the poor.


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

It's a burden compared to our current system since the poor currently pay little or no income tax.

Our founder's method of taxing consumption allowed the poor to pay little to no federal tax.


JWK

This isn't 1789. FYI.


And what is your point with reference to taxing our founders way as opposed to the socialist tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned income?

JWK
We're using the founder's way right now, where the congress and the amendment process determines how we tax. It's just been many years of democratic development.

What you've suggested is a confederate plan that makes tax rates and policies unpredictable and inconsistent. Some states will struggle to raise the same money per capita than others, then they'll be subject to our debt burdens, rather than with the federal government that actually has a 'use' for debt.
 
People of little means spend virtually all their income on the necessities of life, in other words consumption. The very wealthy also consume the necessities of life but it represents a minuscule portion of their income. There's the foundation, explain how I'm wrong.


You never explained how taxing consumption as our founders intended is a burden upon the poor.


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

It's a burden compared to our current system since the poor currently pay little or no income tax.

Our founder's method of taxing consumption allowed the poor to pay little to no federal tax.


JWK

This isn't 1789. FYI.


And what is your point with reference to taxing our founders way as opposed to the socialist tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned income?

JWK

Using the federal taxes in place, say, in 1800, what would those rates have to be to fund our current government at the current level?
 

Forum List

Back
Top