Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
4,043
1,936
200
SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
 
Last edited:
I could live with a very small flat tax if we got rid of all the other welfare programs and social security, etc. You're right that the founding fathers would despise today's government.
 
I could live with a very small flat tax if we got rid of all the other welfare programs and social security, etc. You're right that the founding fathers would despise today's government.

The founders would probably despise women and non-land owners voting, full citizenship for blacks, and no executions for gays.

So?
 
And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

Apportionment has nothing to do with who gets to vote. Your entire premise is blithering nonsense.
 
SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

Actually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
 
I could live with a very small flat tax if we got rid of all the other welfare programs and social security, etc. You're right that the founding fathers would despise today's government.

The founders would probably despise women and non-land owners voting, full citizenship for blacks, and no executions for gays.

So?

Up to that point in history what government had allowed women to vote? The founding fathers were pragmatists when expedient to be so. And the executions for gays? Give me a break. You don't know thing one what you're talking about to be making such lame claims.
 
And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

Apportionment has nothing to do with who gets to vote. Your entire premise is blithering nonsense.


Apportionment has everything to do with our Constitution and how many votes each state gets in Congress.


JWK







To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving work permits to millions who have invaded our borders!



 
Actually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.


And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!


JWK
 
Without income tax where will all the money for the defense budget, agriculture subsidies, roads, corporate welfare/bailouts, and private prisons come from?

It can't come from sales tax, as that would piss off businesses trying to keep down their operating costs, as well as dive domestic consumption at a time when it is needed most.

If you cut all social welfare, closed down the department of education, and went full on austerity, there still would be a massive budget hole. Also there would be major domestic unrest and riots daily, not to mention starvation because private charity wouldn't be able to keep up.

Capital gains tax? The 1% will have that blocked, and it wouldn't even leave the drafting stage.

Property tax? Try and push that on homeowners and property developers, and higher rents won't be appreciated by the poor.

Carbon tax? Might get the environmentalists on board, but big manufacturers and energy companies will make sure it never leaves the drafting stage.

So that leaves a desperate attempt to create small taxes to make up for income tax revenue being lost. Which obviously won't work.
 
Actually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.


And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!


JWK

Maybe you should read item 2 in the link you provided.

I read the Communist Manifesto many years ago. I take it you support taxing "incomes" like Senator Cruz?


JWK







To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.



 
Without income tax where will all the money . . . come from?

.

From imposts, duties, excise taxes and if necessary an apportioned direct tax among the states, just as our Founders intended and worked just fine until our socialist crowd got their way with taxing incomes.

Have you ever studied our Constitution's original tax plan?


JWK





“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

 
I could live with a very small flat tax if we got rid of all the other welfare programs and social security, etc. You're right that the founding fathers would despise today's government.

One thing is certain, our Founders were absolutely correct about requiring direct taxes to be apportioned. And just what was their thinking with regard to apportioning direct taxes?



Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :


“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6


And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255


And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


JWK




Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get

 
Without income tax where will all the money . . . come from?

.

From imposts, duties, excise taxes and if necessary an apportioned direct tax among the states, just as our Founders intended and worked just fine until our socialist crowd got their way with taxing incomes.

Have you ever studied our Constitution's original tax plan?


JWK





“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

In other words, you will play with the free market system and artificially distort the market. Yeah, not going to work, and try getting out of international trade agreements. Most of that shit is illegal or world hurt trade with other countries. Who knew the GOP were state socialists, in sheeps clothing.
 
Actually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.


And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!


JWK

Maybe you should read item 2 in the link you provided.

I read the Communist Manifesto many years ago. I take it you support taxing "incomes" like Senator Cruz?


JWK







To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.



Try reading it again, maybe you'll actually retain it this time. And stop trying to attribute things to me I never said. Carry on.

From your link:

The Communist Manifesto
The Communist Manifesto, originally titled Manifesto of the Communist Party is a short 1848 book written by the German political theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It has since gone down in history as one of the world's most influential political manuscripts.



Communist Manifesto Precepts
1 Abolition of private property

2 Heavy progressive income tax

3 Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4 Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.

5 Central bank

6 Government control of Communications and Transportation

7 Government ownership of factories and agriculture.

8 Government control of labor

9 Corporate farms, regional Planning

10 Government control of education
 
And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

Apportionment has nothing to do with who gets to vote. Your entire premise is blithering nonsense.


Apportionment has everything to do with our Constitution and how many votes each state gets in Congress.


JWK

That's congressional apportionment. You were talking about tax apportionment. You know the 'tax' in 'our Constitution's original tax plan'. Those are completely different concepts. You just completely abandoned your argument.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to run. As usual, John.....you really have no idea what you're talking about.
 

Forum List

Back
Top