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

[Skull Pilot]

With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone else

But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.

Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.

Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.

If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.

I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.

If you have an income you have the ability to pay income tax.

Depends on your mimimum expenses and how much income you have. You're going to have hard time arguing that some guy working 50 hours a week at minimum wage job has the same capacity to pay as say, Bill Gates.

A low flat tax will not overburden anyone.

Says who? Flat taxes are inherently regressive. Which is entirely the point of them; to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and to the middle class and the poor.

I don't see many in the middle class and poor getting behind that.

Of course he does.

He could easily have a 10 or 11% flat tax taken out of his pay and not feel it.

Why should an income tax be waived if one has an income when no other tax is based on "ability to pay"

If you're going to tax a dollar earned then tax every dollar earned at the same rate.

I don't pay a higher gas tax if I buy more than 100 gallons so why should I pay a higher income tax on some of the dollars I earn?

 

[Skull Pilot]

With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone else

But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.

Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.

Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.

If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.

I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.

If you have an income you have the ability to pay income tax.

Depends on your mimimum expenses and how much income you have. You're going to have hard time arguing that some guy working 50 hours a week at minimum wage job has the same capacity to pay as say, Bill Gates.

A low flat tax will not overburden anyone.

Says who? Flat taxes are inherently regressive. Which is entirely the point of them; to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and to the middle class and the poor.

I don't see many in the middle class and poor getting behind that.

Regressive and progressive are subjective terms

ALL taxes can be called regressive. The gas tax is. Cigarette taxes are. The sales tax is

Why should income taxes be any different than every other tax?

 

[Skylar]

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”?

Cruz was born to a Foreign National... and while his father was vehemently opposed to Communism, the influence of such upon his father, cannot be ignored and neither can the influence of his father, upon Cruz be ignored. And it is for this reason that Cruz, according to the US Constitution, is simply not eligible for the Office of the President of the United States.

With that said, Cruz is not a communist, neither is he sympathetic to the perverse reasoning common to communism. He simply understands that government must be funded and I expect he sees the flat tax on income as the most expeditious means of scuttling the current system, which is a start toward separating the United States from the idiocy, wherein the Government is sustained through a means which DISCOURAGES THAT WHICH FUNDS THE THING YOUR TRYING TO SUSTAIN!

I doubt that if you spoke with him personally, that you'd find much resistance to a tax on consumption. And I am just as sure that he has good reason for his position.

I just hope he finds the strength of character to recognize that the circumstances of his birth preclude him from Presidential Eligibility and I hope MOST that should he do so, he will find the courage to EXPLAIN HIS REASONING VERY PUBLICLY... and in so doing, raise himself to the rarest of air, not breathed since the Founders themselves... as being among the most selfless and profound leaders in the history of the United States.

That one decision... and that prodigious effort, would re-instill a certainty in Americans that the US Constitution is a living, breathing document enshrining the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to the LIVING LAWS OF NATURE which defines Individual Liberty, through the sustained forbearance, intrinsic in personal responsibility... .

He would through his actions, quite literally, "Change the World, through American Fundamentals."

Where Cruz was born has nothing to do with tax reform. Additionally, I have not suggested Cruz is a Communist. What I have stated, and correctly so is, he promotes a system of taxation which finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, and what he promotes [a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes] is both immoral and an arbitrary system of taxation as I have demonstrated in this thread. His proposal does not scuttle the current system. It keeps alive a power of taxation which is used to inflict countless miseries upon America’s businesses as well as the American people. Senator Cruz would do well to have faith in the wisdom and brilliance of our Foundering Fathers’ original tax plan which they wrote into our Constitution, part of which is explained in Federalist No. 21.


Additionally, Cruz should also take note of the clarity for which our founders commanded that both representation and any direct tax laid by Congress would be apportioned among the States based upon each State’s population which boils down to “representation with a proportional financial obligation”!


Let us recall our founders clear thinking in this regard:


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

Are we as a nation 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”?

All solid points.

The tax on Income is destructive to production, as it taxes... thus discouraging PRODUCTION.

And yet productivity has rather consistently risen since the implementation of an income tax. As has the GDP. Exactly opposite of what you assume.

Perhaps 'destructive' doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[ScienceRocks]

With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone else

But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.

Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.

Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.

If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.

I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.

If you have an income you have the ability to pay income tax.

Depends on your mimimum expenses and how much income you have. You're going to have hard time arguing that some guy working 50 hours a week at minimum wage job has the same capacity to pay as say, Bill Gates.

A low flat tax will not overburden anyone.

Says who? Flat taxes are inherently regressive. Which is entirely the point of them; to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and to the middle class and the poor.

I don't see many in the middle class and poor getting behind that.

The entire points of the losertertian movement is to make the lower classes slaves to the wealthy. They dream of the 19th century...They hate government no matter what...No matter if it helps people, no matter if it's 70% of our science infrastructure being done by the public sector or that it helps with making a more favorable business environment. Nothing matters to them.

A flat tax would shield the riches people and screw over the poor. Which as you just said can't carry the weight.

 

[Skylar]

Regressive and progressive are subjective terms

So is 'overburden'. Yet you were happy to use the term. You can't claim subjectivity in termenology invalidates an argument while using subjective terms.

You refute your own argument if you do it that way.

So who says that a low flat tax will not 'overburden anyone'?

 

[Skull Pilot]

But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.

Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.

Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.

If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.

I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.

If you have an income you have the ability to pay income tax.

Depends on your mimimum expenses and how much income you have. You're going to have hard time arguing that some guy working 50 hours a week at minimum wage job has the same capacity to pay as say, Bill Gates.

A low flat tax will not overburden anyone.

Says who? Flat taxes are inherently regressive. Which is entirely the point of them; to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and to the middle class and the poor.

I don't see many in the middle class and poor getting behind that.

The entire points of the losertertian movement is to make the lower classes slaves to the wealthy. They dream of the 19th century...They hate government no matter what...No matter if it helps people, no matter if it's 70% of our science infrastructure being done by the public sector or that it helps with making a more favorable business environment. Nothing matters to them.

A flat tax would shield the riches people and screw over the poor. Which as you just said can't carry the weight.

I never said the so called poor can't pay a flat income tax.

Of course they can.

Why shouldn't anyone who earns a dollar pay an income tax on that dollar?

 

[ScienceRocks]

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


JWK

If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?

With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone else

But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.

Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.

Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.

If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.

I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.

NOT ONLY that, but the wealthy also use more of our resources. They use more police and drive large trucks on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more???

 

[Skull Pilot]

Regressive and progressive are subjective terms

So is 'overburden'. Yet you were happy to use the term. You can't claim subjectivity in termenology invalidates an argument while using subjective terms.

You refute your own argument if you do it that way.

So who says that a low flat tax will not 'overburden anyone'?

They wouldn't even miss it.

People live on their take home pay and most people already have at least 10% withheld.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?

With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone else

But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.

Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.

Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.

If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.

I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.

NOT ONLY that, but the wealthy also use more of our resources. They use more police and drive large trucks on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more???

Prove that?

The poor and middle class use far more publicly funded resources than the rich

 

[Skylar]

But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.

Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.

Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.

If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.

I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.

If you have an income you have the ability to pay income tax.

Depends on your mimimum expenses and how much income you have. You're going to have hard time arguing that some guy working 50 hours a week at minimum wage job has the same capacity to pay as say, Bill Gates.

A low flat tax will not overburden anyone.

Says who? Flat taxes are inherently regressive. Which is entirely the point of them; to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and to the middle class and the poor.

I don't see many in the middle class and poor getting behind that.

The entire points of the losertertian movement is to make the lower classes slaves to the wealthy. They dream of the 19th century...They hate government no matter what...No matter if it helps people, no matter if it's 70% of our science infrastructure being done by the public sector or that it helps with making a more favorable business environment. Nothing matters to them.

A flat tax would shield the riches people and screw over the poor. Which as you just said can't carry the weight.

I don't think that's the goal of libertarianism. But a vast increase in the power and influence of the wealthy is an inevitable outcome of that policy.

Libertarianism's greatest weakness is its myopic focus on government power and its potential to be abused. Government power can definitely be abused. But libertarians fail when they don't take into account that ANY concentration of power can be abused. Including that in private hands.

Libertarian policy has no effective counter to the inevitable abuse of private concentrations of power. And frankly, they don't believe it should be checked.

Which is why libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream. Libertarianism in its pure form is unsustainable. It fatal inability to mitigate private power means that inevitably these private concentrations of power will push libertarianism toward oligarchy.

 

[Skylar]

Regressive and progressive are subjective terms

So is 'overburden'. Yet you were happy to use the term. You can't claim subjectivity in termenology invalidates an argument while using subjective terms.

You refute your own argument if you do it that way.

So who says that a low flat tax will not 'overburden anyone'?

They wouldn't even miss it.

Says who?

A massive shift of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and poor....and the poor and middle class wouldn't even miss it?

You may have a harder time convincing the poor and middle class of this.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

If you want socialism or communism to take hold in America, then get rid of Social Security. The conservative movement would freeze in its tracks shortly after you put 25% of Americans into poverty. It amazes me that some people actually can be so stupid as to believe getting rid of SS is a great idea.

That's some fallacious dissent. Have socialism if you don't want socialism You're such a phony.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Regressive and progressive are subjective terms

So is 'overburden'. Yet you were happy to use the term. You can't claim subjectivity in termenology invalidates an argument while using subjective terms.

You refute your own argument if you do it that way.

So who says that a low flat tax will not 'overburden anyone'?

They wouldn't even miss it.

Says who?

A massive shift of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and poor....and the poor and middle class wouldn't even miss it?

You may have a harder time convincing the poor and middle class of this.

Yeah people who pay nothing usually don't want to pay anything.

And it's not a shift of the tax burden it's people paying what they should pay.

And you have yet to tell me why the tax on income should be treated differently than any other tax.

 

[Skylar]

Regressive and progressive are subjective terms

So is 'overburden'. Yet you were happy to use the term. You can't claim subjectivity in termenology invalidates an argument while using subjective terms.

You refute your own argument if you do it that way.

So who says that a low flat tax will not 'overburden anyone'?

They wouldn't even miss it.

Says who?

A massive shift of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and poor....and the poor and middle class wouldn't even miss it?

You may have a harder time convincing the poor and middle class of this.

Yeah people who pay nothing usually don't want to pay anything.

And it's not a shift of the tax burden it's people paying what they should pay.

With the wealthy advocating a system where they 'should' pay far, far less than they do now. And the middle class and poor should pay more.

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement on this point. Merely an attempt to justify the shift in tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and poor.

 

[johnwk]

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”?

Cruz was born to a Foreign National... and while his father was vehemently opposed to Communism, the influence of such upon his father, cannot be ignored and neither can the influence of his father, upon Cruz be ignored. And it is for this reason that Cruz, according to the US Constitution, is simply not eligible for the Office of the President of the United States.

With that said, Cruz is not a communist, neither is he sympathetic to the perverse reasoning common to communism. He simply understands that government must be funded and I expect he sees the flat tax on income as the most expeditious means of scuttling the current system, which is a start toward separating the United States from the idiocy, wherein the Government is sustained through a means which DISCOURAGES THAT WHICH FUNDS THE THING YOUR TRYING TO SUSTAIN!

I doubt that if you spoke with him personally, that you'd find much resistance to a tax on consumption. And I am just as sure that he has good reason for his position.

I just hope he finds the strength of character to recognize that the circumstances of his birth preclude him from Presidential Eligibility and I hope MOST that should he do so, he will find the courage to EXPLAIN HIS REASONING VERY PUBLICLY... and in so doing, raise himself to the rarest of air, not breathed since the Founders themselves... as being among the most selfless and profound leaders in the history of the United States.

That one decision... and that prodigious effort, would re-instill a certainty in Americans that the US Constitution is a living, breathing document enshrining the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to the LIVING LAWS OF NATURE which defines Individual Liberty, through the sustained forbearance, intrinsic in personal responsibility... .

He would through his actions, quite literally, "Change the World, through American Fundamentals."

Where Cruz was born has nothing to do with tax reform. Additionally, I have not suggested Cruz is a Communist. What I have stated, and correctly so is, he promotes a system of taxation which finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, and what he promotes [a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes] is both immoral and an arbitrary system of taxation as I have demonstrated in this thread. His proposal does not scuttle the current system. It keeps alive a power of taxation which is used to inflict countless miseries upon America’s businesses as well as the American people. Senator Cruz would do well to have faith in the wisdom and brilliance of our Foundering Fathers’ original tax plan which they wrote into our Constitution, part of which is explained in Federalist No. 21.


Additionally, Cruz should also take note of the clarity for which our founders commanded that both representation and any direct tax laid by Congress would be apportioned among the States based upon each State’s population which boils down to “representation with a proportional financial obligation”!


Let us recall our founders clear thinking in this regard:


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

Are we as a nation 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”?

All solid points.

The tax on Income is destructive to production, as it taxes... thus discouraging PRODUCTION.

And yet productivity has rather consistently risen since the implementation of an income tax. As has the GDP. Exactly opposite of what you assume.

Perhaps 'destructive' doesn't mean what you think it means.

And so has our nation's population. As usual, you make no sense.


JWK

 

[peach174]

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?

Wrong.
They wrote our Constitution in order to get those freedoms in the future.
What they would despise is Federal Taxes and the eroding of States Rights and the immersion of the 3 branches of Government

 

[peach174]

Until we change our tax code we will never get rid of the favoritism of the lobbyists and Wall St.

 

[johnwk]

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

If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?

With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone else

And that defies equal protection under the law. The rule of apportionment commands an equal per capita tax if Congress taxes the people directly!

Bullshit. Apportionment is a distribution. .

Another baseless comment. Apportioning a direct tax is done by the following formula:


States’ pop.


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


U.S. Population


And once a state's share of the direct tax is determine, if Congress decides to tax the citizens of a state directly, then the State's share is divided by the state's population to determine each person's share which works out to be an equal per capita tax.



If a capitation tax, which is a direct tax, were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Apportionment is about how the money is distributed once collected.

You need to stop making crap up.


For an example of an apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each state’s obligation is determine.


JWK

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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?

Wrong.
They wrote our Constitution in order to get those freedoms in the future.
What they would despise is Federal Taxes and the eroding of States Rights and the immersion of the 3 branches of Government

Funny how people willfully give up their freedoms and liberties and then bitch about the founding fathers not being this or that.....They're such deluded minions.