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

[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.

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.

You mean people who have been paying nothing will have to pay more?

So what it's about time

And you have yet to answer the very simple question:

Why should the tax on income be different from every other tax?

 

[johnwk]

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

Well Skylar ? Will you admit you are wrong?


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

Tell us Skylar, did study the documentation provided which proves you are wrong?


JWK

 

[Skylar]

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.

You mean people who have been paying nothing will have to pay more?

So what it's about time

And you have yet to answer the very simple question:

Why should the tax on income be different from every other tax?

Then it seems we're in agreement. The purpose of the flat tax is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. And that's exactly what it is designed to do.

With that settled, the electorate should determine if that's what they want.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

You mean people who have been paying nothing will have to pay more?

So what it's about time

And you have yet to answer the very simple question:

Why should the tax on income be different from every other tax?

Then it seems we're in agreement. The purpose of the flat tax is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. And that's exactly what it is designed to do.

With that settled, the electorate should determine if that's what they want.

Cool since less than 30% of eligible people vote I think the flat tax has a good shot

 

[Skylar]

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.

Really? Can you quote the founders saying this? You'd probably find support for the idea of the end of slavery. But the end of of their variant of timocracy? Full citizenship for blacks? Women voting?

Those were not goals of the founders. If you believe they were, show us.

Only Jefferson supported the end of executions for gays. Jefferson thought gays should only be castrated without anesthetic. He was overruled by his fellow Virginians who insisted on killing them.

That's not '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

They enacted federal taxes. What do you think the Whiskey Rebellion was about, harsh language? It was about federal taxation.

And the founders were straight up wrong in their conception of the States as 'defender of rights'. The States VIOLATED constitutional rights quite flagrantly. And there was nothing It took the enforcement of the 14th amendment to finally apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Something the founders never intended be done. Undoubtedly they would hate the idea. Just as undoubtedly, the founders were simply wrong on this issue. As government shouldn't be allowed to violate individual rights. Whether its State or Federal government is irrelevant.

On that front, I'm glad to offend the founder's sensibilities. As we know better than they did.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You mean people who have been paying nothing will have to pay more?

So what it's about time

And you have yet to answer the very simple question:

Why should the tax on income be different from every other tax?

Then it seems we're in agreement. The purpose of the flat tax is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. And that's exactly what it is designed to do.

With that settled, the electorate should determine if that's what they want.

Cool since less than 30% of eligible people vote I think the flat tax has a good shot

Given that about 90% of that 30% will see higher taxes under your arrangement, I think you may be disappointed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

You mean people who have been paying nothing will have to pay more?

So what it's about time

And you have yet to answer the very simple question:

Why should the tax on income be different from every other tax?

Then it seems we're in agreement. The purpose of the flat tax is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. And that's exactly what it is designed to do.

With that settled, the electorate should determine if that's what they want.

Cool since less than 30% of eligible people vote I think the flat tax has a good shot

Given that about 90% of that 30% will see higher taxes under your arrangement, I think you may be disappointed.

62 Percent of Americans Say They Favor a Flat Tax - Reason-Rupe Surveys Reason.com

 

[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.

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

Per capita productivity has risen sharply under the income tax. An explicit contradiction of the assertion that income taxes 'destroy' productivity.

And of course, GDP increases have FAR outstripped population growth. In 1916 the GDP was $50 billion (1.08 trillion in inflation adjusted dollars). In 2014, it was 16.8 trillion. That's more than a 15 fold increase adjusted for inflation.

Population in 1916 was 102 million. In 2014 it was estimated to be 314 million. That's a roughly 3 fold increase.

Meaning that GDP has increased 5 times faster than population since population since income tax was implemented. So much for income tax 'destroying productivity'.

You don't know what you're talking about John....because you won't research. While I do.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You mean people who have been paying nothing will have to pay more?

So what it's about time

And you have yet to answer the very simple question:

Why should the tax on income be different from every other tax?

Then it seems we're in agreement. The purpose of the flat tax is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. And that's exactly what it is designed to do.

With that settled, the electorate should determine if that's what they want.

Cool since less than 30% of eligible people vote I think the flat tax has a good shot

Given that about 90% of that 30% will see higher taxes under your arrangement, I think you may be disappointed.

62 Percent of Americans Say They Favor a Flat Tax - Reason-Rupe Surveys Reason.com

Ask those same folks if they favor tax increases for the poor and middle class while we cut taxes for the rich.

64% support tax increases for the wealthy

Poll Most want taxes on millionaires increased - CBS News

With most polled finding that the rich pay too little, while the middle class pays too much:

According to the poll, 68 percent of those questioned said wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes; only 11 percent said the wealthy pay too much.

Also, 60 percent said middle-class households pay too much in federal taxes, while 7 percent said they paid too little.

AP-GfK Poll Most back Obama plan to raise investment taxes Associated Press GfK Poll

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/taxes-middle-class-investment/2015/02/22/id/626168/#ixzz3VVekg034
That from a poll last month. With the middle class and poor informed on what the purpose and outcome of a flat tax actually is.....shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor, significantly reducing the tax burden of the wealthy while increasing taxes on the middle class and poor....

.....you're not going to see much support for it.

 

[Skylar]

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

Exactly. Apportionoment is a DISTRIBUTION. Not a collection of funds. And its based on the state's population. NOT on the percentage of the population paying taxes.

You've done nothing but agree with me.

Thus, your claims about apportionment and the '45% that don't pay federal income' is meaningless gibberish. As restore apportionment and the 45% are pristinely unaffected. Apportionment has nothing to do individual tax rates. It has nothing to do with tax collection.

Apportionment is about the DISTRIBUTION of funds. Tax rates are about the collection of funds. You've literally confused revenue collection with revenue distribution.

They aren't the same thing.

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.

Apportionment has nothing to do with the 'tax on the citizens of a state directly'. Apportionment is not taxation. Apportionment is the distribution of funds collected. Not a collection method.

This is so comically simple. And yet you still do not get it.

As usual, John......your suggestions are useless as they're based on an astonishingly wrong perception of basic constitutional principles. Where you've mistakenly concluded that apportionment is a method of tax collection.

When in reality, its the exact opposite.

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

Capitation wasn't the tax system of the founders. Most of the founding fathers loathed the idea of a capitation tax. And almost none implemented it. The Federal government never has. The founders funded the government primarily through tariffs.

Your claim was taxation 'as the founders intended'. They never used capitation taxes. Nor did they implement a capitation tax.

Demonstrating elegantly that your proposal has nothing to do with 'taxation as the founders intended it'. As apportionment isn't taxation. And capitation was never used by the founders to fund the federal government.

Sigh......you'd think that by the law of averages, you'd eventually get something right. But nope. Somehow, you always find a way to fail.

 

[johnwk]

Exactly. Apportionoment is a DISTRIBUTION. .

I am happy to see you finally agree with me that the apportionment of a direct tax among the States determines each State's share of the burden.

Thank you for finally agreeing.


JWK

 

[johnwk]

It took the enforcement of the 14th amendment to finally apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Wrong. It took a misrepresentation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.


Aside from that, this thread is about Senator Cruz's plan to keep the immoral and arbitrary tax on "incomes" alive instead of offering real reform by working to send an Amendment to the States for ratification as follows, and would put an end to this hideous tax and the countless miseries suffered under it.

“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.


"SECTION 2. 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



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[Skylar]

Exactly. Apportionoment is a DISTRIBUTION. .

I am happy to see you finally agree with me that the apportionment of a direct tax among the States determines each State's share of the burden.

Your argument was the individual's tax burden. As demonstrated by all your babble about the '45% who pay no income taxes'. Which are individual obligations and will be pristinely unaffected by any return to 'apportionment'. As apportionment is a distribution of federal tax revenue. Not the collection of it.

And it was never the 'legislative intent of the Constitution' to institute capitation taxes. The founders never used capitation taxes to fund the government, nor even seriously considered it. Most of the founders explicitly rejected the idea and loathed capitation taxes.

The method of taxation overwhelmingly used by the founders? Tariffs.

Only now that you've been proven laughably, comically wrong.....do you switch to the 'State's burden'.

 

[Skylar]

It took the enforcement of the 14th amendment to finally apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Wrong. It took a misrepresentation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Says you. Per Bingham's statements on the house floor and Senator Howard's introduction of the 14th amendment on the Senate Floor, applying the Bill of Rights to the state was the *explicit* purpose of the 14th amendment:

They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guaranteesions of this article."

But the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States?

Laughing.......you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, John.

Aside from that, this thread is about Senator Cruz's plan to keep the immoral and arbitrary tax on "incomes" alive instead of offering real reform by working to send an Amendment to the States for ratification as follows, and would put an end to this hideous tax and the countless miseries suffered under it.

There's nothing 'immoral' or 'arbitrary' about income taxes. And they're completely legal. All the 16th amendment did was lift the apportionment requirement for income taxes. Which was almost unnecessary, as only income from real property was considered a direct tax. All other income taxes were considered excises. And thus had no apportionment requirement.

And you know all of this. You just really hope we don't.

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Notice you quote a case that came BEFORE the 16th amendment. But none after.

Just because you ignore the 16th amendment doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

 

[johnwk]

Exactly. Apportionoment is a DISTRIBUTION. .

I am happy to see you finally agree with me that the apportionment of a direct tax among the States determines each State's share of the burden.

Your argument was the individual's tax burden. .

That was your argument arrived at your inability to comprehend the written word.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

It took the enforcement of the 14th amendment to finally apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Wrong. It took a misrepresentation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Says you. .

No. So says Bingham. Bingham, who you mention emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292

Bingham goes on to say:


“I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe.


You are also confused about Senator Howard's comments. There is nothing in his comments that he intended by the 14th Amendment to make the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution enforceable upon the States. His remarks were a generalized expression that rights, e.g., those protected by “local constitutions” ought to be protected. He states: ” The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."



You are a very confused person. If the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to make the federal “Bill of Rights” enforceable upon the States by Congress, the sitting Congress after the Amendment was adopted was unaware of such intention or they were derelict in their duties as there was no mention of this in the enforcement Acts Congress passed just after the 14th Amendment was adopted!


Likewise the Supreme court was also ignorant of your manufactured intention that the 14th Amendment was intended to make the federal Bill of Rights enforceable upon the states. Several months after the 14th Amendment was adopted the S.C. decided Twitchell v. Pennsylvania (1869). Twitchell was convicted of murder which his lawyer appealed to the S. C. claiming the conviction relied upon violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court rejected the appeal by emphasizing the federal Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not the States. Did someone forget to tell the Supreme Court Justices that the 14th Amendment made the Fifth and Sixth Amendments enforceable upon the States?


And why would Congress debate and attempt to pass a constitutional amendment, The Blaine Amendment in 1876, making the First Amendment’s religious prohibition enforceable upon the States if the 14th Amendment already made the First Amendment enforceable upon the States as you assert?


The Blaine Amendment read:


No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.




Now, aside from the above facts posted, this thread is not about the 14th Amendment. This thread is about Senator Cruz's plan to keep the immoral and arbitrary tax on "incomes" alive instead of offering real reform by working to send an Amendment to the States for ratification as follows, and would put an end to this hideous tax and the countless miseries suffered under it.

“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.


"SECTION 2. 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



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[OnePercenter]

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”?

I LOVE the 'overtaxed' idiots. Care to post your effective federal rate?

 

[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”?

I LOVE the 'overtaxed' idiots. Care to post your effective federal rate?

Idiots have a hard time keeping to the subject of the thread which is "Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!"

JWK

 

[OnePercenter]

Idiots have a hard time keeping to the subject of the thread which is "Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!"

JWK

Your effective (actual) federal tax is 6% to 8%, which is hardly an 'IRON FIST.'