Trump’s tax plan perpetuates class warfare and punishes productivity

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
3,945
1,883
200
Under Trumps tax reform plan millions of individuals who earn less than $25,000 a year, or couples who make less than $50,000, would no longer pay income tax, while a number of other wage earners, some of whom live in our nation’s inner cities and may work two and sometimes three jobs so they can move out of the inner city will be punished for their efforts under Trump’s proposal.

Trump’s tax reform is a dishonorable and 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 citizens, including those living in our nation’s inner cities, to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share, or any share at all to support government!

But this is the insidious beauty of the socialist experiment allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from “incomes”. It creates a never ending war between the “rich and poor” and allows dishonorable politicians to thrive by constantly offering “reform”, but the “reform” never ends the constant warfare between the “rich and poor”.

Is it not obvious that tax reform offered by Trump, Carson, and even Rand Paul have one thing in common which is to keep the hideous income tax alive and use it to directly tax a specific class to support government functions while exempting another class from supporting government which perpetuates the class warfare game?

Trump has finally proven, in my mind, to be either very stupid with regard to real tax reform, or has revealed his love affair with the Washington Establishment which thrives under the socialist experiment of laying and collecting taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

If Trump were sincere about real tax reform which would actually benefit the American People and force Congress to follow sound fiscal policies, he would promote the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which withdraws Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes and returns us to our Constitution's original tax plan


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
 
Trump, I told you far righties and libertarians, is a progressive statist.

Can you hear me now?
 
Mark Levin supports Trump’s socialist friendly, big government tax plan


SEE: Mark Levin Gives Thumbs-Up on Donald Trump Tax Proposal: ‘A Hell of a Plan!’

“This is a hell of a plan,” conservative radio host Mark Levin said Monday night about Donald Trump’s tax proposal, while admitting he disagrees with the GOP candidate in several areas.

“Let me tell you the strong things in this,” he continued. “And he’s very specific for those who want specifics.”


It is absolutely stunning that Mark Levin, who is often referred to as a constitutional scholar and “conservative”, has given “thumbs-up” to Donald Trump’s tax plan.

One of the sinister parts of Trump’s plan is, it removes millions of voters from the burden of federal income taxation which obviously gives these voters an incentive to vote for politicians who offer big, expensive government programs for the “poor”, but will not increase their burden of taxation. Now, if part of Trump’s plan was a voluntary condition to disallow the right to vote in federal elections to this particular group in return for their tax free status that would be an entirely different ball game.

But Trump’s plan does not do this. Instead, it creates a privileged class with an incentive to vote for “free government cheese” and yet, Mark Levin gives thumbs-up to Trump’s socialist friendly tax scheme. Why does Mark Levin ignore our Founder’s rule of one man one vote and one vote one dollar which is what the rule of apportionment was all about?

Another shameful part of Trump’s tax plan which Mark Levin seems to close his eyes to is, hardworking citizens living in our nation’s inner cities who may work two and sometimes three jobs to extricate themselves and their families from undesirable living conditions will have their wages taken by the federal government and are punished under Trump’s plan for being productive citizens.

Perhaps someday Mark Levin will take the time to discuss the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which is real tax reform ___ the reforms which our Founders agreed to.



The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


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


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

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


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


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


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

States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


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



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


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



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


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


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


JWK



Are you 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'd prefer a flat tax,but if he can lower taxes for the majority i'll listen.

What is the definition of "taxable" income under your "flat tax"?

JWK

Obviously income in all it's forms.

You can't define income by saying "income in all its forms". What are the characteristics which define "income"?


What is and what is not taxable income is a vital question which must be answered. Seems to me the meaning of taxable “income” boils down to profits and or gains, collectively called “income”. And to arrive at one’s “income” all necessary outlays and expenses must be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one’s “income”.

Income from a business which was wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to a tax in that case. And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 1076 (1948) the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”


So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? is it not his/her time, labor, skills, etc? The value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?


Shouldn't a working person be allowed to deduct transportation costs to and from work in calculating their profit or gain? How about the costs involved with providing the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs and makes their labor possible? Shouldn't the wage earned be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain? How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as their property and a capital outlay, the value of which ought to be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? Do you now see one of the reasons why a flat tax on "incomes" is an arbitrary and immoral system of taxation?


JWK



"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top