.
According to an article titled Preserving republican government in America: Mark Levins Liberty Amendments, which appeared in Conservative Intelligence Briefing, August 29th, 2013, written by J. Cal Davenport:
Levin proposes an amendment to limit federal taxing. It would limit the income tax at a rate no higher than 15%. It would eliminate the estate tax and prevent Congress from adding a value-added tax or a national sales tax on top of the income tax. Most interestingly, in order to remind Americans how much they hate federal taxes and to incentivize them to vote for someone who wont raise taxes to an out-of-control rate, Levins amendment would move Tax Day to the day before Election Day.
What is most distressing is, Mark Levin appears to not only be ok with keeping alive the very system of taxation which is the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon Americas businesses, industries and productive members of society, but Mr. Levin has totally ignored or perhaps overlooked that part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787 which was intended to tie both direct taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment___ a rule which boils down to one man one vote, and, one vote one dollar whenever a direct tax is laid upon the people of the United States.
This tax, if levied directly upon the people by Congress turns out to be an equal per capita tax! For example, if a progressive representative from a socialist state like California, New York, New Jersey, etc., votes to federally fund a welfare program in their district, his immediate constituents who benefit from that program will be obligated to pay the same amount of tax as a constituent of another state who does not benefit from the program. The exception is when a direct tax is levied and a bill is sent to each states Governor and Legislature to pay an apportioned share of the tax and a provision is made in the levy to allow each state to raise its share in its own chosen way.
Our Founding Fathers fair share formula for this tax is as follows:
States pop.
---------------- X SUM NEEDED = STATES SHARE
U.S. Pop.
As you can see the rule of apportioning direct taxes, which Mark seems to have overlooked but is still very much part of our Constitution, if enforced would discourage members of Congress to levy direct taxes except upon emergency because their immediate constituents would be subject to an equal share of the burden.
Although Mark Levin makes an attempt to soften the impact of direct taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, and make it a bit more palatable for those who have to pay it __ a tax embraced by socialists and progressives __ Mr. Levin makes no attempt to resurrect the brilliance of our Founders ingenious tax plan which was intended to protect the American people from the evil nature of direct taxation.
In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes 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."
And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct taxation shall be in proportion to Representation" and they went on to command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
In reference to the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
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 Elliots, S.C., 305-6
And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil3 Elliots, 243,Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax 3 Elliots, 244
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congresss 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 being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:
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 portion3 Elliots 41
Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
And so, Mr. Levins proposed tax amendment totally ignores the wisdom and legislative intent of our Constitution, and would keep alive the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon Americas businesses, industries and productive members of society. Why does he ignore the vital protection which the rule of apportionment was intended to provide?
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides,that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
According to an article titled Preserving republican government in America: Mark Levins Liberty Amendments, which appeared in Conservative Intelligence Briefing, August 29th, 2013, written by J. Cal Davenport:
Levin proposes an amendment to limit federal taxing. It would limit the income tax at a rate no higher than 15%. It would eliminate the estate tax and prevent Congress from adding a value-added tax or a national sales tax on top of the income tax. Most interestingly, in order to remind Americans how much they hate federal taxes and to incentivize them to vote for someone who wont raise taxes to an out-of-control rate, Levins amendment would move Tax Day to the day before Election Day.
What is most distressing is, Mark Levin appears to not only be ok with keeping alive the very system of taxation which is the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon Americas businesses, industries and productive members of society, but Mr. Levin has totally ignored or perhaps overlooked that part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787 which was intended to tie both direct taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment___ a rule which boils down to one man one vote, and, one vote one dollar whenever a direct tax is laid upon the people of the United States.
This tax, if levied directly upon the people by Congress turns out to be an equal per capita tax! For example, if a progressive representative from a socialist state like California, New York, New Jersey, etc., votes to federally fund a welfare program in their district, his immediate constituents who benefit from that program will be obligated to pay the same amount of tax as a constituent of another state who does not benefit from the program. The exception is when a direct tax is levied and a bill is sent to each states Governor and Legislature to pay an apportioned share of the tax and a provision is made in the levy to allow each state to raise its share in its own chosen way.
Our Founding Fathers fair share formula for this tax is as follows:
States pop.
---------------- X SUM NEEDED = STATES SHARE
U.S. Pop.
As you can see the rule of apportioning direct taxes, which Mark seems to have overlooked but is still very much part of our Constitution, if enforced would discourage members of Congress to levy direct taxes except upon emergency because their immediate constituents would be subject to an equal share of the burden.
Although Mark Levin makes an attempt to soften the impact of direct taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, and make it a bit more palatable for those who have to pay it __ a tax embraced by socialists and progressives __ Mr. Levin makes no attempt to resurrect the brilliance of our Founders ingenious tax plan which was intended to protect the American people from the evil nature of direct taxation.
In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes 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."
And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct taxation shall be in proportion to Representation" and they went on to command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
In reference to the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
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 Elliots, S.C., 305-6
And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil3 Elliots, 243,Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax 3 Elliots, 244
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congresss 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 being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:
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 portion3 Elliots 41
Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
And so, Mr. Levins proposed tax amendment totally ignores the wisdom and legislative intent of our Constitution, and would keep alive the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon Americas businesses, industries and productive members of society. Why does he ignore the vital protection which the rule of apportionment was intended to provide?
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides,that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story