Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

[johnwk]

SEE: Cruz: Abolish the IRS

January 13th , 2015

”Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said Monday that Republicans should take advantage of their control of Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

“We need to pass fundamental tax reform making our tax code simpler, flatter, fairer,” he said Monday at Heritage Action’s 2015 conservative policy summit. ”And I’ll tell you, the single most important tax reform, we should abolish the IRS.”

What is discouraging is, the above article goes on to say that Senator Ted Cruz ”… acknowledged it’s not really possible to abolish the IRS or adopt a flat tax while Obama is in office …”

Seems to me even if Obama were to agree to adopting a “flat tax” on “incomes” (profits, gains, salaries, interest, wages, tips, etc.) which I believe is what Senator Cruz is in favor of, the IRS would have to remain intact and the American people would continue to suffer all the miseries connected with this hideous form of taxation.

Would Congress not remain in charge of defining what is and is not “taxable income”? Wouldn’t a flat tax in incomes continue to allow taxation to be used by our federal government as a weapon against political foes, and to silence free speech? Is a flat tax on “income” not intentionally designed to place an unequal tax burden on our most productive and hardworking citizens, who are then taxed directly on their earned wages which is then used by corrupted politicians to buy the votes of the unemployed and unproductive who have been made dependent upon “free government cheese”? Would a flat tax on incomes not continue to generate class warfare and divide American Citizens into countless factious groups, each of which attack each other and seek to benefit from this unequal form of direct taxation? And how about the billions of dollars wasted each year by America’s taxpayers and businesses to conform to its regulations and record keeping, and its mandatory divulgence of personal information? Is this not in itself a cause to reject this hideous and oppressive form of taxation?

Moving on, is it really true that it’s not possible to abolish the IRS as we know it and adopt a fairer system of federal taxation while “Obama is in office” as suggested by Senator Cruz? Seems to me that Article V of our Constitution provides a pathway which would remove Obama from an effort to close down the IRS as we know it and adopt real tax reform. But this procedure, sending an amendment to the states for ratification would require the Republican controlled House and Senate to be sincere about wanting real tax reform.

I fully agree with Senator Cruz that "Republicans should take advantage of their control of Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service". And this could be accomplished by the Republican controlled Congress sending the following constitutional amendment to the states for ratification!



The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment, and require an annually balanced federal budget


“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system 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 a deficit would be:

States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population

This 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!

"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.


_______


The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?


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

 

[Skylar]

“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

The founders never made income taxes unconstitutional. They only mandated any money collected be distributed via apportionment. The 16th amendment created no new tax authority for the federal government. It only removed the apportionment limits.

Thus, any claim that the 'original tax plan' as intended by the founders would forbid income tax is factually inaccurate.

The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?

Of course not. Congress isn't abolishing the IRS. And all the talk of 'impeachment' is just chickenshit saber rattling. They lack the collective balls to try it, as they know they'd be crucified politically if they did.

 

[The Rabbi]

“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

The founders never made income taxes unconstitutional. They only mandated any money collected be distributed via apportionment. The 16th amendment created no new tax authority for the federal government. It only removed the apportionment limits.

Thus, any claim that the 'original tax plan' as intended by the founders would forbid income tax is factually inaccurate.

The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?

Of course not. Congress isn't abolishing the IRS. And all the talk of 'impeachment' is just chickenshit saber rattling. They lack the collective balls to try it, as they know they'd be crucified politically if they did.

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

 

[Vigilante]

You can't get rid of the IRS... who will come and take you away for not paying for Obomacare, since they are mandated to do that?

 

[johnwk]

“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

The founders never made income taxes unconstitutional. They only mandated any money collected be distributed via apportionment. The 16th amendment created no new tax authority for the federal government. It only removed the apportionment limits.

Thus, any claim that the 'original tax plan' as intended by the founders would forbid income tax is factually inaccurate.

The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?

Of course not. Congress isn't abolishing the IRS. And all the talk of 'impeachment' is just chickenshit saber rattling. They lack the collective balls to try it, as they know they'd be crucified politically if they did.

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

Actually, the civil war "income tax" was upheld in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Aside from that you are correct about our forum gad fly!


JWK

 

[candycorn]

 

[Skylar]

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

If you're referring to Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. from 1895....you may want to check the ruling. The found income tax to be unconstitutional because it was unapportioned.

.....The requirement of the Constitution is that no direct tax shall be laid otherwise than by apportionment -- the prohibition is not against direct taxes on land, from which the implication is sought to be drawn that indirect taxes on land would be constitutional, but it is against all direct taxes -- and it is admitted that a tax on real estate is a direct tax. Unless, therefore, a tax upon rents or income issuing out of lands is intrinsically so different from a tax on the land itself that it belongs to a wholly different class of taxes, such taxes must be regarded as falling within the same category as a tax on real estate eo nomine.

Pollack V. Farmer' Loand and Trust Co
Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company LII Legal Information Institute

With the Chief justice who delivered the ruling summarizing as follows (bold added for emphasis):

First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.

Chief Justice Fuller, 1895

Supreme Court Case Pollock v. Farmer s Loan and Trust Co. 1895 1876-1900 Documents American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

And directly: pg 210
Decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Corporation Tax Cases and ... - United States. Supreme Court - Google Books

I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[The Rabbi]

“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

The founders never made income taxes unconstitutional. They only mandated any money collected be distributed via apportionment. The 16th amendment created no new tax authority for the federal government. It only removed the apportionment limits.

Thus, any claim that the 'original tax plan' as intended by the founders would forbid income tax is factually inaccurate.

The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?

Of course not. Congress isn't abolishing the IRS. And all the talk of 'impeachment' is just chickenshit saber rattling. They lack the collective balls to try it, as they know they'd be crucified politically if they did.

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

Actually, the civil war "income tax" was upheld in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Aside from that you are correct about our forum gad fly!


JWK

It was essentially vitiated in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co and thus necessitated a constitutional amendment.

 

[Skylar]

“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

The founders never made income taxes unconstitutional. They only mandated any money collected be distributed via apportionment. The 16th amendment created no new tax authority for the federal government. It only removed the apportionment limits.

Thus, any claim that the 'original tax plan' as intended by the founders would forbid income tax is factually inaccurate.

The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?

Of course not. Congress isn't abolishing the IRS. And all the talk of 'impeachment' is just chickenshit saber rattling. They lack the collective balls to try it, as they know they'd be crucified politically if they did.

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

Actually, the civil war "income tax" was upheld in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Aside from that you are correct about our forum gad fly!


JWK

Sticks and stones, John.

Read the Pollock ruling and Justice Fuller's summary. You'll find I'm quite correct. And while you're at it look at Brushaber v. Union Pacific for a summary of the court's position in a post 16th amendment legal landscape.

 

[Skylar]

“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

The founders never made income taxes unconstitutional. They only mandated any money collected be distributed via apportionment. The 16th amendment created no new tax authority for the federal government. It only removed the apportionment limits.

Thus, any claim that the 'original tax plan' as intended by the founders would forbid income tax is factually inaccurate.

The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?

Of course not. Congress isn't abolishing the IRS. And all the talk of 'impeachment' is just chickenshit saber rattling. They lack the collective balls to try it, as they know they'd be crucified politically if they did.

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

Actually, the civil war "income tax" was upheld in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Aside from that you are correct about our forum gad fly!


JWK

It was essentially vitiated in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co and thus necessitated a constitutional amendment.

Save of course that in Pollock, it was found that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was unapportioned. Exactly as I said. There's never been a constitutional prohibition to income taxes. Only income taxes without apportionment. The 16th amendment didn't create any new taxation authority. It simply lifted the apportionment requirements of the constitution.

Which was exactly my point.

 

[johnwk]

r

“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

The founders never made income taxes unconstitutional. They only mandated any money collected be distributed via apportionment. The 16th amendment created no new tax authority for the federal government. It only removed the apportionment limits.

Thus, any claim that the 'original tax plan' as intended by the founders would forbid income tax is factually inaccurate.

The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?

Of course not. Congress isn't abolishing the IRS. And all the talk of 'impeachment' is just chickenshit saber rattling. They lack the collective balls to try it, as they know they'd be crucified politically if they did.

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

Actually, the civil war "income tax" was upheld in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Aside from that you are correct about our forum gad fly!


JWK

It was essentially vitiated in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co and thus necessitated a constitutional amendment.

Save of course that in Pollock, it was found that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was unapportioned. Exactly as I said. There's never been a constitutional prohibition to income taxes. Only income taxes without apportionment. The 16th amendment didn't create any new taxation authority. It simply lifted the apportionment requirements of the constitution.

Which was exactly my point.

You have no point. We are talking tax reform. Your clap trap about income taxation is irrelevant to the discussion.

Get lost.


JWK

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS"

Senator Cruz on the common cold: kill the patient.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

SEE: Cruz: Abolish the IRS

January 13th , 2015

”Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said Monday that Republicans should take advantage of their control of Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

“We need to pass fundamental tax reform making our tax code simpler, flatter, fairer,” he said Monday at Heritage Action’s 2015 conservative policy summit. ”And I’ll tell you, the single most important tax reform, we should abolish the IRS.”

What is discouraging is, the above article goes on to say that Senator Ted Cruz ”… acknowledged it’s not really possible to abolish the IRS or adopt a flat tax while Obama is in office …”

Seems to me even if Obama were to agree to adopting a “flat tax” on “incomes” (profits, gains, salaries, interest, wages, tips, etc.) which I believe is what Senator Cruz is in favor of, the IRS would have to remain intact and the American people would continue to suffer all the miseries connected with this hideous form of taxation.

Would Congress not remain in charge of defining what is and is not “taxable income”? Wouldn’t a flat tax in incomes continue to allow taxation to be used by our federal government as a weapon against political foes, and to silence free speech? Is a flat tax on “income” not intentionally designed to place an unequal tax burden on our most productive and hardworking citizens, who are then taxed directly on their earned wages which is then used by corrupted politicians to buy the votes of the unemployed and unproductive who have been made dependent upon “free government cheese”? Would a flat tax on incomes not continue to generate class warfare and divide American Citizens into countless factious groups, each of which attack each other and seek to benefit from this unequal form of direct taxation? And how about the billions of dollars wasted each year by America’s taxpayers and businesses to conform to its regulations and record keeping, and its mandatory divulgence of personal information? Is this not in itself a cause to reject this hideous and oppressive form of taxation?

Moving on, is it really true that it’s not possible to abolish the IRS as we know it and adopt a fairer system of federal taxation while “Obama is in office” as suggested by Senator Cruz? Seems to me that Article V of our Constitution provides a pathway which would remove Obama from an effort to close down the IRS as we know it and adopt real tax reform. But this procedure, sending an amendment to the states for ratification would require the Republican controlled House and Senate to be sincere about wanting real tax reform.

I fully agree with Senator Cruz that "Republicans should take advantage of their control of Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service". And this could be accomplished by the Republican controlled Congress sending the following constitutional amendment to the states for ratification!



The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment, and require an annually balanced federal budget


“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system 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 a deficit would be:

States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population

This 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!

"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.


_______


The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?


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

This is what every Tax Form should look like: How Much Did You Make, How much did you pay in taxes, if you have already paid ten per-cent, you not need to fill out any form. Thats It!

 

[Skylar]

r

The founders never made income taxes unconstitutional. They only mandated any money collected be distributed via apportionment. The 16th amendment created no new tax authority for the federal government. It only removed the apportionment limits.

Thus, any claim that the 'original tax plan' as intended by the founders would forbid income tax is factually inaccurate.

Of course not. Congress isn't abolishing the IRS. And all the talk of 'impeachment' is just chickenshit saber rattling. They lack the collective balls to try it, as they know they'd be crucified politically if they did.

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

Actually, the civil war "income tax" was upheld in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Aside from that you are correct about our forum gad fly!


JWK

It was essentially vitiated in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co and thus necessitated a constitutional amendment.

Save of course that in Pollock, it was found that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was unapportioned. Exactly as I said. There's never been a constitutional prohibition to income taxes. Only income taxes without apportionment. The 16th amendment didn't create any new taxation authority. It simply lifted the apportionment requirements of the constitution.

Which was exactly my point.

You have no point. We are talking tax reform. Your clap trap about income taxation is irrelevant to the discussion.

Get lost.


JWK

Translation: you know I'm right. So you refuse to discuss the topic.

Whatever.

Your claim a prohibition on income taxes was the founders 'original plan' is nonsense. Income taxes were never forbidden. They've always been constitutional. The 16th amendment created no new taxation authority. It only removed the apportionment clause. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong.

As for the establishment of the 16th, you'd need to come up with a tax system that provided comparable revenue for it to be viable. And nothing proposed by Cruz does that. I've got no particular problem with an alternative to the income tax on two conditions 1) That it maintain comparable revenues 2) That it not shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor.

If you've got a tax model that does that, lets talk.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

"Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS"

Senator Cruz on the common cold: kill the patient.

Isn't the current tax system killing the patient? 10's of thousands of pages of tax law, a gigantic IRS system to collect and mediate it. So many loop holes and exceptions large corporations have tax lawyers on the payroll to keep track of it. It's all just stupid. Some get charged others don't. Some get subsidies others don't. Some pay others don't. It's all just total bullshit.

The tax law is way too big, the IRS is way too big. It can all be cleaned up with a fair tax rate for everyone.

 

[johnwk]

r

Lincoln instituted an income tax and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think your knowledge base here is simply wrong. Wouldnt be the first time.

Actually, the civil war "income tax" was upheld in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Aside from that you are correct about our forum gad fly!


JWK

It was essentially vitiated in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co and thus necessitated a constitutional amendment.

Save of course that in Pollock, it was found that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was unapportioned. Exactly as I said. There's never been a constitutional prohibition to income taxes. Only income taxes without apportionment. The 16th amendment didn't create any new taxation authority. It simply lifted the apportionment requirements of the constitution.

Which was exactly my point.

You have no point. We are talking tax reform. Your clap trap about income taxation is irrelevant to the discussion.

Get lost.


JWK

Translation: you know I'm right. So you refuse to discuss the topic.

Whatever.

Your claim a prohibition on income taxes was the founders 'original plan' is nonsense. .

You are a freaken liar. I never made the claim you assert. Get lost sonny.


JWK



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

 

[The Rabbi]

Look, we impose fines to discourage some behavior. If you speed 60MPH in a 40MPH zone you get a fine. Go 80MPH and you might lose your license. And it discourages speeding.
So if you impose a fine, now called a tax, on earning money what happens? You discourage high earners. High earning people get that way because they generate lots of activity that others feed off of. Imagine how much advertising a successful real estate agent buys every year.
So why do we want to discourage that? We should make taxes regressive, with lower income people paying the highest rates to encourage them to work more.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

if Sharpton and Rangel dont have to pay taxes, why should anyone?

 

[johnwk]

"Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS"

Senator Cruz on the common cold: kill the patient.

Isn't the current tax system killing the patient? 10's of thousands of pages of tax law, a gigantic IRS system to collect and mediate it. So many loop holes and exceptions large corporations have tax lawyers on the payroll to keep track of it. It's all just stupid. Some get charged others don't. Some get subsidies others don't. Some pay others don't. It's all just total bullshit.

The tax law is way too big, the IRS is way too big. It can all be cleaned up with a fair tax rate for everyone.

That is why I support a return to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate!


JWK

 

[Skylar]

You are a freaken liar. I never made the claim you assert. Get lost sonny.


JWK

So you never posted this?

“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 fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

Johnwk
Opening Post of this Thread

Senator Cruz on tax reform Abolish the IRS US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because the OP says you did. The founders never forbid an income tax. Nor has it ever been unconstitutional. Income taxes were simply limited by apportionment. And apportionment was what the 16th amendment lifted.

You're quite wrong on this, John.