Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

[johnwk]

There is nothing in what you quoted supporting your claim that I asserted ...a prohibition on income taxes was the founders 'original plan' ...

Obvious nonsense. I direct you to section 1 of your post:

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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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

Johnwk

There's your prohibition of income taxes.

I direct you to your own note on section 1:

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

There's your claim that this prohibition of income taxes was the founders 'original plan'. Exactly as I said.

You've quite simply abandoned the useless flostam of your post treating it like the garbage that it is. If even you are going to treat your words as meaningless babble, surely you'll understand why we treat your words the same way.

As I've said, John.....you don't handle debate well. Your posts are best suited for a blog where no one will contradict you on your obvious misconceptions of history.
.

And you insinuate things I never suggested.

Oh, there's no insinuation. I'm straight up attributing to you positions you've advocated. And the prohibition of income taxes was never the founders 'original tax plan'.

And here's what you said 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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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

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

Deny saying it, and I'll just quote you again. My side of this is remarkably easy.

What you quoted from me correctly asserts a return to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate. And they intended that any direct tax would be apportioned among the several states.

Save that there were no prohibitions against income taxes anywhere in the constitution.

“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

Yup. Their focus was on proportional taxation based on representation. Which is why direct taxes were tied to the census.

Note there's no prohibition. There are instructions on how to implement direct taxes. Your 'tax plan' forbids income taxes. The Founders' 'tax plan' never does.

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.

Still no prohibition. But apportionment. Exactly as I've said.

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 no prohibition there either. Your plan forbids income tax. The founders didn't. With the constitution laying out provisions for the implementation of direct taxation.

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:

You need to review your 'tax plan' again. As you don't demand apportionment. You demand a straight up prohibition on all income tax:

“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

Johnwk

And that's where your claims break. Right there. With the word 'forbidden'. Not 'forbidden unless apportioned', as the founders argued. Your plan straight up forbids such taxes.

The founders never did. Your plan is not the founder's plan, no matter how furiously you polish that little rhetorical turd.

Apparently you have not read the original Constitution. There is nothing mentioned in it about "income taxes". There is an allowance for imposts, duties, excise taxes, and direct taxes which are required to be apportioned,.


Stop trolling the thread. The thread is about tax reform and THE FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT is a proposed tax reform. Get it sonny?

JWK

 

[Skylar]

Read the original Constitution. There is nothing mentioned in it about "income taxes". There is an allowance for imposts, duties, excise taxes, and direct taxes which are required to be apportioned,.

It mentions direct taxes. Which income taxes are recognized to be. There is no prohibition against such direct taxes in the constitution. Nor did the founders 'intend' there to be. Forbidding income taxes was not the 'original plan' of the founders. Its simply part of yours.

The 16th amendment didn't create any new taxation authority, as income taxes were always constitutional. All the 16th amendment did was lift apportionment requirements.

Stop trolling the thread.

I'm citing your posts. My replies are as immediately relevant as the posts I'm replying to. Its not my fault you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[johnwk]

Read the original Constitution. There is nothing mentioned in it about "income taxes". There is an allowance for imposts, duties, excise taxes, and direct taxes which are required to be apportioned,.

It mentions direct taxes. Which income taxes are recognized to be. There is no prohibition against such direct taxes in the constitution. Nor did the founders 'intend' there to be. Forbidding income taxes was not the 'original plan' of the founders. Its simply part of yours.

The 16th amendment didn't create any new taxation authority, as income taxes were always constitutional. All the 16th amendment did was lift apportionment requirements.

Stop trolling the thread.

I'm citing your posts. My replies are as immediately relevant as the posts I'm replying to. Its not my fault you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You are providing your own interpretation of what I have posted. Stop lying!



I support a return to our Constitution's original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate! Impost and duties first [taxes at our water's edge] and if more revenue is needed then internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. And if the above sources are insufficient and a deficit results, then have a direct apportioned tax among the states to extinguish the annual deficit'




Our Constitution's fair share formula for the direct tax:





States’ population


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


Total U.S. Population



An example showing this legislative intent can be found in several of our Constitution’s ratification documents, such as the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:


Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from …….


For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.


And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


STOP TROLLING THE THREAD

JWK







To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

 

[Stephanie]

Under this Obama regime. He has turned every government agency into little Fascist centers put in place to CRUSH you and is overstepping YOUR Representation in Congress. they are out of control. The people better start standing up to this. Contact your Reps and demand they be defunded or get crushed by them

I was just reading this:

Snip:
Federal Agencies Exceeding Their Authority, Over and Over Again
The latest power grabs, beyond the authority granted by Congress, all for Big Labor.

By Gerald D. Skoning – 1.19.15

Send to Kindle
Ultra vires. No, it’s not some dangerous infectious disease like Ebola. But, in a democracy it signals one of the most dangerous trends that threaten to disturb the delicate balance of powers crafted by our founding fathers.

“Ultra vires” is another of those Latin expressions lawyers use so frequently in lieu of plain English. It means “beyond the authority.” And, in this administration, there are all too many examples of federal agencies that have acted or attempted to act beyond the authority Congress has given them.

The NLRB’s proposed new rule for expedited union elections is just the latest example. The 733-page rule was finalized in December and will take effect on April 14. NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce said the rule is designed to ensure that the “representation process remains a model of fairness and efficiency for all.” The board’s two Republican members voted against it, calling it “the Mount Everest of regulations: massive in scale and unforgiving in its effect.”

While the final rule didn’t establish a specific time frame in which union elections would occur, some legal experts have said the rule could shorten the time between a formal call for a union-organizing vote and the election itself to 25 days or less—almost two weeks short of the 2013 median of 38 days, or 59 days in contested cases. Some experts say the rule would allow elections to be held in as little as 14 days after the employer is first notified of the election petition.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other business organizations have sued in federal court to block the Labor Board’s action, claiming the rule violates the National Labor Relations Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as employers’ free speech and due process constitutional rights.

In particular, the Chamber’s lawsuit challenges the Board’s rule as impermissibly limiting employers’ rights to communicate with employees about unionization by dramatically shortening the period between the filing of a union election petition and the holding of the election itself.


“The NLRB’s rule drastically accelerates the union election process, depriving employers of their right to explain to employees the impacts of unionizing,” said Randy Johnson, the Chamber’s senior vice president of Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits. “Furthermore, we question the need for the regulation given that 95 percent of all elections are now conducted within two months and that unions win more than two-thirds of them.”

The NLRB’s new union election rule clearly exceeds the agency’s authority under the statute. It is ultra vires action pure and simple. The rule overturns decades of legal precedent and the well-established procedures that have governed tens of thousands of union elections over the years.

all of it here:
Federal Agencies Exceeding Their Authority Over and Over Again The American Spectator

one comment with this article:
This is a serious problem that highlights the power of the presidency. The president appoints the heads of these agencies. The agencies issue regulations that have the force of law unless reversed by a Court or by Congress. Even though Obama will veto any such bill now passed by the Rep Congress, Congress should pass a series of bills dealing with specific regulations.
The original purpose of allowing the agencies to issue regulations was that the agencies had expertise in the area, such as tax or labor relations, to issue rules to carry out the purpose of the law set by Congress. But now the agencies have taken a life of their own, doing what they want. The best example is IRS and HEW.

 

[johnwk]

Under this Obama regime. He has turned every government agency into little Fascist centers put in place to CRUSH you and is overstepping YOUR Representation in Congress. they are out of control. The people better start standing up to this. Contact your Reps and demand they be defunded or get crushed by them

I was just reading this:

Snip:
Federal Agencies Exceeding Their Authority, Over and Over Again
The latest power grabs, beyond the authority granted by Congress, all for Big Labor.

Interesting and has been going on for years! But what does it have to do with Senator Cruz and fundamental tax reform?


JWK

 

[Stephanie]

Under this Obama regime. He has turned every government agency into little Fascist centers put in place to CRUSH you and is overstepping YOUR Representation in Congress. they are out of control. The people better start standing up to this. Contact your Reps and demand they be defunded or get crushed by them

I was just reading this:

Snip:
Federal Agencies Exceeding Their Authority, Over and Over Again
The latest power grabs, beyond the authority granted by Congress, all for Big Labor.

Interesting and has been going on for years! But what does it have to do with Senator Cruz and fundamental tax reform?


JWK

He said abolish the IRS. I'm pointing out it's not just the IRS that needs to be put in it's place.

 

[johnwk]

Under this Obama regime. He has turned every government agency into little Fascist centers put in place to CRUSH you and is overstepping YOUR Representation in Congress. they are out of control. The people better start standing up to this. Contact your Reps and demand they be defunded or get crushed by them

I was just reading this:

Snip:
Federal Agencies Exceeding Their Authority, Over and Over Again
The latest power grabs, beyond the authority granted by Congress, all for Big Labor.

Interesting and has been going on for years! But what does it have to do with Senator Cruz and fundamental tax reform?


JWK

He said abolish the IRS. I'm pointing out it's not just the IRS that needs to be put in it's place.

Well, on that most patriotic Americans would agree. But what do you think of Senator Cruz saying we cannot get meaningful tax reform while Obama is in office? Do you think Senator Cruz overlooked our Republican Controlled Congress under Article V of our Constitution, could send a tax reform constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, e.g., THE FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, which is real tax reform, and this path would bypass Obama completely?


JWK

 

[Skylar]

You are providing your own interpretation of what I have posted. Stop lying!

I'm merely quoting you, John.

“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!

Every time you deny saying it, I quote you. And you lose again. Deny it again, and I'll quote you again. Its just that easy for me.

As you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Forbidding income tax was not the founding fathers 'original tax plan'. There is no constitutional prohibition against income taxes or any direct taxes in the constitution.

And with the 16th amendment, there are no apportionment restrictions on income tax.

I support a return to our Constitution's original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate! Impost and duties first [taxes at our water's edge] and if more revenue is needed then internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. And if the above sources are insufficient and a deficit results, then have a direct apportioned tax among the states to extinguish the annual deficit'

No. We're not doing any of that.

 

[Kosh]

Under this Obama regime. He has turned every government agency into little Fascist centers put in place to CRUSH you and is overstepping YOUR Representation in Congress. they are out of control. The people better start standing up to this. Contact your Reps and demand they be defunded or get crushed by them

I was just reading this:

Snip:
Federal Agencies Exceeding Their Authority, Over and Over Again
The latest power grabs, beyond the authority granted by Congress, all for Big Labor.

Interesting and has been going on for years! But what does it have to do with Senator Cruz and fundamental tax reform?


JWK

He said abolish the IRS. I'm pointing out it's not just the IRS that needs to be put in it's place.

Well, on that most patriotic Americans would agree. But what do you think of Senator Cruz saying we cannot get meaningful tax reform while Obama is in office? Do you think Senator Cruz overlooked our Republican Controlled Congress under Article V of our Constitution, could send a tax reform constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, e.g., THE FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, which is real tax reform, and this path would bypass Obama completely?


JWK

The Republicans do not have a veto proof majority and thus any bill that an Obama veto can not be over turned. Obama knows this that is why he is still pushing the far left religious agenda That is unless many in the DNC are finally ready to stand up to far left and show them that the far left religious way has failed.

 

[johnwk]

As you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Forbidding income tax was not the founding fathers 'original tax plan'. There is no constitutional prohibition against income taxes or any direct taxes in the constitution.

And with the 16th amendment, there are no apportionment restrictions on income tax.

There is no provision in the Constitution framed by our founding fathers granting power to Congress to lay and collect an "income tax". Learn to read, e.g., "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ..."

I also know direct taxes are still required to be apportioned.



Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:


"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."




Later, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:


A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.



--- cut ---


Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.



A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:



The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.



The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:



No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


The only one in this conversation who doesn't "know what they are talking about", or is lying about the truth and facts is you sonny.


JWK

If the provisions of the constitution can be set aside by an act of congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich,-a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness. 'If the court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the constitution,' as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, 'it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence.' Justice FIELD in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, (1895)

 

[johnwk]

The Republicans do not have a veto proof majority and thus any bill that an Obama veto can not be over turned. Obama knows this that is why he is still pushing the far left religious agenda That is unless many in the DNC are finally ready to stand up to far left and show them that the far left religious way has failed.

Actually, our Republican Controlled Congress can bypass Obama completely with regard to real tax reform!

Our Republican controlled Congress can send an amendment to the states for ratification, the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT which would withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages, tips, interest and all other lawfully earned "incomes" which would be real tax reform and would bypass Obama's veto pen!

If adopted this amendment would return us to our Constitution's original tax plan ___ impost and duties first [taxes at our water's edge] and if more revenue is needed then internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. And if the above sources are insufficient and a deficit results, then have a direct apportioned tax among the states to extinguish the annual deficit.

Keep in mind that Republicans also control the majority of States!


Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] have been willing to discussed on the air the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it was designed to control the conduct of Congress and paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world?



JWK

 

[johnwk]

I still would like to know why Senator Cruz indicates we cannot get real tax reform while Obama is in office, suggesting he would veto real tax reform.

I can't believe Senator Cruz overlooked our Republican Controlled Congress under Article V of our Constitution, could send a tax reform constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, e.g., THE FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, which is real tax reform, and this path would bypass Obama completely!

What's up with Senator Cruz?

JWK




To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

 

[Skylar]

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:


"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

You'll need to go back to the Pollock decision for the distinction. As taxes on the income of real property were considered to be direct taxes per the courts.

“The first question to be considered is whether a tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution. Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895).

The Pollock Court acknowledged that the constitutional definition may be different, but were vague on where such lines would be drawn. The 16th amendment wasn't.

The phrase 'from whatever source derived' in the 16th amendment covered any type of income. From a vocation (which isn't a direct tax), or from real property (which likely were).

As for the authority levy a vocational 'indirect' income tax, the USSC affirmed the ridiculously broad category of 'Taxes' was essentially the lost sock drawer of indirect taxes:

There may, perhaps, be an indirect tax on a particular article, that cannot be comprehended within the description of duties, or imposts, or excises; in such case it will be comprised under the general denomination of taxes. For the term tax is the genus, and includes,

1. Direct taxes.

2. Duties, imposts, and excises.

3. All other classes of an indirect kind, and not within any of the classifications enumerated under the preceding heads.

Hylton v. United States (1796)

FindLaw Cases and Codes

This only 8 years after the Constitution had been ratified. And despite the Hylton court including founders who were at the constitutional convention only 8 summers before, even they weren't entirely sure what 'duties' and 'excises' were.

“What is the natural and common, or technical and appropriate, meaning of the words, duty and excise, it is not easy to ascertain. They present no clear and precise idea to the mind. Different persons will annex different significations to the terms.”

Hylton v. United States (1796)

FindLaw Cases and Codes

Which firmly establishes that the founders weren't hedging the taxation authority of congress within strict definitions of taxes,duties, imposts, and excises. 'All other classes' covers income taxes, or any other indirect tax that congress would like to create. Including vocation based Income Taxes

So the 16th amendment didn't create any new taxation authority. Income taxes have always been constitutional. All the 16th did was lift apportionment requirements for income tax. Which applied specifically to income derived from real property. With all other forms of income tax being indirect taxation.

The founders never forbid income taxes, with some of the earliest supreme court decisions on record recognizing the ridiculously broad authority of congress in applying indirect taxes. Absolutely slaying your 'original tax plan' claims.

But of course you know all of this, right John?

 

[Skylar]

I still would like to know why Senator Cruz indicates we cannot get real tax reform while Obama is in office, suggesting he would veto real tax reform.

There's little support for the type of sweeping tax reform Cruz is advocating even among the Republican party. Cruz is nearly famous for advocating fringe right wish-upon-a-star policy positions that have little if any chance of being enacted. He's already cosponsored a national sales tax bill which went exactly no where.

Its not Obama. Its that Cruz's ideas aren't particularly well thought through, nor garner much support inside his party or outside of it.

I can't believe Senator Cruz overlooked our Republican Controlled Congress under Article V of our Constitution, could send a tax reform constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, e.g., THE FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, which is real tax reform, and this path would bypass Obama completely!

I doubt he's overlooked it. He just couldn't get sufficient support for it in his own party. And on the State level, its a joke. If Cruz had anything approaching the state support he needed to pass such an amendment, he wouldn't need congress. As the State legislatures can call their own constitutional convention with a far lower threshold than is necessary to pass an amendment.

They can't even must sufficient convention support. To say nothing of the 3/4 needed to pass it.

Which is why the amendment you advocate remains a mere masturbatory fantasy of the fringe right, garnering very little support among the electorate, the State legislatures, an anemic support among republicans themselves. Which leaves you, Cruz and a pump bottle of hand lotion as the lead advocates of such a plan.

 

[johnwk]

The founders never forbid income taxes,

Nor did they, by the constitution, authorize an "income tax". What they authorized are imposts, duties and excise taxes, and if necessary, direct taxes so long as the rule of apportionment was observed, i.e., No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

JWK







To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

 

[Skylar]

Nor did they, by the constitution, authorize an "income tax".

They authorized 'taxes', which as the USSC found covered 'All other class of an indirect kind' only 8 years after the constitution was ratified. With founders who were at the constitutional convention as members of the Hylton court.

There may, perhaps, be an indirect tax on a particular article, that cannot be comprehended within the description of duties, or imposts, or excises; in such case it will be comprised under the general denomination of taxes. For the term tax is the genus, and includes,

1. Direct taxes.
2. Duties, imposts, and excises.
3. All other classes of an indirect kind, and not within any of the classifications enumerated under the preceding heads.

Hylton v. United States (1796)

FindLaw Cases and Codes

Your claim that the 16th amendment allowed income tax is nonsense. Those income taxes that were direct were already authorized by the constitution, falling under apportionment. Those income taxes that were indirect were authorized as part of the 'all other classes of an indirect kind' under the spectacularly vague 'Taxes' authorized by the constitution.

The 16th created no new taxation authority. It merely lifted the apportionment clause for income from real property.

What they authorized are imposts, duties and excise taxes, and if necessary, direct taxes so long as the rule of apportionment was observed, i.e., No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

You almost had it. You were so close.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises

Its that 'taxes' part you left out, quite intentionally. And even founders who were at the constitutional convention in 1787 and on the USSC couldn't tell you what 'duties and excises' were...

“What is the natural and common, or technical and appropriate, meaning of the words, duty and excise, it is not easy to ascertain. They present no clear and precise idea to the mind. Different persons will annex different significations to the terms.”

Hylton v. United States (1796)

Just obliterating the idea that the founders 'original plan' was to forbid income taxes. Or any direct or indirect tax.

 

[johnwk]

Your claim that the 16th amendment allowed income tax is nonsense.

There you go again, lying about what I have posted and refusing to discuss the topic of the thread which is tax reform. STOP TROLLING THE THREAD



Would Congress not remain in charge of defining what is and is not “taxable income” under a flat income tax?


Wouldn’t a flat tax on 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 pay no income tax and have been made dependent upon “free government cheese”?


Would a flat tax on incomes continue to generate class warfare and divide American Citizens into countless factious groups, which attack each other and seek legislation to benefit from this unequal form of direct taxation?


Is it not a fact that with a flat tax on income, the massive IRS still needs to be there to harass the people by audits and investigations to determine if the people are failing to report their “incomes”?


And what about the billions of wasted dollars and man hours involved with record keeping which occurs with any form of “income taxation”. Why are so many eager to burden the American people with such a waste?


And finally, what about our founders rule that taxation and representation will be adjusted by the rule of apportionment. Do you really have a problem with representation with a proportional financial obligation?


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”?

 

[Skylar]

There you go again, lying about what I have posted and refusing to discuss the topic of the thread which is tax reform. STOP TROLLING THE THREAD

Laughing...I'm responding to your claim that the constitution doesn't authorize an income tax. Yet oddly, the moment I prove you hopelessly, laughably wrong.......you insist the very topic you brought up isn't 'discussing the topic'.

Your claim on the constitutional authorization of income tax was simply wrong. Your claim that the founders 'original tax plan' forbid income taxes was simply wrong.

Would Congress not remain in charge of defining what is and is not “taxable income” under a flat income tax?

Depends on the flat tax. Get specific.

And finally, what about our founders rule that taxation and representation will be adjusted by the rule of apportionment. Do you really have a problem with representation with a proportional financial obligation?

The only apportionment issue with income tax related was income from real property. All other forms of income tax are indirect taxes. And there was no apportionment restrictions on such revenue.

As for original rule of apportionment.....we changed it with the 16th amendment.

 

[johnwk]

There you go again, lying about what I have posted and refusing to discuss the topic of the thread which is tax reform. STOP TROLLING THE THREAD

Laughing...I'm responding to your claim that the constitution doesn't authorize an income tax.

I see you are lying again about what I have claimed. Did your mother teach you to lie?


JWK

 

[Skylar]

There you go again, lying about what I have posted and refusing to discuss the topic of the thread which is tax reform. STOP TROLLING THE THREAD

Laughing...I'm responding to your claim that the constitution doesn't authorize an income tax.

I see you are lying again about what I have claimed. Did your mother teach you to lie?

Mama taught me to quote:

Nor did they, by the constitution, authorize an "income tax".

So tell us again how you never claimed that the constitution didn't authorize an income tax.

I need another giggle.