Senator Cruz still ok with socialist income tax - wants to lower top rates.

[johnwk]

SEE:
TheBlaze,
Feb. 4, 2014


‘A Pattern of Lawlessness’: Ted Cruz Outlines Why Even Democrats Should Be Concerned About Obama Administration’s Actions


"Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) said there is a “pattern of lawlessness” underway by the Obama administration that is truly “breathtaking,” and it should not only concern Republicans.


“Suppose the next president says, ‘I’m instructing the Treasury Department [to] no longer collect taxes at a higher rate than 25%,” Cruz remarked on Glenn Beck’s radio program Tuesday. “That happens to be policy I agree with. I would love to see moving towards tax reform and lowering the top rates. And yet, that would be an extraordinarily bad outcome from the perspective of the Constitution and the protection of the liberty of the people.”


Until Congress is forbidden to lay and collect any tax calculated from profits, gains and other "incomes", returning us to our Constitution’s original tax plan, productive citizens will not only be singled out and enslaved under this discriminatory and despotic tax, but under the heal of our federal government who use it as a weapon to intimidate all those who dare to speak out against, or pose a threat to our Washington Establishment. Does Senator Cruz not realize this? Lowering top rates and keeping this tax alive does absolutely nothing to remove this power of taxation which is used to cause many of our miseries.


Have we not suffered enough under this tax to end experimenting with it and return to the wisdom of our Founder’s original tax plan, especially its rule requiring any general tax laid among the states to be apportioned?


JWK



“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41___ PENDLETON, during our Constitution’s ratification debates

 

[percysunshine]

Ted Cruz might be the first Latino President ever.

 

[RandomVariable]

Ted Cruz might be the first Latino President ever.

I am sure the campaign contributions are flowing in by the bucket-load right now.

 

[johnwk]

Ted Cruz might be the first Latino President ever.

I'm not sure how that relates to his tax reform proposal which is the subject of the thread.


JWK

 

[J.E.D]

Ted Cruz might be the first Latino President ever.

Mexican-Canadian and...no

 

[Toro]

Ted Cruz might be the first Latino President ever.

And Canadian President!

 

[Seawytch]

Ah, Cubnadian performance artist Ted Cruz...he's one of my favorites. Is he going to be performing near California soon?

 

[johnwk]

Well, I see all the trolls are out today.

 

[RandomVariable]

Ted Cruz might be the first Latino President ever.

Mexican-Canadian and...no

Is that just a coincidence between your post and your avatar?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Have we not suffered enough under this tax to end experimenting with it and return to the wisdom of our Founder’s original tax plan, especially its rule requiring any general tax laid among the states to be apportioned?

There is no will among the American people to do such a thing and the vast majority of Americans don't know what the hell "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States" means, let alone even being in the Constitution.

 

[johnwk]

Have we not suffered enough under this tax to end experimenting with it and return to the wisdom of our Founder’s original tax plan, especially its rule requiring any general tax laid among the states to be apportioned?

There is no will among the American people to do such a thing and the vast majority of Americans don't know what the hell "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States" means, let alone even being in the Constitution.

Unfortunately you are pretty much on target!


BTW, I'm a Lighting fan! Looks like Boston and Tampa will be in the finals!

JWK

 

[Jughead]

Ted Cruz might be the first Latino President ever.

Mexican-Canadian and...no

Mexican???

 

[johnwk]

Ted Cruz might be the first Latino President ever.

Mexican-Canadian and...no

Mexican???

And what does that have to do with the subject of the thread which is federal taxation?

JWK




A nation of people made dependent upon government for their subsistence, is a nation doomed to being enslaved by the iron fist which feeds them.

 

[johnwk]

For those who are interested in tax reform and the hearing conducted in 1995 before the Committee on Ways and Means for the purpose of replacing the federal income tax, you may be interested in the submission offered by the American Constitutional Research Service which promotes a return to our Constitution's original tax plan, CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 687

In 1996, the following year, a second round hearing was held to replace the federal income tax and the American Constitutional Research Service presented another submission before the Committee on Ways and Means. To view that submission CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 236


Have you ever heard a "conservative" radio talk show host [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.] discuss our Constitution's original tax plan as laid out during the above hearings?

And why has Mark Levin, who is embraced by "conservatives", neglected to lay out and promote a return to our Constitution's original tax plan by giving his support to the following resolution? Instead, he promotes keeping alive taxes calculated from incomes with one of his liberty amendments!


House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.


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



.

 

[johnwk]

I believe those who support and defend out Constitution’s legislative intent, which Mark Levin is fond of talking about, would expect that each state is held to the constitutional requirement that its share of representatives sent to Congress is proportional to its share of any direct tax laid by Congress. The two formulas being:


States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population



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


And with regard to the rule of apportionment, Congress does have authority to lay a capitation tax which is a direct tax, and may be levied directly upon the people by Congress. However, this tax boils down to be an equal per capita tax under the rule of apportionment if laid directly upon the people! For example, if a capitation tax were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!

The wisdom of our founder’s rule of apportionment is, that although a particular state with a large population has an overwhelming representation in Congress when spending federal revenue such as New York, it would be held in check by the rule of apportionment which commands they pay a larger share of the tab whenever a direct tax is laid among the states.

Is it not obvious that our big spending Congressional Delegations such as New York, California, Pennsylvanian, New Jersey, etc., love our Constitution’s rule of apportionment when it comes to one man one vote, but they fear with a passion the rule of apportionment being applied to taxation which requires one vote one dollar which is not being enforced, and why they engage in reckless spending and borrowing?


JWK




If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?