Will Senator Ted Cruz and “conservatives” ever offer real tax reform?

[Joe Steel]

Taxes are not theft. Theft is an unlawful taking of something of value. Taxes are lawful.

Direct taxes which are not apportioned are unconstitutional ...

What does that mean?

 

[johnwk]

After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.

Au contraire:

The FairTax is a tax reform proposal for the federal government of the United States that would replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 122) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption.

FairTax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your post contains no documentation confirming that H.R. 25 would withdraw Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.


Instead of using Wikipedia, here is a link to the ACTUAL TEXT OF H.R.25. Now, feel free to quote from its text to confirm your assertions.


JWK



Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

 

[johnwk]

Taxes are not theft. Theft is an unlawful taking of something of value. Taxes are lawful.

Direct taxes which are not apportioned are unconstitutional ...

What does that mean?

It means that any direct tax laid by Congress which is not apportioned among the states is unconstitutional.


JWK




" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

 

[Flopper]

Direct taxes which are not apportioned are unconstitutional ...

What does that mean?

It means that any direct tax laid by Congress which is not apportioned among the states is unconstitutional.


JWK




" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Nope
The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.

 

[johnwk]

What does that mean?

It means that any direct tax laid by Congress which is not apportioned among the states is unconstitutional.


JWK




" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Nope
The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.

The Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about "direct taxes", nor did it change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned.

I take it you are not familiar with a number of S.C. cases confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:

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:

“[T]his 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....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”


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:


A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.


JWK


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

 

[johnwk]

Nope. The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.

Are you now in agreement that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned?


JWK

 

[Flopper]

Nope. The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.

Are you now in agreement that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned?


JWK

No, I do not agree that direct taxes are required to be apportioned. I do agree that the 16th amendment supersedes the Article I, Section 2 in regard to direct taxes; that is direct taxes do not need to be apportioned among the states.

 

[johnwk]

Nope. The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.

Are you now in agreement that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned?


JWK

No, I do not agree that direct taxes are required to be apportioned. I do agree that the 16th amendment supersedes the Article I, Section 2 in regard to direct taxes; that is direct taxes do not need to be apportioned among the states.

And what do you base your opinion on, especially when the 16th Amendment mentions nothing about "direct taxes" and our Supreme Court disagrees with you?

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:

“[T]his 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....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”


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:


"A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."


JWK


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

 

[Flopper]

It means that any direct tax laid by Congress which is not apportioned among the states is unconstitutional.


JWK




" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Nope
The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.

The Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about "direct taxes", nor did it change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned.

I take it you are not familiar with a number of S.C. cases confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:

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:

“[T]his 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....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”


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:


A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.


JWK


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

True, the 16th amendment does not mention direct taxes. It specifies:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The amendment changes the constitution to exclude income tax from apportionment as a direct tax.

The cases and ruling you sight are about specific types of income namely stock dividends and transfers of property by gift. The rulings do not apply to income taxes in general but rather specific types of income being taxed.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Repealing the 16th Amendment is the only acceptable tax reform.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The only fair method of taxation is a steeply progressive income tax. Our tax policy should be reformed to add more tax brackets and to increase marginal tax rates at every level to a maximum rate of at least 90% on the top tax bracket. That would spread the cost of American burden fairly.

1fair

adjective \ˈfer\ : agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable
: treating people in a way that does not favor some over others
: not too harsh or critical

Might want to relearn the definition of fair. I don't not agree with what you think is right or acceptable, nor does over half the country.

I want a tax system that is equitable. Meaning that each person is taxed at the same rate, regardless of income.

Take your own advice. Fairness does not mean everyone is treated the same way. Doing so would favor some over others.

That is not equitable. For taxation, equity is a the degree of burden a tax creates. Some taxpayers might not be able to bear the same tax rate as others.

If your interpreted view of income includes those among the poor who are dependent upon various government programs and entitlements (such as public housing, free health care, a taxpayer "gift" of a cell phone, welfare, and food stamps) without the ability to supply for one's OWN necessities, you may have a point. Such a flat tax could possibly be interpreted to mean receiving a cut into how much they would then actually be entitled to receive from the Federal Government. A progressive tax upon each tax bracket, up to 90%, would have to pay for those who (for one excuse after another) are unable to earn through their own labor, the means to provide for their own household. Unless you happen to suffer from a disability that prohibits you from achieving employment on your own, there is absolutely no reason an individual must live their lives under complete dependency of their government as a major supplier of their livelihood. The big contributing factor to the progressive tax mentality comes from this apparent need to redistribute wealth. It's a tax system that replaces income level which is normally based on areas such as skill and education knowledge, with an income level that's based on mere "entitlement".

Coincidently someone who only earns (let's just say) $29,000 a year, is able to provide 10% or 2,900 in total Federal income taxes each year. An individual who earns $850, 000 a year under the same rate must provide $85,000, and the one who earns $2,000,000 has to contribute 200,000 in tax revenue.

 

[johnwk]

Nope
The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.

The Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about "direct taxes", nor did it change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned.

I take it you are not familiar with a number of S.C. cases confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:

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:

“[T]his 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....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”


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:


A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.


JWK


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

True, the 16th amendment does not mention direct taxes. It specifies:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The amendment changes the constitution to exclude income tax from apportionment as a direct tax.

The cases and ruling you sight are about specific types of income namely stock dividends and transfers of property by gift. The rulings do not apply to income taxes in general but rather specific types of income being taxed.

You are offering your own opinion about the 16th Amendment and ignoring the irrefutable fact that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned. Additionally, the 16th Amendment mentions nothing about "income taxes" or an "income tax". It merely declares Congress may tax "incomes" without apportioning the tax among the states. The Constitution also commands that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned. And so, a tax upon incomes may not take the form of a direct tax unless it is apportioned as pointed out in the Eisner case.

Just for the record and to be accurate, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already stated, that Congress had power to tax incomes, without apportionment e.g. see Flint vs. Stone Tracy which was decided before the ratification of the 16th Amendment. In fact, after the 16th Amendment was adopted, the Court stated 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.."


Congress, from the very ratification of our Constitution, had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes” without apportionment and this was not only established in Springer vs. United States when the Court upheld an un-apportioned tax on incomes imposed during the Civil War, but the Court also examined and explained what made the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 (a tax calculated from profits and gains [incomes]) “indirect” and not requiring apportionment, see FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

Keep in mind that to this very day, “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned as stated by the Court! 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:

“[T]his 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....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

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 Obama case:


A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. 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.

Additionally, the 16th Amendment does not grant power to Congress to lay and collect an “income tax” [a generically named type of tax] but only authorizes taxing incomes without apportionment with the restriction the tax is not direct as elaborated upon in the Flint Case. There, the tax calculated from income was considered to be indirect because it involved a privilege granted by government and the measure of the tax was calculated from profits and gains realized under the privilege. The Court in Flint concluded:

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.



JWK

 

[johnwk]

Repealing the 16th Amendment is the only acceptable tax reform.

So long as it contains the following wording:



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.


We don't want Congress' excise taxing power to be used to lay and collected excise taxes which are calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes as was done in the Flint case.


JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)