- Thread starter
- #41
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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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
Last edited: