Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

[johnwk]

Johnwk asks, "Why does senator Cruz support this immoral and arbitrary tax?"

The answer is simple. A flat tax would lessen the tax bill for the wealthiest and attempt to make up the revenue loss by increasing taxes on the lower income citizens.

It's just the old upward income redistribution game.

I don't know what is in the mind of Senator Cruz. Hopefully it is not what you suggest. Additionally, what you suggest above does not correspond to the math or facts. A flat tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned "incomes" extracts far more money from those who have a higher "income" than those who are less ambitious and are content with earning less income than our nation's most productive citizens. In fact, a tax upon "incomes" punishes our nation's most productive citizens for being productive.

I do not buy into your rich vs poor argument.


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]

SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Dude. The Communist Manifesto calls for a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax".

A flat tax is the exact OPPOSITE of that.

Dude. Both a flat tax on incomes and a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax" are designed to extract more revenue from the most productive and ambitious members of society, while the least productive, in addition to those who idle on the public dole, are rewarded by relieving them from contributing an equal share into the public trough.

JWK

Are we 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”?

 

[warf]

Johnwk asks, "Why does senator Cruz support this immoral and arbitrary tax?"

The answer is simple. A flat tax would lessen the tax bill for the wealthiest and attempt to make up the revenue loss by increasing taxes on the lower income citizens.

It's just the old upward income redistribution game.

I don't know what is in the mind of Senator Cruz. Hopefully it is not what you suggest. Additionally, what you suggest above does not correspond to the math or facts. A flat tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned "incomes" extracts far more money from those who have a higher "income" than those who are less ambitious and are content with earning less income than our nation's most productive citizens. In fact, a tax upon "incomes" punishes our nation's most productive citizens for being productive.

I do not buy into your rich vs poor argument

You don't buy into it but that's the way it is.

Who keeps trying to sell this flat tax scheme? It's always right wingers. It's a scheme to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor.

Taxes should be based on ones ability to pay. Taxes on the wealthy mean they can't put as much as they want into their hedge fund. Taxes on the poor mean they can't feed their kids as well.

A flat tax would also take away from the middle class any dream of affluence.

 

[johnwk]

Johnwk asks, "Why does senator Cruz support this immoral and arbitrary tax?"

The answer is simple. A flat tax would lessen the tax bill for the wealthiest and attempt to make up the revenue loss by increasing taxes on the lower income citizens.

It's just the old upward income redistribution game.

I don't know what is in the mind of Senator Cruz. Hopefully it is not what you suggest. Additionally, what you suggest above does not correspond to the math or facts. A flat tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned "incomes" extracts far more money from those who have a higher "income" than those who are less ambitious and are content with earning less income than our nation's most productive citizens. In fact, a tax upon "incomes" punishes our nation's most productive citizens for being productive.

I do not buy into your rich vs poor argument

You don't buy into it but that's the way it is.
.

Wrong! It is not what you suggest. The math disproves your opinion as I previously demonstrated.


JWK






They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

 

[SwimExpert]

Up to that point in history what government had allowed women to vote?

British Massachusetts, American New Jersey, Sierra Leone, and France, for starters.

No. You know that's a lie. 1893 is the first time women as a general group were given the right to vote (New Zealand). But leave it to the founding fathers to create a document whereby that right could eventually be granted.

No, you're just ignorant. In Sierra Leone, women could vote as early as 1792. The vote was given to heads of households, with no discrimination based on race or gender. In Massachusetts, Lydia Taft was the first woman to vote in America in 1756, where the franchise was again based on being a householder. Just a couple points to identify your ignorance.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

JWK



Are we 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”?

Cruz was born to a Foreign National... and while his father was vehemently opposed to Communism, the influence of such upon his father, cannot be ignored and neither can the influence of his father, upon Cruz be ignored. And it is for this reason that Cruz, according to the US Constitution, is simply not eligible for the Office of the President of the United States.

With that said, Cruz is not a communist, neither is he sympathetic to the perverse reasoning common to communism. He simply understands that government must be funded and I expect he sees the flat tax on income as the most expeditious means of scuttling the current system, which is a start toward separating the United States from the idiocy, wherein the Government is sustained through a means which DISCOURAGES THAT WHICH FUNDS THE THING YOUR TRYING TO SUSTAIN!

I doubt that if you spoke with him personally, that you'd find much resistance to a tax on consumption. And I am just as sure that he has good reason for his position.

I just hope he finds the strength of character to recognize that the circumstances of his birth preclude him from Presidential Eligibility and I hope MOST that should he do so, he will find the courage to EXPLAIN HIS REASONING VERY PUBLICLY... and in so doing, raise himself to the rarest of air, not breathed since the Founders themselves... as being among the most selfless and profound leaders in the history of the United States.

That one decision... and that prodigious effort, would re-instill a certainty in Americans that the US Constitution is a living, breathing document enshrining the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to the LIVING LAWS OF NATURE which defines Individual Liberty, through the sustained forbearance, intrinsic in personal responsibility... .

He would through his actions, quite literally, "Change the World, through American Fundamentals."

 

[warf]

Johnwk asks, "Why does senator Cruz support this immoral and arbitrary tax?"

The answer is simple. A flat tax would lessen the tax bill for the wealthiest and attempt to make up the revenue loss by increasing taxes on the lower income citizens.

It's just the old upward income redistribution game.

I don't know what is in the mind of Senator Cruz. Hopefully it is not what you suggest. Additionally, what you suggest above does not correspond to the math or facts. A flat tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned "incomes" extracts far more money from those who have a higher "income" than those who are less ambitious and are content with earning less income than our nation's most productive citizens. In fact, a tax upon "incomes" punishes our nation's most productive citizens for being productive.

I do not buy into your rich vs poor argument

You don't buy into it but that's the way it is.
.

Wrong! It is not what you suggest. The math disproves your opinion as I previously demonstrated

Your math is wrong. There is no way a flat tax can be as fair as a progressive tax.

Huckabee proved that with his lying explanation of his flat tax scam. The only way to make it seem to work is by falsifying the math.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Johnwk asks, "Why does senator Cruz support this immoral and arbitrary tax?"

The answer is simple. A flat tax would lessen the tax bill for the wealthiest and attempt to make up the revenue loss by increasing taxes on the lower income citizens.

It's just the old upward income redistribution game.

I don't know what is in the mind of Senator Cruz. Hopefully it is not what you suggest. Additionally, what you suggest above does not correspond to the math or facts. A flat tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned "incomes" extracts far more money from those who have a higher "income" than those who are less ambitious and are content with earning less income than our nation's most productive citizens. In fact, a tax upon "incomes" punishes our nation's most productive citizens for being productive.

I do not buy into your rich vs poor argument

You don't buy into it but that's the way it is.
.

Wrong! It is not what you suggest. The math disproves your opinion as I previously demonstrated

Your math is wrong. There is no way a flat tax can be as fair as a progressive tax.

Huckabee proved that with his lying explanation of his flat tax scam. The only way to make it seem to work is by falsifying the math.

Define "Fair".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Up to that point in history what government had allowed women to vote?

British Massachusetts, American New Jersey, Sierra Leone, and France, for starters.

No. You know that's a lie. 1893 is the first time women as a general group were given the right to vote (New Zealand). But leave it to the founding fathers to create a document whereby that right could eventually be granted.

No, you're just ignorant. In Sierra Leone, women could vote as early as 1792. The vote was given to heads of households, with no discrimination based on race or gender. In Massachusetts, Lydia Taft was the first woman to vote in America in 1756, where the franchise was again based on being a householder. Just a couple points to identify your ignorance.

The American Charter of Principles not only provided for the public recognition of the SELF-EVIDENT fact, that every human being is created equal..., it did so as the FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE of a Nation.

Voting is a process which determines the composition of governance, thus it follows that a viable culture will limit such to those with a vested interest; which is to say those with skin in the game; which means those who have EARNED the right to be counted... . It is a law of nature and as among those of the 'self-evident' variety.

 

[johnwk]

SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

JWK



Are we 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”?

Cruz was born to a Foreign National... and while his father was vehemently opposed to Communism, the influence of such upon his father, cannot be ignored and neither can the influence of his father, upon Cruz be ignored. And it is for this reason that Cruz, according to the US Constitution, is simply not eligible for the Office of the President of the United States.

With that said, Cruz is not a communist, neither is he sympathetic to the perverse reasoning common to communism. He simply understands that government must be funded and I expect he sees the flat tax on income as the most expeditious means of scuttling the current system, which is a start toward separating the United States from the idiocy, wherein the Government is sustained through a means which DISCOURAGES THAT WHICH FUNDS THE THING YOUR TRYING TO SUSTAIN!

I doubt that if you spoke with him personally, that you'd find much resistance to a tax on consumption. And I am just as sure that he has good reason for his position.

I just hope he finds the strength of character to recognize that the circumstances of his birth preclude him from Presidential Eligibility and I hope MOST that should he do so, he will find the courage to EXPLAIN HIS REASONING VERY PUBLICLY... and in so doing, raise himself to the rarest of air, not breathed since the Founders themselves... as being among the most selfless and profound leaders in the history of the United States.

That one decision... and that prodigious effort, would re-instill a certainty in Americans that the US Constitution is a living, breathing document enshrining the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to the LIVING LAWS OF NATURE which defines Individual Liberty, through the sustained forbearance, intrinsic in personal responsibility... .

He would through his actions, quite literally, "Change the World, through American Fundamentals."

Where Cruz was born has nothing to do with tax reform. Additionally, I have not suggested Cruz is a Communist. What I have stated, and correctly so is, he promotes a system of taxation which finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, and what he promotes [a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes] is both immoral and an arbitrary system of taxation as I have demonstrated in this thread. His proposal does not scuttle the current system. It keeps alive a power of taxation which is used to inflict countless miseries upon America’s businesses as well as the American people. Senator Cruz would do well to have faith in the wisdom and brilliance of our Foundering Fathers’ original tax plan which they wrote into our Constitution, part of which is explained in Federalist No. 21.


Additionally, Cruz should also take note of the clarity for which our founders commanded that both representation and any direct tax laid by Congress would be apportioned among the States based upon each State’s population which boils down to “representation with a proportional financial obligation”!


Let us recall our founders clear thinking in this regard:


Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :


“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


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.


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 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:


“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


JWK

Are we as a nation 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]

The OP doesn't understand our constitution or the amendments.

The 16th amendment must be repealed to do what the OP wants to do with federal taxes.


Pigs will take wing and fly before that will happen.

I don't think the 16th amendment must be repealed. The 16th merely grants the government authority to tax incomes. It doesn't mandate that they do. They can choose any other constitutionally authorized method of taxation. And the taxation power is one of the broadest of all federal powers.

Though John does grossly misunderstand the 16th amendment. And still insists that it doesn't allow direct taxes without apportionment, even if those taxes are on income.

 

[Skylar]

Where Cruz was born has nothing to do with tax reform. Additionally, I have not suggested Cruz is a Communist. What I have stated, and correctly so is, he promotes a system of taxation which finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, and what he promotes [a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes] is both immoral and an arbitrary system of taxation as I have demonstrated in this thread.

You've simply typed its 'immoral and arbitrary'. And typing a claim isn't demonstrating it. You've confused applying pressure to a keyboard with laying out a logical and factual argument.

And the Communist Manifesto calls for heavily progressive income tax. Its plank 2 of the 10 tenets of the Communist Manifesto:

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

The Communist Manifesto

That's not a flat tax.

His proposal does not scuttle the current system. It keeps alive a power of taxation which is used to inflict countless miseries upon America’s businesses as well as the American people. Senator Cruz would do well to have faith in the wisdom and brilliance of our Foundering Fathers’ original tax plan which they wrote into our Constitution, part of which is explained in Federalist No. 21.

The original constitution didn't forbid any income tax. It merely required that direct taxes be apportioned to the states. The only form of income tax that has been fond to be a direct tax was income tax on revenue from real estate. Everything else, including almost all taxes on income, can be levied under the original constitution without apportionment.

Are we as a nation 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”?

Yes. As most of that '45' still pays social security taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, etc.. Or are retired. Or are students. Or are the working poor. None of which should go without representation.

And most obviously, your 'solution' of apportionment doesn't address anything with the '45%'. As apportionment is based on population. Not on what percentages pay taxes. Your 'solution' is completely disconnected from your problem. Making your awkward attempt to connect them all the more irrational.

 

[Skylar]

Up to that point in history what government had allowed women to vote?

British Massachusetts, American New Jersey, Sierra Leone, and France, for starters.

No. You know that's a lie. 1893 is the first time women as a general group were given the right to vote (New Zealand). But leave it to the founding fathers to create a document whereby that right could eventually be granted.

No, you're just ignorant. In Sierra Leone, women could vote as early as 1792. The vote was given to heads of households, with no discrimination based on race or gender. In Massachusetts, Lydia Taft was the first woman to vote in America in 1756, where the franchise was again based on being a householder. Just a couple points to identify your ignorance.

The American Charter of Principles not only provided for the public recognition of the SELF-EVIDENT fact, that every human being is created equal..., it did so as the FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE of a Nation.

Voting is a process which determines the composition of governance, thus it follows that a viable culture will limit such to those with a vested interest; which is to say those with skin in the game; which means those who have EARNED the right to be counted... . It is a law of nature and as among those of the 'self-evident' variety.

Dude, do you EVER have an argument that isn't a an appeal to authority fallacy?

The idea that those who are too poor to qualify for taxation don't 'have skin in the game' is ludicrous. They are immediately effected by the laws.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Up to that point in history what government had allowed women to vote?

British Massachusetts, American New Jersey, Sierra Leone, and France, for starters.

No. You know that's a lie. 1893 is the first time women as a general group were given the right to vote (New Zealand). But leave it to the founding fathers to create a document whereby that right could eventually be granted.

No, you're just ignorant. In Sierra Leone, women could vote as early as 1792. The vote was given to heads of households, with no discrimination based on race or gender. In Massachusetts, Lydia Taft was the first woman to vote in America in 1756, where the franchise was again based on being a householder. Just a couple points to identify your ignorance.

These alleged votes for females are based upon rigid stipulations. We were talking about giving the universal suffrage to women as a class. That had never happened at the time of the Constitution. And the argument was thusly that the founding fathers were somehow against that. I would contend that was not the case whatsoever. They made a document whereby that could honorably become an eventuality.

 

[SwimExpert]

These alleged votes for females are based upon rigid stipulations. We were talking about giving the universal suffrage to women as a class. That had never happened at the time of the Constitution.

Universal suffrage wasn't given to men by the constitution, either.

They made a document whereby that could honorably become an eventuality.

For that matter, they made a document whereby a theocratic monarchy could honorably become an eventuality.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

These alleged votes for females are based upon rigid stipulations. We were talking about giving the universal suffrage to women as a class. That had never happened at the time of the Constitution.

Universal suffrage wasn't given to men by the constitution, either.

They made a document whereby that could honorably become an eventuality.

For that matter, they made a document whereby a theocratic monarchy could honorably become an eventuality.

Okay....Then, I don't know what you really are arguing in the grand scheme of it all.

 

[johnwk]

His proposal does not scuttle the current system. It keeps alive a power of taxation which is used to inflict countless miseries upon America’s businesses as well as the American people. Senator Cruz would do well to have faith in the wisdom and brilliance of our Foundering Fathers’ original tax plan which they wrote into our Constitution, part of which is explained in Federalist No. 21.

The original constitution didn't forbid any income tax. It merely required that direct taxes be apportioned to the states.

What does that have to do with Senator Cruz supporting the socialist direct tax on profits, gains, salaries and other "incomes" which is a primary source of power used by our Washington Establishment to enslave the American People?

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]

The original constitution didn't forbid any income tax. It merely required that direct taxes be apportioned to the states.

What does that have to do with Senator Cruz supporting the socialist direct tax on profits, gains, salaries and other "incomes" which is a primary source of power used by our Washington Establishment to enslave the American People?

Already addressed in the parts of my post you omitted...and then laughably pretended don't exist:

Where Cruz was born has nothing to do with tax reform. Additionally, I have not suggested Cruz is a Communist. What I have stated, and correctly so is, he promotes a system of taxation which finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, and what he promotes [a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes] is both immoral and an arbitrary system of taxation as I have demonstrated in this thread.

...And the Communist Manifesto calls for heavily progressive income tax. Its plank 2 of the 10 tenets of the Communist Manifesto:

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The Communist Manifesto

That's not a flat tax.

Sorry John, but you're simply not prepared for this conversation. You are too uninformed to discuss it intelligently. The communist manifesto doesn't mention a 'flat tax', but a heavily progressive income tax..

Which you either knew, or should have known.

The originalo US constitution doesn't forbid income taxes. It simple requires that any direct tax be apportioned. And almost no income taxes are recognized as direct taxes.

Which you either knew, or should have known.

And your 'solution' of requirnig apportionment has nothing to do with your 'problem' of people that don't pay income taxes being able to vote. The two have nothing to do with each other. As apportionment is based on population. Not population that pays taxes.

Which you either knew, or should have known.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Come back when you've researched this topic sufficient to discuss it intelligently.

 

[johnwk]

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Come back when you've researched this topic sufficient to discuss it intelligently.

You should take your own advice. As to research, and our founders intentions regarding the rule of apportionment let us review some of our founder’s clear thinking:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :


“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


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.


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 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:


“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

Now, you are entitled to your opinions, but not the historical facts. You really should prepare yourself with the facts before involving yourself in such a discussion,


I still would like to know why Senator Cruz supports a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes which has its roots in the Communist Manifesto.



JWK

 

[Skylar]

You should take your own advice. As to research, and our founders intentions regarding the rule of apportionment let us review some of our founder’s clear thinking:

Oh, I did. Which is who I know you're completely full of shit. The communist manifesto calls for a heavily progressive income tax. Not a 'flat tax'.

You didn't know what you were talking about.

The original constitution had no prohibition on flat taxes or on income taxes. The only requirement was that direct taxes be apportioned to the several states. And almost no income taxes were ever found to be direct taxes. With the one kind that was relieved of the apportionment requirement with the 16th amendment.

You didn't know what you were talking about.

And finally....the irrelevance of apportionment as it relates to those individuals paying income taxes being able to vote. Which I'll gladly use your own post to demonstrate:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

Which has nothing to do with your argument. As it correctly casts the issue of apportment as a state v state issue. Where you laughably tried to argue it was about an INDIVIDUAL paying income taxes and their accompanying INDIVIDUAL right to vote.

Which has nothing to do with apportionment. As your own quotes so elegantly prove.

Again, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Research first, post second.

Now, you are entitled to your opinions, but not the historical facts. You really should prepare yourself with the facts before involving yourself in such a discussion,

And where, pray tell, do any of the above quotes have a thing to do with the voting rights of individuals? Or was that babble about the '45%' that don't pay federal income taxes being able to vote on federal issues merely a red herring without any relevance to your call for apportionment.

Irrelevant red herring or spectacular blunder. Pick which. As its one or the other.

I still would like to know why Senator Cruz supports a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes which has its roots in the Communist Manifesto.

I'd like to know why you keep insisting that Cruz's call for a flat tax has its roots in the communist manifesto...which calls for a heavily progressive income tax.

That's just....bizarre.