Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
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.
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.
Well, that makes me very proud of you. At least you now know how wrong you are with regard to the rule of apportionment and that in fact the rule of apportionment applies to both representation and taxation.
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.
Well, that makes me very proud of you. At least you now know how wrong you are with regard to the rule of apportionment and that in fact the rule of apportionment applies to both representation and taxation.
Not for individuals.
See, you can understand our Constitution's legislative intent which I have been documenting for you for quite some time.
See, you can understand our Constitution's legislative intent which I have been documenting for you for quite some time.
There is zero legislative intent to connect apportionment with the individual's right to vote. .
See, you can understand our Constitution's legislative intent which I have been documenting for you for quite some time.
There is zero legislative intent to connect apportionment with the individual's right to vote. .
I'm happy you finally agree with what I have been telling you for quite some time.
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.
I could live with a very small flat tax if we got rid of all the other welfare programs and social security, etc. You're right that the founding fathers would despise today's government.
I could live with a very small flat tax if we got rid of all the other welfare programs and social security, etc. You're right that the founding fathers would despise today's government.
If you want socialism or communism to take hold in America, then get rid of Social Security. The conservative movement would freeze in its tracks shortly after you put 25% of Americans into poverty. It amazes me that some people actually can be so stupid as to believe getting rid of SS is a great idea.
I hate to tell you this but it ain't the rich guy using public resources more it's everyone else.I see nothing wrong with making people that use more of the resources pay their fair share. The rich man that uses our roads more, police more and use up more land = need to pay more.
Keep the socialist income tax.
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseActually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!
JWK
If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseActually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!
JWK
If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseActually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!
JWK
If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseActually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!
JWK
If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
And that defies equal protection under the law. The rule of apportionment commands an equal per capita tax if Congress taxes the people directly!
Why does Senator Cruz advocate a tax which circumvents the protection afforded under the rule of apportionment?
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseActually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!
JWK
If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.
Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseActually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!
JWK
If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
And that defies equal protection under the law. The rule of apportionment commands an equal per capita tax if Congress taxes the people directly!
Why does Senator Cruz advocate a tax which circumvents the protection afforded under the rule of apportionment?
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)
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseActually the Communist Manifesto advocated a heavily progressive tax like we have now, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
And a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!
JWK
If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.
Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.
Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.
If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseAnd a flat tax on incomes finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto, just like I stated!
JWK
If you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.
Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.
Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.
If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.
I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.
With a flat tax they would still be paying more than everyone elseIf you use more resources...Why shouldn't you pay more taxes?
But likely far less than they are now. With the poor and middle class paying much more than they are now.
Which is the point. The question 'are the rich going to get richer and the poor, poorer' has been answered. Now we're just having an ideological contest to see if the electorate can be convinced that the way its supposed to be.
Well when you pay ZERO anything is more.
If we are going to have an income tax then no one should be exempt.
I think your ability to pay should be factored in. And the wealthy definitely have more ability to pay than the poor.
If you have an income you have the ability to pay income tax.
A low flat tax will not overburden anyone.
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”?
