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.
.
I happen to be a firm believer in requiring our federal government to balance the budget on an annual basis. To not do so opens the door to accumulating a massive federal debt, as has happened, depriving our nation’s younger generation of their economic liberty in that they are now in debt to the tune of $127 Trillion! See You Think The Deficit Is Bad? Federal Unfunded Liabilities Exceed $127 Trillion
My personal choice for a balanced budget amendment is following what our Founders intended, and is reflected in the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT which follows.
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
“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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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 father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.
"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."
NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!
Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:
State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.
"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.
"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.
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
Not just no, but HELL NO!
We do not live in the 18th Century, no matter how the reactionary right spins the issues, the world is a much different place than it was 200 + years ago.
Right, now the politicians can spend us into bankruptcy. There is no effective constraint on their larceny. That would have been unthinkable in the 18th century.
Blame the problem on Bush/Cheney who cut taxes and engaged in a long and unnecessary war of choice. Then and only then can we have a real debate on reform. Your idea of reform is to cut benefits to the needy, raise their taxes too, and give corporations and the very wealthy more and more and more.
You're a fool, and fools are necessary for the power elite to keep and gain power.
I'm not interested in responding to any knee-jerk liberal attempts to blame the debt on Republicans.
The debt is the responsibility of both the D's and R's, that's obvious. Any person who attempts to recapitulate the phrase, "tax and spend Democrats" either slept through the past three and one half decades or is a liar.
Buy the book on Fair Tax. My tax rate is none of your business.
Rub the "book" on your chest! The “book” is a misrepresentation of the “fairtax” [H.R. 25] and nothing more than propaganda! THE "FAIRTAX" DOES NOT END TAXES CALUCLATED FROM LAWFULLY EARNED INCOMES!
JWK
To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!
"The Fair Tax Act is designed to replace all federal income taxes(including the alternative minimum tax,corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes),payroll taxes(includingSocial Security and Medicare taxes),gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales taxon new goods and services. The legislation would remove the Internal Revenue Service(after three years), and establish an Excise Tax Bureau and a Sales Tax Bureau in the Department of the Treasury.
A study by Kotlikoff and Sabine Jokisch concluded that the long-term effects of the FairTax would reward low-income households with 26.3% more purchasing power, middle-income households with 12.4% more purchasing power, and high-income households with 5% more purchasing power."
If that study is correct, it does make me more interested in the Fair Tax Act.
I got the study from a website and did not check to see if it was accurate. I suspect those that favor the Fair Tax will use favorable numbers and those that oppose it will use unfavorable numbers.
Favorable numbers are irrelevant to the fact that THE "FAIRTAX" DOES NOT END TAXES CALUCLATED FROM LAWFULLY EARNED INCOMES!
JWK
Rub the "book" on your chest! The “book” is a misrepresentation of the “fairtax” [H.R. 25] and nothing more than propaganda! THE "FAIRTAX" DOES NOT END TAXES CALUCLATED FROM LAWFULLY EARNED INCOMES!
JWK
To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!
"The Fair Tax Act is designed to replace all federal income taxes(including the alternative minimum tax,corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes),payroll taxes(includingSocial Security and Medicare taxes),gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales taxon new goods and services. The legislation would remove the Internal Revenue Service(after three years), and establish an Excise Tax Bureau and a Sales Tax Bureau in the Department of the Treasury.
A study by Kotlikoff and Sabine Jokisch concluded that the long-term effects of the FairTax would reward low-income households with 26.3% more purchasing power, middle-income households with 12.4% more purchasing power, and high-income households with 5% more purchasing power."
If that study is correct, it does make me more interested in the Fair Tax Act.
I got the study from a website and did not check to see if it was accurate. I suspect those that favor the Fair Tax will use favorable numbers and those that oppose it will use unfavorable numbers.
Favorable numbers are irrelevant to the fact that THE "FAIRTAX" DOES NOT END TAXES CALUCLATED FROM LAWFULLY EARNED INCOMES!
JWK
Yes it does. I explained it to you in post #158.
"The Fair Tax Act is designed to replace all federal income taxes(including the alternative minimum tax,corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes),payroll taxes(includingSocial Security and Medicare taxes),gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales taxon new goods and services. The legislation would remove the Internal Revenue Service(after three years), and establish an Excise Tax Bureau and a Sales Tax Bureau in the Department of the Treasury.
A study by Kotlikoff and Sabine Jokisch concluded that the long-term effects of the FairTax would reward low-income households with 26.3% more purchasing power, middle-income households with 12.4% more purchasing power, and high-income households with 5% more purchasing power."
If that study is correct, it does make me more interested in the Fair Tax Act.
I got the study from a website and did not check to see if it was accurate. I suspect those that favor the Fair Tax will use favorable numbers and those that oppose it will use unfavorable numbers.
Favorable numbers are irrelevant to the fact that THE "FAIRTAX" DOES NOT END TAXES CALUCLATED FROM LAWFULLY EARNED INCOMES!
JWK
Yes it does. I explained it to you in post #158.
Your explanation is in error as only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
I believe Jefferson was talking to you when he wrote:
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
JWK
If that study is correct, it does make me more interested in the Fair Tax Act.
I got the study from a website and did not check to see if it was accurate. I suspect those that favor the Fair Tax will use favorable numbers and those that oppose it will use unfavorable numbers.
Favorable numbers are irrelevant to the fact that THE "FAIRTAX" DOES NOT END TAXES CALUCLATED FROM LAWFULLY EARNED INCOMES!
JWK
Yes it does. I explained it to you in post #158.
Your explanation is in error as only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
I believe Jefferson was talking to you when he wrote:
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
JWK
You are dead wrong. The tax code is raised and lowered on a regular basis by Congress. It has been as high as 90% for high wage earners.
I got the study from a website and did not check to see if it was accurate. I suspect those that favor the Fair Tax will use favorable numbers and those that oppose it will use unfavorable numbers.
Favorable numbers are irrelevant to the fact that THE "FAIRTAX" DOES NOT END TAXES CALUCLATED FROM LAWFULLY EARNED INCOMES!
JWK
Yes it does. I explained it to you in post #158.
Your explanation is in error as only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
I believe Jefferson was talking to you when he wrote:
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
JWK
You are dead wrong. The tax code is raised and lowered on a regular basis by Congress. It has been as high as 90% for high wage earners.
I am not wrong. Only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
JWK
Favorable numbers are irrelevant to the fact that THE "FAIRTAX" DOES NOT END TAXES CALUCLATED FROM LAWFULLY EARNED INCOMES!
JWK
Yes it does. I explained it to you in post #158.
Your explanation is in error as only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
I believe Jefferson was talking to you when he wrote:
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
JWK
You are dead wrong. The tax code is raised and lowered on a regular basis by Congress. It has been as high as 90% for high wage earners.
I am not wrong. Only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
JWK
When Bush lowered the tax rates for all taxpayers that had lawfully earned incomes, I maintain, if he could have got Congress to go along with it, he could have lowered all tax rates to ZERO. And that would not require a Constitutional Amendment.
No one is arguing that to eliminate the present or the next President and Congress from raising the tax rates back up would not require repeal of the 16th Amendment.
Taxes could be ended temporarily by Congress with the Fair Tax, but it would require repeal to make it permanent.
[
The second step is what I call "Repeal ObamaCare...and then what?" He doesn't really say. Just some meaningless "patient-centered reforms" throwaway phrase. We've have been debating ObamaCare for 7 years now (7 YEARS!), and the GOP STILL HAS NOT COUGHED UP AN ALERNATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. What are we supposed to do, trust them to come up with a solution to the problem after they repeal ObamaCare?
I don't THINK so! Show us the plan first.
Same thing for his Medicare reform. Show us the plan, then we'll talk.
Ryan also talks about block grants to the states for Medicaid and food stamps. This, I don't have much of a problem with.
Yes it does. I explained it to you in post #158.
Your explanation is in error as only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
I believe Jefferson was talking to you when he wrote:
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
JWK
You are dead wrong. The tax code is raised and lowered on a regular basis by Congress. It has been as high as 90% for high wage earners.
I am not wrong. Only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
JWK
When Bush lowered the tax rates for all taxpayers that had lawfully earned incomes, I maintain, if he could have got Congress to go along with it, he could have lowered all tax rates to ZERO. And that would not require a Constitutional Amendment.
No one is arguing that to eliminate the present or the next President and Congress from raising the tax rates back up would not require repeal of the 16th Amendment.
Taxes could be ended temporarily by Congress with the Fair Tax, but it would require repeal to make it permanent.
The "FairTax" [H.R. 25] makes no effort to end all taxes calculated from profits gains and other lawfully earned incomes.
JWK
[
The second step is what I call "Repeal ObamaCare...and then what?" He doesn't really say. Just some meaningless "patient-centered reforms" throwaway phrase. We've have been debating ObamaCare for 7 years now (7 YEARS!), and the GOP STILL HAS NOT COUGHED UP AN ALERNATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. What are we supposed to do, trust them to come up with a solution to the problem after they repeal ObamaCare?
I don't THINK so! Show us the plan first.
Same thing for his Medicare reform. Show us the plan, then we'll talk.
Ryan also talks about block grants to the states for Medicaid and food stamps. This, I don't have much of a problem with.
Actually Paul Ryan provided a very effective alternative to "Obamacare" which is based on the FEHB program that Federal Employees use.
.
Your explanation is in error as only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
I believe Jefferson was talking to you when he wrote:
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
JWK
You are dead wrong. The tax code is raised and lowered on a regular basis by Congress. It has been as high as 90% for high wage earners.
I am not wrong. Only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
JWK
When Bush lowered the tax rates for all taxpayers that had lawfully earned incomes, I maintain, if he could have got Congress to go along with it, he could have lowered all tax rates to ZERO. And that would not require a Constitutional Amendment.
No one is arguing that to eliminate the present or the next President and Congress from raising the tax rates back up would not require repeal of the 16th Amendment.
Taxes could be ended temporarily by Congress with the Fair Tax, but it would require repeal to make it permanent.
The "FairTax" [H.R. 25] makes no effort to end all taxes calculated from profits gains and other lawfully earned incomes.
JWK
"The FairTax is a proposal to reform the federal tax code of the United States. It 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. 155) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption."
Explain.No because Americans refuse to be taxed at a rate that would support the government, pay down the debt and have a surplus for emergencies.
If that was all the government did with tax money they would already have a balanced budget.
This is a small portion of wasted taxpayer money in 2014 and there are thousands more over the years where these came from.
Swedish massages for rabbits: $387,000
Teaching Mountain Lions to Ride a Treadmill: $856,000
Studying how many times “hungry” people stab a voodoo doll: $331,000
Studying the gambling habits of monkeys: $171,000
Producing the children’s musical: Zombie in Love: $10,000
Funding a “Stoner Symphony”: $15,000
Subsidizing Alpaca Poop: $50,000
Funding Climate Change Alarmist Video Game: $5.2 million
Synchronized Swimming for Sea Monkeys: $307,524
Funding Climate Change Alarmist Video Game: $5.2 million
You are dead wrong. The tax code is raised and lowered on a regular basis by Congress. It has been as high as 90% for high wage earners.
I am not wrong. Only a constitutional amendment can end taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes.
JWK
When Bush lowered the tax rates for all taxpayers that had lawfully earned incomes, I maintain, if he could have got Congress to go along with it, he could have lowered all tax rates to ZERO. And that would not require a Constitutional Amendment.
No one is arguing that to eliminate the present or the next President and Congress from raising the tax rates back up would not require repeal of the 16th Amendment.
Taxes could be ended temporarily by Congress with the Fair Tax, but it would require repeal to make it permanent.
The "FairTax" [H.R. 25] makes no effort to end all taxes calculated from profits gains and other lawfully earned incomes.
JWK
"The FairTax is a proposal to reform the federal tax code of the United States. It 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. 155) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption."
The alleged "fairtax" does not withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other lawfully earned "incomes".
H.R. 25 proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, and would not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.
The text of the proposed fair tax reads in part:
TITLE IV--SUNSET OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED.
“If the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not repealed before the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, then all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to any use or consumption in any year beginning after December 31 of the calendar year in which or with which such period ends, except that the Sales Tax Bureau of the Department of the Treasury shall not be terminated until 6 months after such December 31.”
In other words, if H.R. 25 were adopted by Congress the 23 percent tax goes into effect immediately. But if after a seven year period, during which time the America People become use to paying and complying with the tax, and the Sixteenth Amendment is not repealed, Congress will end the 23 percent tax. And if one believes that baloney ….
But let’s pretend H.R. 25 is adopted and the Sixteenth Amendment is repealed before the seven year period. Well surprise, surprise! Congress still maintains power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.
The fact is, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment the Supreme Court in Flint vs. Stone Tracy upheld the Corporate “Excise” Tax of 1909 which was an “excise” tax laid upon the “privilege” of being a corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from the Corporations’ profits and gains! Although the tax is not an income tax as such, but an excise tax, it still allows Congress to collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”, which is exactly what we have now. And so, the repeal of the 16th Amendment is meaningless unless the wording of the repeal contains language I have been suggesting for years:
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
But the progressives behind the alleged fair tax are determined to keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “income” in order to get at those evil corporate profits, as would be done with a Nancy Pelosi type “windfall profits excise tax”. And this is one of the reasons H.R. 25 creates an “Excise Tax Bureau” which is in addition to the “Sales Tax Bureau” , and will be ready, if H.R.25 went into effect, to re-establish the very miseries which we now experience under the IRS and an “income tax” --- a tax also calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.
If the authors of the alleged fair tax were sincere about removing from Congress’ powers its power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” and not trying to pull something slick over the American People, H.R. 25 would contain a stipulation in its language that the fair tax shall not go into operation until the 16th Amendment is repealed and the repeal would contain the language I stated above. Keep in mind that our existing Constitution contained a stipulation which required its ratification by nine States before it could be put into operation!
But don’t expect our fair tax point men such as Mike Huckabee, Neal Boortz, Herman Cain, and others, to address the above facts and unwind the con job written into H.R. 25. Their job is to mesmerize the unsuspecting with a con artists’ hook --- that our beloved IRS will be closed down and “income taxes” will come to a screeching halt.
JWK
Read the freaken fair tax bill so we don’t have to find out what’s in it if passes.
Explain.No because Americans refuse to be taxed at a rate that would support the government, pay down the debt and have a surplus for emergencies.
If that was all the government did with tax money they would already have a balanced budget.
This is a small portion of wasted taxpayer money in 2014 and there are thousands more over the years where these came from.
Swedish massages for rabbits: $387,000
Teaching Mountain Lions to Ride a Treadmill: $856,000
Studying how many times “hungry” people stab a voodoo doll: $331,000
Studying the gambling habits of monkeys: $171,000
Producing the children’s musical: Zombie in Love: $10,000
Funding a “Stoner Symphony”: $15,000
Subsidizing Alpaca Poop: $50,000
Funding Climate Change Alarmist Video Game: $5.2 million
Synchronized Swimming for Sea Monkeys: $307,524
Funding Climate Change Alarmist Video Game: $5.2 million
GOP WARS - $2.4 trillion
Typical GOP looks for the small stuff and changes the words to suit his agenda.... GOP are the most wasteful and worst financial record...
When is the last time a GOP President reduced the Deficit over his watch?
I got as far as your quote of Title IV, Sec 401 where the LAW clearly states if the sixteenth Amendment is not repealed in 7 years "all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply" and in the next paragraph you called that baloney. I call it the LAW.
I got as far as your quote of Title IV, Sec 401 where the LAW clearly states if the sixteenth Amendment is not repealed in 7 years "all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply" and in the next paragraph you called that baloney. I call it the LAW.
Of course you did not read the import part of the post which follows:
But let’s pretend H.R. 25 is adopted and the Sixteenth Amendment is repealed before the seven year period. Well surprise, surprise! Congress still maintains power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.
The fact is, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment the Supreme Court in Flint vs. Stone Tracy upheld the Corporate “Excise” Tax of 1909 which was an “excise” tax laid upon the “privilege” of being a corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from the Corporations’ profits and gains! Although the tax is not an income tax as such, but an excise tax, it still allows Congress to collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”, which is exactly what we have now. And so, the repeal of the 16th Amendment is meaningless unless the wording of the repeal contains language I have been suggesting for years:
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
But the progressives behind the alleged fair tax are determined to keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “income” in order to get at those evil corporate profits, as would be done with a Nancy Pelosi type “windfall profits excise tax”. And this is one of the reasons H.R. 25 creates an “Excise Tax Bureau” which is in addition to the “Sales Tax Bureau” , and will be ready, if H.R.25 went into effect, to re-establish the very miseries which we now experience under the IRS and an “income tax” --- a tax also calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.
If the authors of the alleged fair tax were sincere about removing from Congress’ powers its power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” and not trying to pull something slick over the American People, H.R. 25 would contain a stipulation in its language that the fair tax shall not go into operation until the 16th Amendment is repealed and the repeal would contain the language I stated above. Keep in mind that our existing Constitution contained a stipulation which required its ratification by nine States before it could be put into operation!
But don’t expect our fair tax point men such as Mike Huckabee, Neal Boortz, Herman Cain, and others, to address the above facts and unwind the con job written into H.R. 25. Their job is to mesmerize the unsuspecting with a con artists’ hook --- that our beloved IRS will be closed down and “income taxes” will come to a screeching halt.
JWK
Read the freaken fair tax bill so we don’t have to find out what’s in it if passes.
I got as far as your quote of Title IV, Sec 401 where the LAW clearly states if the sixteenth Amendment is not repealed in 7 years "all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply" and in the next paragraph you called that baloney. I call it the LAW.
Of course you did not read the import part of the post which follows:
But let’s pretend H.R. 25 is adopted and the Sixteenth Amendment is repealed before the seven year period. Well surprise, surprise! Congress still maintains power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.
The fact is, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment the Supreme Court in Flint vs. Stone Tracy upheld the Corporate “Excise” Tax of 1909 which was an “excise” tax laid upon the “privilege” of being a corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from the Corporations’ profits and gains! Although the tax is not an income tax as such, but an excise tax, it still allows Congress to collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”, which is exactly what we have now. And so, the repeal of the 16th Amendment is meaningless unless the wording of the repeal contains language I have been suggesting for years:
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
But the progressives behind the alleged fair tax are determined to keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “income” in order to get at those evil corporate profits, as would be done with a Nancy Pelosi type “windfall profits excise tax”. And this is one of the reasons H.R. 25 creates an “Excise Tax Bureau” which is in addition to the “Sales Tax Bureau” , and will be ready, if H.R.25 went into effect, to re-establish the very miseries which we now experience under the IRS and an “income tax” --- a tax also calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.
If the authors of the alleged fair tax were sincere about removing from Congress’ powers its power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” and not trying to pull something slick over the American People, H.R. 25 would contain a stipulation in its language that the fair tax shall not go into operation until the 16th Amendment is repealed and the repeal would contain the language I stated above. Keep in mind that our existing Constitution contained a stipulation which required its ratification by nine States before it could be put into operation!
But don’t expect our fair tax point men such as Mike Huckabee, Neal Boortz, Herman Cain, and others, to address the above facts and unwind the con job written into H.R. 25. Their job is to mesmerize the unsuspecting with a con artists’ hook --- that our beloved IRS will be closed down and “income taxes” will come to a screeching halt.
JWK
Read the freaken fair tax bill so we don’t have to find out what’s in it if passes.
I do not believe the H.R. 25 will be passed by the Congress, but if I am wrong and it does pass the House and the Senate, there is no doubt in my mind that Obama would veto it. Lets say it was passed and became law since you are into the pretending stage. The next Congress could repeal it immediately. That is what happens ALL the time to the US tax code.
I got as far as your quote of Title IV, Sec 401 where the LAW clearly states if the sixteenth Amendment is not repealed in 7 years "all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply" and in the next paragraph you called that baloney. I call it the LAW.
Of course you did not read the import part of the post which follows:
But let’s pretend H.R. 25 is adopted and the Sixteenth Amendment is repealed before the seven year period. Well surprise, surprise! Congress still maintains power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.
The fact is, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment the Supreme Court in Flint vs. Stone Tracy upheld the Corporate “Excise” Tax of 1909 which was an “excise” tax laid upon the “privilege” of being a corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from the Corporations’ profits and gains! Although the tax is not an income tax as such, but an excise tax, it still allows Congress to collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”, which is exactly what we have now. And so, the repeal of the 16th Amendment is meaningless unless the wording of the repeal contains language I have been suggesting for years:
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
But the progressives behind the alleged fair tax are determined to keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “income” in order to get at those evil corporate profits, as would be done with a Nancy Pelosi type “windfall profits excise tax”. And this is one of the reasons H.R. 25 creates an “Excise Tax Bureau” which is in addition to the “Sales Tax Bureau” , and will be ready, if H.R.25 went into effect, to re-establish the very miseries which we now experience under the IRS and an “income tax” --- a tax also calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.
If the authors of the alleged fair tax were sincere about removing from Congress’ powers its power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes” and not trying to pull something slick over the American People, H.R. 25 would contain a stipulation in its language that the fair tax shall not go into operation until the 16th Amendment is repealed and the repeal would contain the language I stated above. Keep in mind that our existing Constitution contained a stipulation which required its ratification by nine States before it could be put into operation!
But don’t expect our fair tax point men such as Mike Huckabee, Neal Boortz, Herman Cain, and others, to address the above facts and unwind the con job written into H.R. 25. Their job is to mesmerize the unsuspecting with a con artists’ hook --- that our beloved IRS will be closed down and “income taxes” will come to a screeching halt.
JWK
Read the freaken fair tax bill so we don’t have to find out what’s in it if passes.
