Last night right here in Gwinnett County, Georgia there was the start of what will be a series of Fair Tax rallies across the nation. An effort to promote HR 25 aka The Fair Tax. Speakers at the rally were co-author of The Fair Tax Book Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, Herman Cain, Clark Howard, John Stossel (as a reporter he cannot “officially” endorse a tax proposal, but he was there and spoke), Ken Hoagland – Spokesman for Americans for Fair Taxation, Congressman John Linder, Royal Marshall and Belinda Skelton. Music was provided by Banks & Shane.
Initially I was planning to attend, but when I realized I would never be able to get there early enough to beat the crowd, I had to pass on going. Fortunately WSB-AM aired the rally live. (Boortz was able to convince the station to air it at the last minute. There was no promotion of it being aired until just before the rally, so it probably was a last minute agreement to air it.) I was able to start capturing the audio just after some kids were giving some quotes about taxation and Boortz was taking the stage. So you can say the audio link below has it all minus the kids 
.
Whether you are for the Fair Tax or wondering about it, you want to check out this audio. Because not only was HR 25 promoted, but many of the questions asked about how it would affect taxation were answered.
Listen to the entire rally (minus the kids) using the audio link below.
Fair Tax Rally, Gwinnett County, GA 2006 – Windows Media format
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)
Pictures and some video clips are available at the Lumpkin Informer.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
40 queries. 0.323 seconds
May 31st, 2006 at 10:24 am
Fair Tax Blogburst
by Ms.Underestimated
This is not just an idea anymore…it’s a movement! The Fair Tax movement.
What else do you call an event about something as dull and boring as the U.S. Tax Code that draws almost 7,000 to a rally? About 4,500 people got insi…
June 29th, 2006 at 8:15 am
As a constitutional “conservative” and one who has faith in the wisdom of our founding fathers plan, our Constitution, I find it difficult to confront supporters of H.R. 25, especially when they are under the impression H.R. 25 would advance conservative ideals and principles. Unfortunately, just like people were conned when they supported the adoption of the 16th Amendment, H.R. 25 is another con job proposal which would benefit folks in government, just like the income tax now does, and would actually tighten the iron fist of government over the production of America’s businesses, industries or labor!
If you think you are not being conned, then take the time to study, with an open mind, the following
MESSAGE TO FAIR TAX RALLY PARTICIPANTS
Let me also point out that many of the ring leaders which crafted a balanced budget amendment in the 1980’s are the same crowd which now proposes a legislative line item veto power for the president. What do both proposals have in common and how do they tie into tax reform? Both proposals are sold to the people as a method to force fiscal discipline upon Congress. But, the proposed balanced budget amendment was filled with loopholes to allow Congress to continued in its reckless spending and borrowing, and, the proposed line-item-veto now being promoted likewise does squat to force or encourage fiscal discipline upon Congress___ the objective of this crowd is nothing more than creating an illusion that they are fiscal conservatives and different than their opposing political rivals They are not different and are very, very dangerous enemies to a freedom loving society!
Now, how does H.R. 25 tie into the line item veto and the balanced budget amendment? Surprise! H.R. 25 is being sold as a “conservative” idea, but is an illusion of fiscal conservatism, and, as documented in the above MESSAGE TO FAIR TAX RALLY PARTICIPANTS, would actually subjugate one of the most important rules agree to by our founding fathers which was designed to force fiscal discipline upon Congress; force Congress to extinguish deficits created by reckless spending and borrowing; and, our founding fathers rule, if followed today would also make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their state governor and legislature should they engage in reckless pork spending and borrowing! For details see: Our Line-Item-Veto con artists in Congress
Regards,
JWK, founder
American Constitutional Research Service
June 29th, 2006 at 10:58 am
johnwk – I found some interesting comments on your blog post which mention:
The same person has a response to you on their blog at http://flashpoint.wordpress.com/2006/05/30/the-tax-troll-strikes/
and they appropriately named you the The Tax Troll in another post.
I must say, I live in the state of Tennessee. One of the few without a state income tax and using a consumption tax system which is very similar to the Fair Tax. It’s working in Tennessee and other states, so I have little doubt it would work on the national level.
I think we all respect your opinion, although you have a number of misconceptions. For example, you claim the Fair Tax would be more intrusion, when actually it would be far less intrusive than our current tax system. And we all understand that the 16th Amendment would need to be done away with, but that will need to be done after the Fair Tax is actually in place. Which is why it is suggested for review in HR 25.
You also mention it would increase the cost of American made goods, when the exact opposite is true. The cost for making goods would decrease once the overhead of employee taxation is removed. It would encorage companies to establish their business in the USA for any trade they do with the rest of the world. Keeping the USA as the business and financial leader in the world.
Also you feel that taxing states based on their representation in Congress when needed would force states’ Governors and Legislatures to keep a better eye on their Federal representatives. But you assume Governors and Legislatures would have the power to do something about a Federal representative. They do not. Your view is rooted in a means for selecting members of the US Senate that no longer exists. Once upon a time, state legislatures picked their US Senators. Back then the state legislature held some level of control over Federal representatives. That is not the case now, so your idea would not work, unless the 17th Amendment was done away with. So in your efforts to change America’s means of taxation you’d also need to explain to voters why they can no longer vote for their US Senators. And before we could vote for US Senators, there were other issues that created other problems with corporate influence at the state level influencing the US Senate. Now corporations must split their efforts of influence among state and federal officials, but the old method allowed them one easy method within the states.
No internal taxes is a nice goal although we know it’s not going to raise enough money. Your method of taxing states would not work as you expect, which would result in a mess, because of how Senators are now elected.
I think it’s time you brush up on your knowledge of the Fair Tax and join in as a supporter.
Given you like to troll I’m not sure you’ll ever read any of this, but I’m sure others will.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:04 am
Amazing, instead of making an attempt to refute the objections listed in MESSAGE TO FAIR TAX PARTICIPANTS you choose to create irrelevant arguments, call me names and level a personal attack upon my character.
I too live in a state with no tax on income, Florida, and to compare a state sales tax with H.R. 25 is laughable to say the least.
You assert I have a misconception that “the Fair Tax would be more intrusion, when actually it would be far less intrusive than our current tax system.”. But you forget to mention that nowhere in the language of H.R. 25 is Congress forbidden to lay excise taxes and then calculate the amount of tax to be paid from profits, gains, salaries and other “income”.
So, in fact, the misery now suffered under income taxation remains very much alive under H.R. 25, and, in addition, the American People would also have to abide by an additional rule book created under H.R. 25. This means two rule books to follow and two sets of records keeping. But all this is explained in my Message to Fair Tax Participants under
H.R. 25 CREATES NEW RULE BOOK IN ADDITION TO RULE BOOK FOR TAXES CALCULATED FROM INCOME
You also state that I
“…feel that taxing states based on their representation in Congress when needed would force states’ Governors and Legislatures to keep a better eye on their Federal representatives. But you assume Governors and Legislatures would have the power to do something about a Federal representative. They do not. Your view is rooted in a means for selecting members of the US Senate that no longer exists. Once upon a time, state legislatures picked their US Senators.”
You comment shows you have little understanding of our Constitution!
Our Constitution states:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.
Contrary to you suggestion, who elects Senators has nothing to do with the apportioned tax. The amount of tax each state is responsible for is based upon its number of Representatives, not Senators. Representatives are elected by the taxpayers. In addition, all bills for raising revenue are to originate in the House of Representatives.
My thinking is, the apportioned tax establishes a moment of accountability when Congress engages in reckless spending and borrowing.
What you fail to grasp is when Congress borrows to meet its pork expenditures, Congress is then required to lay the apportioned tax which, at the very least, extinguishes the deficit and prevents the national debt from increasing and mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.
The remaining question is, will the Governors of each state and state Legislators, along with property owners who will be burdened with an additional tax to extinguish the deficit created by Congress’ borrowing used to fund its pork, hold their reckless members of Congress accountable?
You suggest they wont be held accountable. I believe the direct tax creates a very real incentive for accountability to take place and they will be held accountable, and, taxpayers may even have tar and feather surprise parties waiting for their spendthrift members of Congress upon their return home after laying the apportioned tax.
I do not think the Governors and State Legislators who are stuck with having to transfer their state’s apportioned share of the apportioned tax from their state treasury into the United States Treasury, or laying an additional tax in their state to pay off their state`s apportioned share of a tax to extinguish a deficit created by Congress will go over very big. I think you need to focus on the consequences if Congress is required to lay the general apportioned tax to extinguish a deficit they created.
Regards,
JWK
July 1st, 2006 at 1:35 am
My response to you is a direct response to your statements. Call it whatever you wish, but the record is clear.
Some of the largest states in the Union have a sales tax instead of an income tax and it works. Your continued repetition of the possibility of income taxes should HR 25 become law is a matter everyone has noted and is why HR 25 mentions the 16 Amendment should be looked at in the effort to do away with it. If you’re going to continue repeating yourself and the same information this thread will close. (Or maybe I’ll just discontinue allowing YOU to repeat yourself.) Please come with some original thoughts, move on, else I’ll move you on.
Changing the tax code so that property owners are paying more is not going to result in your desired change. Property owners have more wealth on average and even now are paying a greater share of taxes. You are trying to play an interesting game of smoke and mirrors, but there’s no substance to your assumptions. Shifting the tax burden based on population, which would be the result is not going to work better.
Given property owners would carry more of the tax burden, do you also want to go back to the “original constitutional” method for voting as well? Where only property owners could vote? Because that’s what would need to happen to bring about your new view that property owners would hold Congress accountable. Otherwise the non-property owners will ensure their combined vote maintains a socialist state. So what do you do? Tax sales? Then you’re looking at the Fair Tax again my friend
.
Your positions are rooted in forms of election that no longer exists. So there is no way you would see your desired outcome.
July 1st, 2006 at 7:53 am
IndependentConservative wrote:
My response to you is a direct response to your statements. Call it whatever you wish, but the record is clear.
You bet the record is clear . . .H.R. 25 would violate our existing Constitution, just like the socialist income tax now violates our Constitution!
For details and documentation see:
FROM EACH STATE ACCORDING TO ITS ABILITY___ THE SOCIALIST H.R.25 TAX!
And:
SURPRISE, H.R. 25 is not a consumption tax!
It should also be noted that H.R. 25 proposes to create a massive redistribution tax plan under its family consumption entitlement. Heck, even the President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform identifies the family consumption allowance as an “entitlement” program…the largest entitlement program in America [if H.R. 25 should pass] costing about $ 600 billion per year which would make Hillary Health Care look like chicken feed!
The panel found in its conclusion:
“Like other consumption taxes, the full replacement retail sales tax has pro-retail growth features. Nevertheless, the Panel does not recommend a full replacement retail sales tax. Without a large cash grant program to ease the burden of the tax, a retail sales tax would not be appropriately progressive. A cash grant program to make the tax appropriately progressive would cost at least $600 billion per year – which would make it America’s largest entitlement program. The Panel concluded that it was inappropriate to recommend a tax reform proposal that required the federal government to collect and redistribute this amount in additional revenue from taxpayers.[/b] The Panel also was concerned with administrative and compliance issues associated with a retail sales tax, as well as difficulties involving coordination with existing state sales taxes.”
The unavoidable truth is, , the family consumption allowance entitles those who do not work for a living and contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance. Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; prostitutes and bookies and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but make babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. As a matter of fact the above would be getting an approximate $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25 for either breaking the law or sitting at home making babies. Why on earth would a freedom loving American support H.R. 25?
The family consumption allowance happens to be a socialist windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and, would be a gift to Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress who would gladly promise to increase the family consumption allowance during elections to buy votes and remain in power!
Can you picture Ted Socialist Kennedy on the Senate Floor giving a speech to increase the family consumption allowance to offset the tax on the necessities of life?
How dare those who have imposed H.R. 25 on our nation’s poor, now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon other necessities of life under H.R. 25!
The family consumption allowance would create a new voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check. Why in the world would any freedom loving person support such a plan over our founding fathers original tax plan?
NEWSFLASH!
The ACLU filed a class action suit in federal court today on behalf of five hundred inmates in the Skunks Hollow County Jail who are demanding they receive the $400. per month family consumption allowance under H.R. 25 to offset the 23 percent tax they pay on articles purchased at their jailhouse commissary, and pay on other articles purchased through the mail.
A spokesman for the ACLU claimed the family consumption allowance being excluded to inmates under a provision of H.R. 25, simply because they are in jail, is a violation of equal protection of the law.
The Judge, Lefty Leftotwit, told the Attorney General who is defending the exclusion of the allowance to inmates, that he is inclined to rule in favor of the inmates and sees no reason why inmates should be subject to different tax law simply because they are inmates. The Constitution requires the uniformity of such taxes and until the Constitution is amended, he stated, his hands are bound by the Constitution and it appears each inmate is entitled to the $400 per month allowance.
Judge Leftotwit gave the Attorney General two weeks to prepare a brief as to why federal tax law should apply differently in this case.
Rumors were afloat that a lawyer named Boortz was being contacted by the Attorney General to assist in the case.
Regards,
JWK ___ a proud supporter of our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX REFORM PLAN
July 1st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I guess you’ve given up on trying to defend the plan you proposed, given you’ve avoided my prior post by trying to turn the discussion to another aspect of the Fair Tax. The rebate allows people the ability to buy necessities tax free. I’ve got no problem with that.
All your talk about Kennedy and the ACLU is nothing put fear mongering speculation. If we who support the Fair Tax are successful, then we’ll certainly have enough political leverage to hold off abuse of the rebate.
Have a look at the Cato Institute’s analysis of the Fair Tax. Their analysis is something you need to read. In summary, after they give pages of detail, they say this of the rebate.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:31 pm
John, calling you The Tax Troll is not a “personal attack upon [your] character.” You troll the internet looking for message boards so that you can post your pseudo-coherent tax rant. Be definition you are a tax troll. If someone calls you a poo-poo head, then that is an unwarranted and unnecessary personal attack. Calling a person who tries to hit a hard, white ball with a wooden stick a baseball player is also not a personal attack – it is simply calling a spade a spade.
OK, John, when you are trying to argue your point it is best to not look like a crazy person. The income tax, however despicable it may be, has been upheld as constitutional time and time again. If it is unconstitutional then why does it still exist? Certainly you as a tax payer (I assume you are at least honest) would have legal standing to challenge it in court. For further, and much more articulate, legal rebuttals to your wacky claims one could follow this thread on Quatloos.
Why will the JWK tax plan not fly? For starters it is predicated on the notion that we forget the past 200+ years of history and change in our society. Whether you like it or not, we are part of the global economy and have entered into LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL treaties to establish increasingly open trade policies. Your plan would unravel all of that and make the U.S. a trading pariah. Other countries would create retaliatory taxes against our exports, which hurts American manufacturers. The entire rest of the world would flourish under open trade policies while the U.S. would be left behind. Great plan!
Furthermore, it is disingenuous to call the JWK tax plan the “Founding Fathers” tax plan. You have very carefully based your notion of their intended tax plan on a small percentage of the Founders. If that were really their intended plan then why didn’t they codify it somehow? I’ll answer that for you: BECAUSE IT WASN’T THEIR PLAN! You have every right to peddle your own woefully unsupported tax plan, but at least call it the JWK plan or the “Left Behind Tax Reform Plan” because that is where America will be if you had your way: left behind.
July 1st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
In response to IndependentConservative___ post 7.
Now I’m accused of “fear mongering speculation” because I point to the $600 BILLION entitlement which H.R. 25 would create [its family consumption allowance] ___ an entitlement which would create a voting constituency more powerful than our nation’s retirees who are now on social security and dependant upon a monthly government check for their subsistence. And you pretend our socialists in Congress will not use your family consumption allowance to keep themselves in power? You assert such a logical conclusion is speculation?
Seems to me our socialist pal, Senator Kennedy, was just giving the speech I offered above last week when attempting to have the socialist minimum wage increased. No speculation here pal.
Tell me, were we not warned in the Federalist papers that a control over a man’s subsistence amounts to a control over their will? And you want to extend federal subsistence to every household in America via your family consumption allowance?
It’s amazing how you have enter the conversation above by first attacking me as a “tax troll”, using valuable bandwidth to assault my character, and went on to make irrelevant comments about my web page, rather than offering well thought out rebuttals to my objections to H.R. 25.
In addition, contrary to your above suggestion, I do not propose a “plan”, but rather, I support a return to our founding father’s original tax reform plan which is defended by historical facts. For example, the Founder’s Plan worked so well that by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
As I previously pointed out, H.R. 25 would subjugate one of the most important compromises agreed upon during the Convention of 1787 ___ the rule of apportionment. Just like present “income taxation” subjugates that rule, H.R. 25 would likewise subjugate the agreed upon rule which was intended to guarantee that each of the various states, when called upon to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury, would contribute in proportion to their voting strength in Congress Assembled___ a rule which socialists and the friends of big government fear with a passion because the rule guarantees that the states contributing the largest share into the federal treasury, would likewise have the largest say-so in how their money would be spent!
Those interested in pursuing the words of our founding fathers during the Convention with regard to the rule by which the states agreed to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury may want to read Republican tax reform attacks federalism,free market, and promotes democracy!, or, they may go directly to Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787 and click on the dates mentioned in the above cited article.
The bottom line is, the above historical record documents how the rule by which the various states agreed to contribute into the common treasury under the Articles of Confederation was changed from a tax based upon wealth, to a tax which tied representation and taxation together, and, the documentation exposes H.R. 25 for what it really is___ a clever variation of taxation calculated from wealth, property and financial success as practiced under the Articles of Confederation___ a political philosophy advocating, from each state according to its ability, rather than an equal per capita tax apportioned among the states.
Regards,
JWK
ACRS
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?” —Justice Story
July 1st, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Well johnwk I’m glad you are responding although we disagree and you do “troll” boards. I hope you don’t avoid Brian’s comments.
Your plan is not workable in the modern world. The Fair Tax with the rebate is. The rebate is not an amount that would give someone enough to live off without working. So I think your comparisons to welfare and social security are a bit off base.
You claim the current income tax “violates our Constitution”. See the 16 Amendment. It is IN OUR CONSTITUTION, so it does not violate it. And the Fair Tax would not violate it either. This is why the ability to amend the constitution exists. So that things like systems of taxation could be modified as needed.
If your plan is so great and workable in the modern world, how come you can’t seem to find anyone with an ounce of respectability to endorse it today? Where is your endorsement from Cato? Where are the rallies to promote your plan? Where are the lines of people to support you? Where are the tax scholars backing you? While everyone is talking about the Fair Tax, even we ordinary citizens are ignoring your idea. johnwk, everyone and I mean everyone is ignoring you. Because we all know your plan is no good.
You really are trolling boards promoting your plan and being rejected at every turn. Because no other doors are open to you, other than Internet boards anyone can register to comment on.
That should tell you something.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Still can’t get away from the name calling can you? As to Brian’s above comments, most are unsubstantiated open ended personal opinions…nothing more. And his assertion that I do not promote our founding father’s plan is refuted by the documentation I provided above concerning the rule of apportionment.
You suggest the founder’s plan in not workable in today’s world, but, do not provide any specific provisions of the founder’s plan and a rational as to why those provision(s) would not work in today’s world.
You pretend the family consumption allowance is a “rebate“, but for those who do not work for a living, such as stay at home welfare moms and thugs who steal other people’s money, it is not a “rebate” because they do not contribute into the common treasury__ that is, they do not contribute unless you consider spending money stolen from someone else, or paying a tax from a welfare check is contributing into the common treasury from which a “rebate” is then returned.
The $400 plus per month family consumption allowance entitlement check would in fact make an overwhelming portion of our population quite dependent upon government for their subsistence because the average wage earner earns about $37,000 per year.
As to current taxation being constitutional or not, there is no provision in our Constitution allowing “direct taxes” to be laid without apportionment. Taxes on property are direct taxes and must be apportioned among the states by the rule of apportionment. Excise taxes, such as the Corporate excise tax of 1909, laid upon the privilege of being a corporation and calculated from profits, gains, and other “income” are indirect taxes and do not require apportionment as was upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
But the 16th Amendment most certainly did not nullify the apportionment clause requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the states! For example, see:
BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
in which the Court states, well after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and in crystal clear language: “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”
Likewise, the Court stated the same in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) Here, the Court discusses the 16th Amendment and also defines the definition of the word income as it appears in the 16th Amendment and goes on to emphasize something else concerning the 16th Amendment:
“A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”
The tax described in H.R. 25 is not within the definition of an excise tax as the founding fathers understood and applied such a tax. The tax described in H.R. 25 is a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury laid upon property and requires an apportionment….it is the very kind of general tax discussed during the Convention during which time the rule of apportionment was agreed to and then again agreed to by the ratification of the Constitution.
You seem to be overjoyed that “everyone is talking about” H.R. 25 including ordinary working people, as if that is confirmation it will benefit America’s domestic businesses industries and labor. But everyone was also talking about the 16th Amendment prior to its adoption, including the friends of big government and socialists who lied to small business owners and working people as to what the 16th Amendment would accomplish. Apparently the same group of people have not learned from their historical mistakes.
As to who supports the founding father’ plan and the apportioned tax among the states? I suggest you read Constitution Party National Platform
Regards,
JWK
“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.” —Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
July 1st, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Not only have me and Brian already mentioned why we feel your proposed plan would not work, plenty of others have told you as well. Maybe you missed it, read the previous posts again and maybe you’ll see it. I’ll add that Brian’s thoughts about your proposal creating a trading nightmare are accurate. Once upon a time rich people living in the USA had to endure high tariffs because they could not easily travel to avoid such. Today they can easily travel to avoid terribly high tariffs. Also given America is now the lead exporter in the world, high tariffs in America would cause others to impose the same, which would ultimately hurt American businesses. That was not the case during the time of the “founders”, because then Europe was leading in terms of exports. Your system is based on an old marketing system, where America was in a totally different position and global business was in a totally different state than it is today.
You claim that your concept is the “founders tax system” and you may be a member of the Constitution Party, that agrees with you. However, the America First Party promotes the “founder’s tax system”, agrees with your idea about tariffs, but they also support the Fair Tax, which they say reflects the founders’ intent. See their position here.
No I’m not a member of that part or any other. However just as you feel the Fair Tax does not reflect the founders’ intent, plenty of others feel just the opposite.
You’ve cited some case law regarding the 16th Amendment, but you failed to cite the final outcome, which is that in the end the current tax system has been ruled to be legal and Constitutional.
The framer’s view on taxation was formulated in a totally different world from what exists today. Now, the Fair Tax would work best for the nation that is the world’s business leader. It would encourage more companies to be here instead of in other nations. This is good for America’s economy. The Constitution Party’s view and probably your own is that taxing businesses is appropriate, but that discourages growth in a time where companies can easily establish themselves in other nations. Your idea was once a good one, but unfortunately today’s realities prevent it from being the best plan now.
I think the Constitution Party promotes some good Conservative values, but I disagree with you on taxation.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:53 pm
IndependentConservative wrote:
“Not only have me and Brian already mentioned why we feel your proposed plan would not work, plenty of others have told you as well. Maybe you missed it . . . No I’m not a member of that part or any other. However just as you feel the Fair Tax does not reflect the founders’ intent, plenty of others feel just the opposite.”
Your continued references to Brian are funny to say the least. Just for your information he appears to stalk me around the internet and left an adolescent comment on my web page which had nothing to do with discussing the issue of tax reform. In addition, he also asserted he was interested in discussing tax reform in a “frank and productive” manner. I invited him to such a discussion at The Sierra Times, A message to fair tax rally participants!
He did show up on page four of the discussion under the screen name aurburn305, and one of his pals, boortzland, also joined the discussion a couple of days ahead of Brian. To date, both have been quick to offer a wide variety of opinions, but neither have refuted any of my well documented presentations.
You seem to have the same thing in common with brian and boortzland, a lot of assertions, opinions, and “feelings”.
Well, feelings are irrelevant in a discussion about the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. What is relevant is providing documentation confirming the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. You see, one of the most fundamental rules of our constitutional system is to abide by the intentions and beliefs of those who framed and ratified our constitution as they may be documented from the historical record. Those in America who ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and pretend the Constitution may mean whatever the “feel” it should mean, are domestic enemies of our system of government because they ignore one of its most fundamental rules___ carrying out the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was ratified as they may be documented from the historical record.
I have provided irrefutable documentation in Republican tax reform attacks federalism,free market, and promotes democracy! that H.R. 25 violates the agreed upon rule by which the various states, under the Constitution, agreed to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury. Our founding fathers agreed to change the rule from a tax based upon wealth, to a general tax among the states which tied representation and taxation together. Each state agreed to pay a general tax based upon its voting strength which would insure that those states paying the lions share of the tax burden to fund the Constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government, would likewise have a proportional voice in how their money would be spent.
H.R. 25 ignores this important rule. H.R. 25, just as income taxation [ a Marxist type of tax], seeks to intentionally calculate the amount of tax to be paid from wealth, property and financial success ___ a political philosophy advocating from each state according to its ability, rather than an equal per capita tax apportioned among the states as the founding fathers intended and the various states agreed by their ratification of our Constitution.
Why do you promote a plan which would, just as income taxation now does, undermine and subjugate our founding fathers rule for a general tax among the states?
Seems to me if you are a sincere supporter of our Constitution, you would, at the very least, demand a provision to be attached to H.R. 25 requiring the rule of apportionment to be observed when laying the tax among the states. And, without such a rule being applied to the tax, you could not support H.R. 25 as it violates this important rule.
Regards,
JWK
“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” _____Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:37 pm
johnwk – At this point the discussion has become circular in nature.
You have a view that you “feel” is the original intent of the founders. I’ve shown you that others who “feel” the exact same way disagree with you on the Fair Tax.
The bottom line is this. You feel the words of the founders are gospel and to you they are a form of deity. I base my views on what actually will work for the given conditions within the provided set of rules. I feel, yes “feel” the Constitution can be and has been appropriately amended regarding taxation and you do not. The appropriate authoritative bodies already have agreed with me and not you. Which is why the current tax system still exists. I “feel” the Fair Tax is better plus Constitutional and have supported those feelings with facts you’ve chosen to claim do not exists. While you “feel” otherwise and have stated your reasons for your position. To me your view is not rooted in current real world economics, but your view of what “the founders said”. While their positions on the matter were based on the real world economics of 200+ years ago.
You are repeating yourself and I would only end up repeating myself, because there is nothing more to be added to this discussion. So johnwk, farewell. I’m cutting you off at this point because I will not spend any more time on what has become a circular debate.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Final point. Here is why I call your plan the JWK plan, not the Founders’ plan. You base the vast sum of your opinions on the Federalist Papers. While they are great, they only represent the views of three men – only two of which were actually signatories of our Constitution. Forty men signed our Constitution. If your plan is truly the Founders’ plan then you should use more than 5% of the people who signed the Constitution as references.
By the way, you can’t cherry pick court findings that you happen to agree with while you deride the ones you don’t like. You have a tenuous grasp of our Constitutional process if you don’t understand that the courts are the final arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional – NOT YOU!
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:13 pm
I wonder if I’m the only Conservative in the world who ever found some value in a single page of the Anti-Federalist Papers? While the Federalist Papers are a great body of work used by those who pressed for Federalism, there were detractors who did have good counter-point about the structure of our judiciary. THEY WERE THE ONES who said that our structure gave too much power to the Judiciary and we would be in the court ruled mess we have today.
Look at what they said in Antifederalist No. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1).
While so much focus is put on the Federalist Papers, johnwk would probably find some value in the Anti-Federalist Papers. But you see, I don’t look at these “founding fathers” as gods. And I don’t take membership in a political party. So I can read both sides of the argument
. I won’t say I’d want a nation ruled by the Antifederalists, but on the judiciary I wish somebody had taken them more seriously.