Change My Mind - Abolish IRS, Establish Fair Tax

[johnwk2]

@zantax

@johnwk2

Getting back to the subject of the thread, why abolish the IRS and adopt the FairTax?

I personally would need to see a constitutional amendment forbidding income taxes to support, otherwise I guarantee we end up with both

And that is one of the very reasons why I support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with the following words and would acctually accomplish what the alleged fairtax fraudulently advertises.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from sales, profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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 the property each has in their own labor, not to mention they would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

JWK

[STODR]

Then why did you even ask the question and argue about the answer.

[zantax]

@STODR

Then why did you even ask the question and argue about the answer.

Rhetorical question

[johnwk2]

@STODR

It is in there. Has a deadline. If not done in certain time frame fair tax goes away.

The “sunset provision” is laughable at best. If, after a seven-year period and the “fair tax” has been in operation for that period of time, and the 16th Amendment is not repealed, the fairtax will allegedly be ended by Congress.

That reminds me of Wimpy

Wimpy 'I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today '

Additionally, even if the 16th Amendment were removed from our Constitution, Congress would still maintain the power to lay and collect excise taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes as was done under the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 and was upheld by the Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) in which the Supreme Court confirmed Congress had power to lay and collect a tax calculated from profits and gains (income) without having to apportion the tax.

JWK

[STODR]

So stop bitching nothing can ever be done. All your wall of texts are a waste if nothing can be done.

[johnwk2]

To the contrary! What the alleged FairTax fraudulently advertises “can be done” under the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

[STODR]

So just like gop vrs Dems. Na ah my plan is better

[johnwk2]

No. Our Constitution’s original tax plan, as it was intended to operate, is "better".

JWK

When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.

[conan]

Meanwhile 60 percent of Americans want congress to repeal 87 billion IRS increase. 28 percent said no and 12 percent said not sure.

National Survey – 87,000 IRS Agents – Trafalgar Group

[STODR]

Dude. That is laughable. “You have to have a balance budget but if you don’t you can raise taxes to pay for it.” The basics of your plan.

"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.”

[johnwk2]

@STODR

Dude. That is laughable. “You have to have a balance budget but if you don’t you can raise taxes to pay for it.” The basics of your plan.

"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.”

It’s not my plan. Seven of our Constitution’s State Ratification documents express the following legislative intent.

“Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-“ Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788

And HERE is an example of the apportioned direct tax being laid by Congress and each state’s fair share of the $3MILLION being raised:

[STODR]

You endorse it. Giving blanket authority to raise taxes because “opps we didn’t bring in enough money”

[zantax]

@STODR

You endorse it. Giving blanket authority to raise taxes because “opps we didn’t bring in enough money”

They already have that authority

[johnwk2]

I support our Constitution and its documented legislative intent.

The apportioned direct tax mentioned above was used a number of times, e.g.:

The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

The Act of Aug. 2, 1813, c. 37, 3 id. 53. By this act the tax was imposed upon real estate and slaves, according to their respective values in money.

The Act of Jan. 19, 1815, c. 21, id. 164. This act imposed the tax upon the same descriptions of property, and in like manner as the preceding act.

The Act of Feb. 27, 1815, c. 60, id. 216, applied to the District of Columbia the provisions of the Act of Jan. 19, 1815.

The Act of Aug. 5, 1861, c. 45, 12 id. 294, required the tax to be levied wholly on real estate.

Look, I can only provide you with historical documentation confirming the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment would re-establish the intentions and beliefs under which the various States ratified the Constitution.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

[STODR]

I understand that is my point nothing changes with his plan.

[STODR]

Which changes nothing from what is done today. Need more money raise taxes.

[tnt]

It’s not 87k it’s agents.

[tnt]

A better simpler plan is to tax all income the same.

We could lower the rebates significantly and simplify the tax code if we just did that.

[zantax]

@tnt

A better simpler plan is to tax all income the same.

We could lower the rebates significantly and simplify the tax code if we just did that.

I am sure you won’t mind when your 401k takes a huge hit. The difference between capital gains and income is risk, there will be far fewer people willing to take that risk at such an elevated rate. I know I would ditch my entire portfolio

[conan]

@tnt

It’s not 87k it’s agents.

You’re right…it’s 80 billion for IRS for 87 thousand extra agents.