Fox News, stop complaining about taxes and deficits __ offer a remedy, e.g., the FSBBA

.

It really is irritating to hear Fox News personalities constantly complaining about federal taxation, 87,000 new IRS Agents, and out-of-control deficit spending without offering a solution.

One solution which appears in the Congressional Record [1995-6 Hearings on “REPLACING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX”] is The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment. The following is its wording with editorial explanations.

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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed, and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any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!

“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 direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.

“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.”

In reference to the above Section see: FIRST DIRECT TAX LAID BY CONGRESS, 1798

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 ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then everybody taxpayer across the United States pays the exact same amount!

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
.

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

The economic impacts of such laws and amendments would bring the end of the US as an economic power.

Austerity never works.

Never.

4 Likes

I am curious to know how you arrive at that conclusion since our Constitution’s original tax plan encouraged an America First policy and did in fact pave the way for the United States to become the economic marvel of the world.

One example of our Constitution’s original tax plan being used to promote an America first policy is our founding fathers imposing an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

“…a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof.” SEE: An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789

This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America’s ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet.

Having actually study historical documentation concerning our founder’s intentions with regard to taxation, and the economic effects of our Constitution’s original tax plan, I can say with certainty that your above stated opinion is not grounded in historical facts. Seems to me somewhere along the line you have formed your opinions based on propaganda intentionally spread to put the wisdom and brilliance our Constitution’s original tax plan in an underserved and unfavorable light.

JWK

Why does the Democrat Party Leadership reject an America First Policy, and embrace importing millions of other country’s poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations of other countries into the United States?

The early years of the Republic made a lot of money by selling land on the frontier for settlement.

Also… they have been dead for a couple of centuries. We the living get to decide.

1 Like

image

1 Like

it’s not up to fox to offer a solution, but they are mostly a small govt channel. The answer is cut govt. If high taxes solved anything Cal would be a paradise with perfectly paved roads. But it’s not. It’s the poverty capital of the US because of the cost of living.

3 Likes

Why do “liberals” want all agencies of govt to have an army or armed police. It’s just ODD… Obviously there is nothing “liberal” about the left…

2 Likes

We didn’t have a permanent federal income tax until 1913.

Because it was around the period of the late 1800’s into the early 1900’s that the US started to become a real global power. Being a hegemony is expensive.

The people did not want to be a global power. They wanted liberty. Woodrow and FDR lied about getting into the world wars. They said they would stay out when they ran for election.

1 Like

It’s 2022, not 1822.

Ok let’s not be a global power.

Predict what will happen to us.

Go into some detail.

2 Likes

I’ll give you Wilson but not FDR

This insane crap would end if the American People demanded to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan [The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment] which begins with the following words:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed, and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Situated as we are, straddling the 2 largest oceans in the world, how could we not be some sort of global power?

Nothing … Just because you don’t try to control the world does not mean you don’t have a strong defense. Look what happened under Trump. Peace was popping out all over. At least we all agree the left has always been for endless wars.

1 Like

Sure it was.

1 Like

This isn’t an answer.

It’s a massive oversimplification.

Would you like to try again?

(My guess is you love yourself some oversimplification…).

I have just one thing to say.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay, on average 3.5% of their income to the Federal Government.

That is actually a pretty ■■■■■■■ sweet deal for those taxpayers.

Why would any of those taxpayers, who constitute about a majority of taxpayers, want to trade that sweet deal for a more regressive form of taxation, say direct taxation or consumption based taxation???

I think you are going to have a lot more trouble digging up support for your proposed changes than you think.

The status quo benefits most people.

And if you can’t get public support for the OP proposal, it is a non-starter.

Which essentially has been the case in Congress. Proposals to repeal the 16th Amendment have gotten support basically from only a small fringe in Congress.

Why would the lower income half of the population decide to voluntarily screw themselves by throwing out the very sweet tax deal they have now???

:roll_eyes:

That is your argument against the brilliance and wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, and returning to it by adopting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

Seems to me the principles and provisions under which our Constitution’s original tax plan were adopted are as valid today as when the U.S. Constitution became effective in 1789

JWK