Republicans against fair tax system
So Democrats and Republicans are arguing over tax relief. DFL Senator Larry Pogemiller wants to get rid of the marriage penalty and fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is hurting more and more middle-class taxpayers. In order to make the proposal revenue-neutral, he recommended increasing taxes on the top wage earners in the state.
Republicans say raising taxes isn't necessary because there's a "surplus", but they also admit that the surplus isn't big enough to deal with the marriage penalty and the AMT. Besides, given how small the surplus is, making it revenue neutral isn't a bad idea anyway.
So why are Republicans against this? Why, indeed. Once upon a time, I wrote about how the richest in this state don't pay their fair share in taxes. Pogemiller's plan would flatten the hump paid by the middle class while slightly increasing the amount paid by the top earners; in short, it would make that graph flatter. Which means fairer. What's the problem with this?
posted by MN Politics Guru @ 21:15
6 Comments:
I'm tired of hearing about the "marriage penalty." Choosing to tax married people slightly more than than they would pay if single is smart policy -- it maintains "fairness" in taxation. Married people share expenses and have significantly lower costs-of-living.
Now, taxing cohabitants as if they were married, that's something I can get behind.
Enjoy criticizing/questioning the FairTax while you can...they are trying to take that away from you...
The Americans For Fair Taxation (fairtax.org) are on a mission to squash out any public criticism of the FairTax plan and are attempting to exploit the federal trademark system for the ADMITTED purpose of being able to shut down anti-FairTax websites during the upcoming elections. They have an open application to obtain a service mark for the word "FairTax." Genie Hayes, the communications director for AFFT, openly admitted to both my husband and me that the goal of AFFT is to get this service mark and be able to yank any anti-FairTax websites as well as to have total control over any shirts, bumper stickers, or anything of that nature that is printed with the word FairTax. They are attempting to get the strong arm of the federal government to back them up in hindering free speech and open/honest debate.
The FairTax is promising to become a rather prominent issue in the upcoming Congressional elections--and if AFFT succeeds in obtaining this service mark, they are going to be in an excellent position to keep people from criticizing the FairTax Act.
The time for opposition to their application is fast approaching. I know that an application for a service mark can't be opposed just because the applicant's motive is unethical. However, I do believe that there is a very STRONG case that AFFT doesn't meet the legal requirements for obtaining a service mark. The strongest argument is all around us--the phrase "Fairtax" is SYNONYMOUS with H.R. 25 and the Fair Tax Plan.
Unfortunately, as it stands right now, I think they'll win their service mark and they'll be on the road to having the power to tell people that they cannot participate in public debate regarding H.R. 25. Perhaps, at least, the public will be informed of this attempt to filter open and honest critiques.
Thank you for your time,
Jessica Gullett
Fair Tax? Did you say "Fair Tax" Representative John Linder?
Sorry to disagree with you but H.R. 25 is not a "fair tax", at least not according to our Constitution! As a matter of fact, H.R. 25 proposes to subjugate our Constitution’s agreed upon fair share formula articulated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 for a fair tax among the states to fill the national treasury! Unfortunately, not too many people in America are aware of our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
That formula may be expressed as follows:
STATE’S POPULATION divided by TOTLA U.S. POPULATION multiplied by SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE OF TAX
The agreed upon formula amounts to an equal per capita tax among the states. Our Founding Fathers agreed that if Congress were unable to raise sufficient revenue from imposts duties and excise taxes and found it necessary to lay a general tax among the States to fill the national treasury, and laid the general tax, if each person living in New York paid one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share under the Constitution‘s fair share formula, each person living in Delaware would likewise only have to pay one dollar if each person in Delaware contributed to meet their state’s apportioned share.
NOTE: In the event Congress found it necessary to lay the above mentioned tax, our founding fathers intended to leave the states at liberty to raise their share of the tax in their own chosen way. But if any state refused or neglected to pay their share, Congress was then intended to Assess & Levy such States proportion together with Interest thereon.
Contrary to our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states, Representative Linder’s H.R. 25 proposes to calculate each states contribution in a general tax among the states from the value of real and personal property within each state, and would place the lions’ share of the federal tax burden on the most productive and industrious states ___exactly what our founding fathers debated during the Convention of 1787 and intended to provide protection against in that our founding fathers provided a fair share formula requiring those states paying the lions share of the tab, would also exercise a proportionate voting strength in Congress equal to their contribution…representation with proportional obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government hate with a passion.
In 1895 the Supreme Court of the United States in a case carefully documenting the founding fathers intentions, POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), struck down an Act of Congress to lay a general tax among the states calculated from income realized from property. The language of the Act stated:
"there shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and every person residing therein, whether said gains, profits, or income be derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, a tax of two per centum on the amount so derived over and above four thousand dollars, and a like tax shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing without the United States."
But the Court correctly ruled that earnings realized from property, if calculated into a federal tax, were direct, and if laid by Congress, required Congress to apportion the tax among the states in compliance with the Constitution’s fair share formula [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3]!
Socialists in America and the friends of big government disgruntled with the decision of the Supreme Court, went on to work very hard during the early 1900’s to override the rule of apportionment with regard to Congress calculating a tax from “income“. Their prize was the socialist 16th Amendment adopted in 1913:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”
Now they are back, again under the guise of “fair taxation“, and want to establish a new tax in America, a 23 percent tax calculated from the value of property, real and personal, in addition to Congress calculating taxes from “income”, and they want Congress to lay such a tax without abiding by the rule of apportionment, just like they did with a tax calculated from “income“.
Just goes to show you how socialists and the friends of big government never sleep___ always scheming up new ways to feed off the wealth and success of the most productive and hard working citizens under the guise of “fair” taxation, but in truth and substance work to subjugate our Constitution’s fair share formula!
HERE IS A LIST of members of Congress who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula.
Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution:
“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“
See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff and gobblygoo, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship, keep the tools of tax oppression alive in Congress' hands and entrench our nation with more socialism and big government…it only takes 32 words for the people of America to re-establish a fair system of taxation, our FOUNDER‘S ORIGINAL PLAN, which would also gain control of a runaway Congress!
Regards,
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] 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).
“THOSE WHO CHOSE PARENTS WISELY MAY TAKE CREDIT FOR SUCCESS; OTHERWISE, IT’S ALL FORTUNE.”wlf
The Fair Tax is another method used to further enrich the wealthy and change our government into an aristocracy.
If a family is bringing in millions of dollars and purchases only necessities, its Power grows rapidly. After it accumulates a large amount it can purchase vast capital (machinery, land, buildings) at once and have true Power over many people. That is an oligarchy, which can turn into an aristocracy. Inheritance to those who do not deserve such largesse promulgates that dangerous threat to our form of government. As clearly shown by George W Bush, inheritors can wreak terrible damage on this country.
Progressive taxation has a prime purpose of keeping the wealth gap at a reasonable level to prevent revolution by those left out. That is obviously seen in our criminal class, which, due to most citizens’ greed and selfishness, live the only way they know how, as predators.
If you want a country of serfs and masters, then work for the ‘Fair Tax.’ It will arrive quickly.
Regards,
William L. Fell, P.E. (Citizen)
268 Barnett Rd;
Nicholson, GA 30565
706-614-9743
wmfel@yahoo.com
I am not sure that the two people who left the previous comments are reading the same bill that I read. The fair tax actually does, in my opinion, divide the wealth equally according to the population. I mean think about it, the states that have more people will sell more and therefore the amount of tax collected in that state will be more than in a state with fewer people.
Second, the fair tax does not tax "property" as far as I can tell. It ONLY taxes new purchases. So used homes/cars are now exempt from tax. Third, aristocracy is definitely not going to happen. Spend 5 min with a rich person and then try to explain to me how their ego will allow them to "just buy what they need" and store all the other money away. Don't get me wrong...I do not think every rich person is like Donald Trump. However, even the most humble and giving rich people I have met have their fair share of new cars, HDTV's, and other gadgets. I mean they have to get new golf clubs every year don't they. So don't be so nieve to think that everyone is going to stop buying things just to save money. Especially since prices will remain unchanged for the most part due to the removal of the Embedded Corporate income tax.
If the rich only buy the necessities and save up to buy industry or whatever, they would still have to pay the fair tax when they spend the money. Get it? Everyone can save 'pre tax' dollars. You only pay tax when you spend it. No spend No tax.
Post a Comment
<< Home