Sen. Baucus and Rep. Camp want public input on tax reform


#1

See: Lawmakers seek public support for tax overhaul

May 8, 2013

***WASHINGTON — The top two tax writers on Capitol Hill want to overhaul the federal tax code for the first time since 1986 and they are soliciting help from the public to help get it done. ***

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat, and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, a Republican, are launching a website Thursday – taxreform.gov – and a Twitter handle, @simplertaxes, aimed at inviting taxpayers to offer comments and complaints about how to change the tax code.

How about the following reform:

.** The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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

These words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hard working wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing a share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets.

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


#2

Camp about their new website and tax reform, and FoxNews got an emailed with the suggestion to have the apportioned tax? Baucus’ response was “I never heard that one before”. I guess he never read the Constitution which mentions the apportioned tax.

JWK

***“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”***3 Elliot’s 41 ___ PENDLETON during our Constitution’s ratification debates


#3

Either the apportioned or the FAIRTax.
But I doubt Bauchus has heard of that one, either.


#4

Just for the record and to establish the current disparity between some states and their guarantee to representation in Congress [electoral college votes] with proportional financial obligation, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the state of California has an overwhelming 55 electoral college votes compared to any of the other states mentioned.

For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 electoral college votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 electoral college votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why is this something for the people of Wyoming and 18 other States to be upset over? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation in Congress and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:

State`s Pop.

___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House

Pop. of U.S.

State`s pop.

_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

U.S. Pop

In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 electoral college votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California. And the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution turns out to be an equal per capita tax.

Why do our nations progressive nuts in California get to exercise 55 electoral votes and not be required to contribute their constitutionally mandated apportioned share of federal taxes relative to their big fat mouth in Congress when spending federal revenue?

JWK

***“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”***3 Elliot’s 41 ___ PENDLETON during our Constitution’s ratification debates


#5

Wyoming is the smallest state and can easily have its avg boosted by a wealthy few, even so the biggest state CA still manages to contribute 95% of the amount that Wyoming does. 5% difference is not what any reasonable person would call “far less”

I dont see what tax revenue has to do with representation. If you want to link it to federal funding fine, but saying that rich people should get more representation is just about one of the most anti-American ideas I have ever seen proposed.


#6

Well, since you do not see what federal taxation has to do with representation, the rule of apportioning both direct taxes and representation was part of the “Great Compromise” which was struck during the framing of our Constitution and made its ratification possible.

Our founders intentions behind the rule of apportionment was to insure that if indirect taxes which are voluntarily paid were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenses and Congress resorted to a direct tax to meet the deficiency, that each state’s share of a total sum being raised would be proportionately equal to their voting strength in Congress, i.e., ___Representation with proportional financial obligation.

Progressives and the friends of big government hate the rule of apportionment because it makes those States with the biggest mouth in Washington when voting to spend federal revenue to be responsible for a share of the tax burden proportionately equal to their big fat mouth. California is one of those states with a big fat mouth when spending federal revenue. Do you now get the drift? Progressives and the friends of big government love to spend money from our federal treasury, but when it comes time to filling the federal treasury they run and hide and shift the tax burden on America’s productive citizens. But instead of my continuing, let our founders educate you on the rule of apportionment.

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:***“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”***3 Elliot’s, 243,***“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”*** 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, ***“they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public.”***3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states with the largest representation in Congress are to contribute the lion’s share of any direct tax, Mr. PENDLETON says:

***“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”***3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

JWK

It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well connected in Washington.


#7

From your link the top 7 per capita states (also DC) are all solid blue, not to mention CA is over the national average for per capita taxes.


#8

You previously said you didn’t “see what tax revenue has to do with representation” I took the time to lay that out for you. Do you now know why the rule of apportionment was put into our Constitution? Have the people of California paid their apportioned share of federal taxes relative to their 55 electoral votes?

JWK

If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?


#9

You took the time to argue about fictional intent while ignoring the actual constitution. It plainly says in article 1 section 2 that representation is determined by the number of people. If anything your argument should be that the taxes be levied to reflect representation but I think the 16th amendment nullifies that.

Have the people of California paid their apportioned share of federal taxes relative to their 55 electoral votes?

If California is paying above the national average, which they are, then yes they are paying their share for their 55 votes.


#10

Well, I see we have a poster who takes great pride in ignoring the documented intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted and is intended to apply to both direct taxation and representation; ignores the fact that the 16th Amendment altered nothing with regard to direct taxation; and then goes on to falsely suggest the people of California have paid their apportioned share of federal taxes when in fact they were delinquent in paying their apportioned share relative to their big fat mouth in Congress as commanded by our Constitution.

JWK

The truth cannot be changed to what it is not!


#11

Thats true, but both were linked to the people. They were never linked together as you are suggesting.

ignores the fact that the 16th Amendment altered nothing with regard to direct taxation;

Yes it did

“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 or enumeration.”

and then goes on to falsely suggest the people of California have paid their apportioned share of federal taxes when in fact they were delinquent in paying their apportioned share relative to their big fat mouth in Congress as commanded by our Constitution.

If California is above the national average how are they not paying their share? Shouldn’t you be whining about places like Arizona, Florida and Georgia; a combined 56 EVs and all below the national average


#12

The 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913. After the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which I might add does not mention “direct taxes” nor suggests a repeal requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, the Court has repeatedly held direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

For example, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated with regard to the 16th Amendment:

“[T]his 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…This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

And a few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Even Justice Roberts acknowledged direct taxes are still required to be apportion when he stated in the Obama case:

A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

JWK

Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.Margaret Thatcher


#13

Well, isn’t this interesting? Senator Max Baucus was the one behind getting the IRS to investigate patriotic groups. And now that he has been caught and identified as the culprit, he is throwing the IRS under the bus and calling for the IRS to be investigated. See: Congress Put Pressure on the IRS to Investigate Conservative Tax-Exempt Groups

***Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, called on the IRS in 2010 to investigate tax-exempt groups, writing the IRS commissioner that September to request that the agency “survey major 501©(4), ©(5) and ©(6) organizations involved in political campaign activity to examine whether they are operated for the organization’s intended tax exempt purpose and to ensure that political campaign activity is not the organization’s primary activity.” He said his request was prompted by news reports about the organizing efforts of conservative groups.

“Possible violation of tax laws should be identified as you conduct this study,” Baucus wrote. “Please report back to the Finance Committee as soon as possible with your findings and recommended actions regarding this matter.” ***

And this two faced piece of dirt, often referred to as the “author” of ObamaCare, a raving progressive, is calling for public input on tax reform? Hey Baucus, was this part of your plan to identify those who want to end the experiment with taxes calculated from “incomes” and have the 16th amendment repealed in order to put an end to folks like you using the collection of taxes on “incomes” as a political weapon?

JWK

Reaching across the aisle is Washington Newspeak for a bipartisan agreement to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.


#14

Income tax is a direct tax, that is the issue at hand, and is not required to be apportioned


#15

The Constitution does not grant power to lay and collect an “Income tax”. It grants power to Congress to lay and collect taxes on “incomes” with the restriction that doing so does not take the form of a direct tax. Did you not read what was stated in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), and more recently, what was stated in the Obamacare opinion? The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

What do you think of Max Baucus being the one who asked the IRS to investigate conservative groups? And now he throws the IRS under the bus and calls for their investigation for doing what he asked them to do?

JWK

***No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. *** Article 1, Section 9, United States Constitution.


#16

Eisner v Macomber was a narrow ruling that only applied to stock dividends and Bromley v McCaughn had to do with the gift tax, both are completly irreverent


#17

They both involved taxing income. You bring nothing of substance to this conversation. And I see you did not ansswer the following question: What do you think of Max Baucus being the one who asked the IRS to investigate conservative groups? And now he throws the IRS under the bus and calls for their investigation for doing what he asked them to do?

JWK

They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create


#18

Now I find out that seven Democrat Senators sent a letter to the IRS a couple years back to investigate 501©(4) groups for political campaign activity, and especially if they were engaging in opposing any candidate. The seven Democrat Senators are Schumer, Franken, Udall, Shaheen, Whitehouse, Merkley and Bennet. And we want these clowns to investigate the IRS?

What is needed is to repeal the 16th Amendment with the following words:

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

These words, if adopted, would return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate! And, they would end our federal government using the collection of taxes calculated from incomes as a weapon. The words would also end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hard working wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing a share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets.

We need to follow the wisdom of our founders with regard to direct taxation!***“History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not.”***___ Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes, January 18th, 1797.

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.


#19

I bring the constitution, thats all I need

And I see you did not ansswer the following question: What do you think of Max Baucus being the one who asked the IRS to investigate conservative groups? And now he throws the IRS under the bus and calls for their investigation for doing what he asked them to do?

I didnt see the purpose of the question, but what I think of him is the same as I thought of him before, a self serving hypocrite, and how the red state of Montana ever elected that idiot is beyond me.


#20

And you ignore that part which states: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

JWK

***If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. *** FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., April 8, 1895