The big lie __ Republican Leadership is working on tax reform


#1

The truth is, our Republican Party Leadership is working on tax manipulation, not reform!

When it comes to tax reform you can bet your bottom dollar our Washington Swamp Creatures [Republican and Democrats alike] want nothing to do with tax reform which would actually alter the manner in which federal revenue is raised. What our Republican Swamp Creatures and fake news media personalitites falsely claim is “tax reform”, is nothing more than a plan to manipulate the existing method of laying and collecting taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages tips and other “incomes”, and it would create a whole new set of winners and losers using this type of tax.


Keep in mind, under Kevin Brady’s so called “tax reform”, we still wind up with a direct unequal tax upon individuals and businesses which is calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” ___ a tax system allowing our federal government to create privileged classes exempt from taxation; a tax which can, and has been used as a weapon by notoriously evil politicians to harass and punish political foes; a tax system allowing corrupt politicians to require taxpayers to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives; a tax which has allowed our federal government from one Congress to another to micro manage our lives and businesses and place the heel of an oppressive government on the necks of America's most productive citizens and business owners, which in fact has resulted in our current repressive state of affairs.


President Trump may very well have his heart in the right place when it comes to “tax reform”, but he is being conned by slithering snakes like Kevin Brady, Paul Ryan and Mitchell McConnell who have no intention to end the authoritarian system of federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” ___ a system of taxation which has proven to be a tool of corrupt politicians and is destructive to our nation’s general welfare and prosperity.


Unlike our Founders who wanted America’s market place to be used to fill our national treasury using specific taxes laid upon articles of consumption ___ a kind of tax which is limited by the purchase of such articles, making it a “self-regulating” tax ___ and across-the-board imposts and duties at our water’s edge such as tonnage taxes, and if necessary a direct apportioned tax to extinguish deficits should Congress find impost, duties and excise taxes insufficient during the course of a fiscal year, Brady, Ryan and McConnell have joined forces with the Democrat Party Leadership to keep alive the notoriously evil system of income taxation, which is a primary source of power used by Washington sewer rats to reward donors, punish enemies, redistribute wealth which America’s labor, businesses and investors have worked to produce, and keeps the heel of a corrupt federal government on the necks of the American People.


Real tax reform is not found in keeping alive “income taxation” and manipulating its application. It is found by ending the socialist income tax experiment and returning to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as it was intended to operate by our Founders. Unfortunately, not one member of Congress, nor any media personality to the best of my knowledge, including those at FoxNews, has, in recent times, discussed the merits and wisdom of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan. In fact, there really isn’t any “tax reform” being discussed. Instead, all that is talked about is income tax manipulation and creating a whole new set of winners and losers, while keeping this notorious evil tax alive with all its miseries, shortfalls and never ending class warfare which is destroying America from within.


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.


#2

No matter what happens we LOSE.

What we need is a straight tax:

100% of ALL Americans pay taxes, no one is exempt at any age.

Min tax for any working adult: $12
Min tax fro any non-working adult: $12
Min tax for any dependent child: $1

ONLY PEOPLE living in America pay taxes.

There is NO Corporate taxes or other HIDDEN taxes that are passed on to the America people such as Corp taxes and excise taxes.


#3

The irrefutable fact is, our Republican Party Leadership has no intention to change the method now used to raise a federal revenue. What they offer is a plan to manipulate income taxation, creating new winners and losers while keeping the evil powers attached to the immoral income tax system.


What they offer is the same old pig with new lipstick. Real tax-reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.



Let us take a look at the wisdom and brilliance of our Founder's tax reform plan which is proposed as follows.



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, 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 failed 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 their labor!



"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 apportioned tax to be laid.



"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."



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 insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!




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


“…..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


#4

JWK,
I am 100% in favor, but its become OBE (Overcome By Events). Not sure I can peg an exact time when we left out Constitution behind as its been a death by a thousand cuts IMO, but as of today, there is one single shard left on which we hang. Its life is limited IMO as we are but one election away from it being gone. The 2nd Amendment and its Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Take that away and our rule over Americans will radically change. We will fully enter into rule of man, rather than rule of law.

I am afraid JWK there is no going back at this point…


#5

Well, now that the Republican “tax reform” plan has been made public, it turns out I was spot on. The Republican Party Leadership, and that includes President Trump, never had any intention to propose tax reform. What is offered is nothing more than tax manipulation ___ a continuation of manipulating taxes calculated from incomes, and keeping alive all the powers associated with this patently evil and arbitrary system of taxation.


Does President Trump’s tax reform end unequal direct taxation and restore our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxation? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury? Hell no!


I could go on and on about Trump's phony tax reform but the sad truth is, President Trump has joined our Washington Swamp Creatures in their ongoing Kabuki Dance called tax reform, which never ends in real tax reform. Real tax reform is found in The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would restore our Constitution’s original tax plan, as our Founders intended it to operate.


JWK




Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes, when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


#6
Paul Ryan lies on FoxNews and no one calls him out!

 

 

Paul Ryan was on FoxNews this morning [the 8AM hour] and once again he has lied about his tax reform plan, saying that under his plan and its simplification, the American People would be able file their tax returns on a post card. The truth is, the American people will still have to determine what is and is not “taxable income” under his plan, and this is the gimmick used by Congress to grant preferences and exclusions, and select winners and losers. And for one to determine what their “taxable income” is under Paul Ryan’s alleged tax reform, will still require full knowledge of what is taxable income and the reams of pages Congress uses to define “taxable income”.


Perhaps someday one of our friends at FoxNews will ask Paul Ryan, what are the characteristics which define taxable income under his "tax reform"? Of course, this question was succinctly answered many times by our Justice system, e.g., in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case challenging a tax on "income" the Court states the following:


"In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.


The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' [252 U.S. 189, 207] as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054)."

As you can see, defining what is and what is not taxable income requires a taxpayer to deduct all necessary expenses and outlays from gross receipts in order to arrive at taxable income. Income from a business which was wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to a tax in that case.


And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 1076 (1948) the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”


So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? Is it not his/her time, labor, skills, the cost of travel to and from work, etc? The value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?


Shouldn't a working person be allowed to deduct transportation costs to and from work in calculating their profit or gain? How about the costs involved with providing the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs when making their labor possible? Shouldn't a wage earned be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain?

How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as their property and a capital outlay, the value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?

Do we now see one of the reasons why Paul Ryan’s “tax reform” is still capricious, arbitrary and an immoral system of taxation, and why the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes must be withdrawn from Congress' hands?

JWK


“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)


#7

President Trump praises tax manipulation and backs away from tax reform

.

See Trump Hails 'Big Win' For Tax Reform--13 GOP Reps Disagree

”President Trump on Thursday praised the House GOP’s passage of their tax reform plan, calling it a “big win” for reform.”

The fact is, President Trump's support for the House Bill does absolutely nothing to reform the manner in which Congress raises its federal revenue!

Does President Trump’s tax reform end unequal direct taxation and restore our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxation? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury? No!


Does President Trump’s tax reform end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury? Hell no!


Seems crystal clear that President Trump has joined our Washington Swamp Creatures in their ongoing Kabuki Dance called tax reform, which never ends in real tax reform. Real tax reform is found in The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would restore our Constitution’s original tax plan, as our Founders intended it to operate, and it would withdraw the notoriously evil powers associated with the communist/socialist inspired income tax which President Trump has now embraced.


JWK


Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes, when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


#8

Senator Flake concerned about the annual deficit and tax reform?

See 4 Republican Senators in Private Talks That Could Kill Current Tax Reform Bill

”Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford are among the four — enough to stop a bill that can only spare two Republican defections — who have concerns about a tax reform bill that was estimated to hike the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The other two senators have not publicly confirmed their concerns.”

Sen. Flake continued: “I’ve been concerned for a long time on our debt and deficit — that’s what animates me,” “There are a couple other people who are concerned as well. We can do tax reform in ways that will grow the economy but we can’t just ignore the debt and deficit.”

If Senator Jeff Flake were sincerely concerned that the House Bill may raise the deficit by $1.5 Trillion over a ten year period, he would offer an amendment to the tax reform bill dealing with the alleged concern. In fact, he could offer an amendment that would require Congress to immediately extinguish year-end deficits, should they occur, as is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


"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 apportioned tax to be laid.


"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."


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 insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!



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.


The bottom line is, Jeff Flake’s alleged concern can easily be addressed with a proposed amendment similar to the above wording which would deal with possible deficits on a yearly basis. And the proposed amendment would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable should deficits occur by requiring them to bring home a bill to their own State’s Legislature and Governor who would be stuck with paying the Bill and depleting their own state treasury, or raising additional taxes within the state which then would have to be transferred into the United States Treasury. This method of dealing with deficits would certainly create a very real moment of accountability for every State’s Congressional Delegation, and would encourage each State’s Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on their own State Delegations’ spending habits to avoid the apportioned direct tax.

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


#9

All of your verbiage can’t get away from the fact that you have lost touch with political reality. The corporate tax rate is too high and should be lowered to encourage the repatriation of overseas funds and additional retained capital in the corporate world instead of the government. That will help the economy grow.

If you want trash everything that is proposed now, go ahead. But be advised that you will be member of the Democrat “Just say no to everything” status quo camp.

You remind me of the late Goldwater speechwriter, Karl Hess. In his opinion the country went in the wrong direction when the Constitution was ratified. He thought that the Articles of Confederation were just fine, despite the historical evidence to the contrary.


#10

You are the one who is wrong. There should be no corporate tax on profits or gains, just like there should be no federal tax on working peoples earned wages. You appear to be the one who ignores reality ___ the reality that our experiment with laying and collected taxes calculated from incomes has opened the door to countless types of abuses, fraud and corruption. I’ll stick with the brilliance and wisdom of our founder’s original tax plan.

JWK


#11

Unlike FoxNews, Washington Post explains apportionment of direct taxes

See: The Constitution’s financial terms, part IV: The apportionment rule

OCTOBER 23RD, 2015

”Behind the apportionment requirement was this unifying principle: At least in the lower legislative chamber, taxation should be coupled with representation. This principle had been a justification for the Revolution, and no one active in the debates over the Constitution seems to have overtly disagreed with it. The framers saw the practical application of this principle in an apportionment rule that tailored each state’s tax burden to its congressional representation.”

The article goes on to emphasize the rule of apportioning direct taxes was ”…designed to assure impartial federal treatment of the several states. Without the apportionment rule, a congressional majority from one group of states might vote to extract a disproportionate share of revenue from the rest.”

Today, our socialists, communists, liberals and progressives in Congress are using the power of direct taxation to enter each state and seek out the most productive hard working citizens and businesses in each state who are then taxed directly, and forced to contribute an unequal tax burden than a State’s lazy and unproductive citizens, even though our Constitution specifically requires any direct tax upon individuals, requires apportionment ___ a rule which works out to be an equal per capita tax.

Like I have been saying for over thirty years, real tax reform begins with the following 32 words which are found in 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, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.



Has anyone in this forum ever heard Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain. Eric Bolling, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, Juan Williams, Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto, John Stossel, Lou Dobbs, Charles Krauthammer, Tucker Carlson, Lisa Kennedy, or any media personality discuss our Constitution’s rule of apportioning direct taxes or the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

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. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]


#12

Well I guess your position is that there should be no Federal Government because there would be no way to fund it. You are radical radical right anarchist who lives in an 18th century dream world. And if you really look at the historical facts of that dream world, you will find a lot of poverty, hunger, hard times and a disjointed country that had a severe lack of communication between the various parts of the economy.


#13

Stop with the BS. Our federal government ought to be funded as our founders intended ___ see The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

JWK


#14

Because of 18th century technology and practices, not because forces didn’t exist to try and take care of people.

Mutual Aid Socities, I’d argue handled both medicine, and social insurance better than the Government did, and perhaps still today. They are the system Government crowded out, and it was to our detriment, because it destroyed the fabric that makes this kind of outreach work, the communal aspect.

You don’t get communal ties & care (and accountability) through the Federal Government, no matter how zealous the bureaucrat.


#15

So what do you want, a consumption tax to replace the current structure? Frankly you write so much it’s not worth wading through it. The consumption tax is viable only if you repeal the amendment that authorized the income tax. If you don’t do that, we will end up with both consumption and income taxes and the liberals will hold the biggest celebration they have had since Roe vs. Wade.

Your proposals are all non starters. They are not politically viable. The 18th century is over. It’s time to move on and work with what we have.


#16

So, you are an advocate of keeping alive the socialist/communist inspired “income tax” and all the suffering and miseries associated with this patently evil system of taxation?

Go read the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment and get back to me.

JWK


#17

Well that’s okay. I’m done with you. I don’t waste time on trolls who have a political following that is less than 0.1 of of 1%. Your proposals are not politically viable. I deal in realities.


#18

Your insulting comment about “trolls” is not appreciated. You apparently are unwilling to engage in a productive discussion.

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