- Very good points, A Con Con is the first step to taking back "our" Constitution and government from the Progressive stateist. You are spot on that they all take the oath of office to defend and protect when the defy and deform that very document. If the court system was not so vested in the usurpation, we could use them to bring justice to those that breach their solemn oath and violate the laws of the land.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I have never said a Con Con was the only remedy available. The States can use the 10th amendment to bring down the empire of usurped powers but that will not void the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Voiding requires a Constitutional Amendment; there is no other way without the same usurped power problem.
We have made the first step in one method and that is to vote in new thinkers and see if we can convince them to bring back the Constitutional limits on the federal government. We will see if this step has traction very soon.
You need to read the Goldwater Institute plan for a Con Con without risk of run away amendments and interference with State selected representatives from existing politicians or judges.
Here is a link to The Goldwater site and you can click on the link files to read the detailed plan - it appears to be solid and safe???
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5340
- Permalink Reply by on
- I agree that it takes 34 States to call for the Con Con and then 38 legislatures to ratify the Amendment. That is why this is a safe method, the State legislatures must agree to language and the method of electing representatives this limits the scope of the Convention and "NO" federal politician would be involved unless the State selected them as their Representative. Congress has no sway over the Con Con and can not limit it or refuse it nor can they alter the Amendment from the Con Con.
By the States agreements the subject is limited and even if they run away their is still the requirement that 38 States now approve the amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
Is a politician not a Constitutional authority and his opinions do not match experts in the Constitution and the Historical documents of the Founders. First it appear that he is of the opinion that the States can not limit the subjects of the Con Con - most other experts disagree. Second is the fact that there are many Patriots that could be selected by the States to be their representatives in the Con Con and these individuals then become "Fiduciaries" and are legally bound by the limits of their pre-approved actions. They do not have the power to go beyond expressed duties as the Fiduciaries so again there is no danger of a runaway Con Con. Third is the fact that any actions taken by the Con Con must then go to the State legislatures for ratification and the required number now becomes 38. Then and only then would the Amendment become law.
Politicians do not like the Con Con concept because it reduces the Federal power and could force a return to the enumerated power of Article I section 8 which removes most of their power to rule over all. America is at rick and the Republic is being assaulted by the Progressives in all three branches of the Federal government. If we permit them to keep going in the current direction we will be a Progressive Socialist society within ten years.
As Ben Franklin said: "We gave you a Republic, if you can keep it"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- What you propose is in error - you can not "TAX A BUSINESS". A government can only increase the COST OF GOODS SOLD - which will always go to the ultimate consumer of product or service. I will go even further - it will cost the consumer more than the government collects because all businesses have OVERHEAD EXPENSES - these typically run from 20 to 50% of sales. So, if the model is a 50% overhead and you want it to provide $ 1.00 in tax leaving out the complicated math - the company would need to collect $ 1.50 from the consumer.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I like the idea, particularly in saying not to rush into what is being promoted.
I mean look at the IRS basically promoting the fair tax, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/08_tas_arc_msp_1.pdf
This wreaks of manipulation of us, to get us to grant them another new power, by statute that should require a Constitutional Amendment to be had, numerous activities they carry on today were turned down by Jefferson and Hamilton on the grounds these aren't enumerated powers or uses, such as funding education, and the plethora of social programs.
We waive the Constitutional limits by custom and usage if we let them pass a statute and act accordingly as well.
My view is no tax for 5 years, to let the government come to terms with their other revenue streams. Oil royalties, mineral rights, patents, mail, copyrights, the judicial system, etc., as well as fines and penalties paid by criminals, seems to be money that just isn't being used for the running of government, merely to expand budgets in these areas and thus leave the legislators thinking what bonds to issue, and what tax to apply to pay for the bonds.
I like the idea but believe we may not even need a tax if government just charged for the services and fees associated with these other activities. At 12.5% low average royalty for oil at $60 a barrel, we pump 4.9 million barrels a day, which is $37,500,000 a day. Note that these royalties can be up to 30% and not much lower than 10%. And that's just for oil.
- Permalink Reply by on
- That paper that I linked to is the IRS saying the complexity of the tax system is a problem.
What I am saying I like is that you are saying, "wait a minute, let's think this through" and I like your proposal, yes I read #28 and do like it and have reservations for other reasons. See I am not sure we need any replacement yet. I believe in a 5 year moratorium on income taxation, to allow the government to learn that we're tired of affording things we do not believe in while they make money on our resources, and other activities of the government to which we are not informed where that money goes, nor do we see a dime of it in our own pockets or paying for anything. Here is the article I wrote documenting this during the Gulf Oil Spill,http://www.psctvonline.com/fp409.php
To me an assessment once they, and we, have adjusted to them affording themselves off of post office fees, patents, oil and mineral royalties, patents, copyrights, and other invention royalties, would be warranted if any deficit is found. I know that when I lose my income that my focus on what to afford as a necessity becomes crystal clear. They haven't had, nor do they seem willing, to take on that opportunity.
Note I do not believe in a balanced budget amendment, that's abusable as long as income and expense match up, it decreases nothing. I want to see a Budget Reduction Amendment that mandates they Federal Government becomes 10% of their current size over 10 years.
Instead they operate on the notion of a guaranteed income, while they purposefully make the tax system complex, to where we'll replace it with something easier, and my contention is they wouldn't comment on the complexity of the tax system if this weren't true.
I do not trust government with my property, or in consideration of its best interest, at least at this time, and that is because they have this idea of a guaranteed income, which I don't even find as one of my unalienable rights. To me this is an arrogant assumption by government tantamount to lording over the people as the King we left behind when declaring our independence. We at no time wanted this type of government, assuming rights and powers over us that we don't even have ourselves, when, this government is our creation, endowed with those powers we, through the states, deemed "just powers," according to the Declaration of Independence.
Stephen you'll love this little piece of California law that I researched out, where they can actually assess a tax to pay principle and interest on bonds sold, but, can then cancel future sales and put that money into their general fund. I am sure you know your history and am also sure you're hearing the echos of the old noble houses of Europe in what I just said, here is the article link,http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.107.2
- Permalink Reply by on
- Stephen,
Thank you for a well researched explanation of the H.R.25 tax proposal. I went through you paper quite quickly and will spend some more time to study the details. In order to assist me in learning where you are coming from I have a few basic questions that will provide direction.
I too was a Tax specialist for a CPA firm for many years prior to the 1986 Accountant retirement act. First, what is you opinion on any form of Progressive or re-distributive taxes in relationship to the Constitution? What if any violations do you find with the current or the proposed tax system?
Were you in practice in 1986 when the tax shelters were revoked for most taxpayers. Did your research permit your clients to continue to use those tax shelters? If so, please advise how you accomplished the continued use of the deductions (100%).
I will share with you and the others what my research has led me to believe and where I think it should go. I am a Goldwater Conservative and a Constitutionalists.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,
Thank you for your questions. Please let me know if the following is a sufficient responce. I believe that the Constitution (and the Federalist Papers) does not in any way, shape or form provide for wealth redistribution. I believe that Congress has engaged in un-constitutional wealth redistribution using a vaiety of tools:
1) Progressive Income Tax, including a number of diifferent types of provisions, all of which tend to shift the to tax burden to upper income Americans (e.g. graduated tax rates, earned income credits, no cap on the Medicare Tax and a myriad of other sneaky tools.
2) Means testing of entitlements (e.g., The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 wherein Republicans means tested Part B Premiums so that while most Americans pay $100/mo., some pay over $300/mo, based upon the AGI from 2 years prior.
3) Outright Welfare programs (SSI, SS Disability, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, S-CHIP and a host of others).
H.R. 25, the so-called "fairtax" would exacerbate welfare in the current Income Tax by generally handing out bigger welfare checks via the "Prebate" (which one receives WITHOUT working) than one would receieve from the current "REFUNDABLE INCOME TAX CREDITS" which are payable ONLY if one works. Many Tea party people recoil when they read the Illustration of the Prebate in my Paper. I fail to understand how any Tea Party person can support H.R. 25 because its wealth redistribution is directly counter to what the Tea Party stands for.
As to the 2nd half of your post. By 1986, I had already migrated to to extremely esoteric and obscure area of tax specialty, Subchapter L of th Code, which dealt with taxation of life/health and property/casualty insurance companies. Another set of specialist did "tax shelters". My fading memory says that there were still some opportunitiues to defer income (real estate?).
You will have to check with someone who practiced in that area.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Stephan,
I now have some idea where you are and I will read your proposal in detail. However, keep in mind that I come from the point that the Federal government has no power to pass legislation outside the enumerated powers of Article I section 8 & 9. All other powers have been usurped from the Constitution with co-operation from the Court and the Executive branch. All three have given or approved usurped actions by the other giving the appearance of legitimacy. I find no language anywhere that would permit the behavior of Congress or the Courts in the matter of re-distribution or Progressive taxes even on real estate?
Where is the valued checks and balances as the Founders intended. I do not remember a single action taken by any of the branches without a outsider bringing the issue to the debate.
Now I will tell you that I debated a big ten Accounting and Law Professor that had spent one year working on and defining the tax reform act of 1986. I sent him running off with one question - does the elimination of the oil drilling, movies, horse breading, and many other TAX SHELTERS being declared fraud apply to regular "C" corporations? If not, then should we all not advise our clients to transfer them into the "C" corp form so they can benefit from the deduction? He stammered and snorted that he was certain that the Congress intended it to also apply to them. I countered that I had read the Congressional record and the subject was mute. He then became upset and just stormed off leaving a few of just standing there.
The short part was that my research was correct and he was guilty of malpractice for not advising his clients and students of this loop hole that could save hundreds of thousand of dollars per year for their clients. In fact to my knowledge it was never applied to a "C" corporation meaning that all CPA firms that did not advise their clients are guilty of malpractice and maybe liable for damages. So, you see I think outside the box and will approach your work product with that attitude.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,
I could not agree more with your 1st paragraph. The Constitution and the Federalist Papers are very clear that the federal govt has extremely limited powers.
The Income Tax has become a social welfare, wealth redistribution tool - it should be nothing more than a cost (of the military, etc.) allocation device.
Good catch on the Professor.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here is Socialism and taxes - how do you like change so far - RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION AND KILL THE 14TH, 16TH, AND 17TH AMENDMENTS - THEN USE ONLY THE DEFINITIONS AN WORD MEANINGS OF THE TIME OF THE FOUNDERS - NO MORE BETWEEN THE LINES OR MODERNIZATIONS OF THE LIVING DOCUMENT.
Current European tax rates:
United Kingdom
Income Tax: 50%
VAT: 17.5% TOTAL: 67.5%
France
Income Tax: 40%
VAT: 19.6% TOTAL: 59.6%
Greece
Income Tax: 40%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 65%
Spain
Income Tax: 45%
VAT: 16% TOTAL: 61%
Portugal
Income Tax: 42%
VAT: 20% TOTAL: 62%
Sweden
Income Tax: 55%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 80%
Norway
Income Tax: 54.3%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 79.3%
Netherlands
Income Tax: 52%
VAT: 19% TOTAL: 71%
Denmark
Income Tax: 58%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 83%
Finland
Income Tax: 53%
VAT: 22% TOTAL: 75%
- Permalink Reply by on
- Stephan,
I included some of this subject in my other post. However, I will just say: that Congress and the Courts are acting outside of their powers they are usurpers and as such all laws and actions are null and void as if they never existed. Let me give you an example of what law schools teach - they study case law precedent theory - using the British Common law Stare decisis (settled law theory) all of which is required under a Parliamentarian Democracy because they do not have a Constitution. I have found no language that adopts this actions by the courts nor can any Attorney I have debated provide any. They simply say that is the way it works.
This is a perversion of facts of a Constitutional Republic, what a previous case stated is of little consequences when viewed against the Constitutional Laws and rights of the sovereign individual. The Rule - by - Law is of more importance than the Rule - by - Man - that is why the founders gave little power to the Courts and the Federal Government. They can not be trusted to do the proper legal thing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I have read your number 28 "fair share" concept. I will first quote the Article I section 9 limits on government and then we have a short discussion and my opinion.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
As you can see the original constitution had a "head" count or enumeration system in place. so your proposed system would meet the Founders intention on equality of taxes. The issue of a Federal budget is an impossible thing unless we return to the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION in total. Article I section 8 limits the powers of the government and what it can do in most respects.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
As you can see the Founder intended that the individual was a protected class.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Founders did not want for the government to have the power to force a sovereign individual into debt he could not pay so they created taxes on basic transactions and limited the ability to place a direct tax on the individual. The Kings had head count taxes and forced citizens (chattel) into forced labor to pay the debt to the King - that was to never happen in America.
Now to your proposal,
I find it quite fair in application but it still gives the Federal government to much power and money taking over the sovereign individual. If we return to the Constitution, the Federal government will necessarily shrink to a very small portion of the current monolith. Limiting the duties of the government and returning those powers other than those enumerated for the Federal government back to the States and to the people will eliminate future usurpation.
The States will then need to address how they are going to raise funds to pay off the national and State debts that will be attributable to them. Your system again put the sovereign individual in jeopardy of having to pay just to exercise his God given right to exist, this violates the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional protections assured to the individual. This same logic brings into question property taxes which are Progressive (based on value) and again puts the individual in jeopardy of having his property compensated by government. Maybe we can refer to the above taxes as gun to the head systems,
Would it not lead to a more free sovereign individual if we eliminated any form of mandatory tax that can put the citizen in a threatened position? Then it would seem logical that we develop a voluntary system where the people can keep all the earn and all they own and contribute to cost of government when they elect to spend money to acquire goods and services.
Many will accuse this as being regressive, how can a tax be regressive when it is based on what the individual consumes. Poor people spend very little and would pay very little, rich people spend a lot and would pay a lot if they desired. All can limit the amount of taxes paid by reducing spending.
The governments will still get moneys from Constitutional sources (minus the 16th amendment). We must take the gun from the head ability of government TAKING of property and wealth from the sovereign individual. This type system is in place today in most States and would eliminate the IRS, EPA and all other alphabet federal agencies that are sucking the life blood out of our businesses and economy.
The society that is most free is the one that is taxed the least.
No comments:
Post a Comment