johnwk
01-18-2009, 07:37 PM
.
When slavery was practiced in America slave owners robbed the property which blacks had in their labor. The very object of slavery is in fact to seize control over a victims labor in order to acquire the product of that labor. Applying the above to taxation, it seems self evident that any tax which is calculated from the paycheck of a hard working father living in Harlem who works to meet his family’s needs, is indistinguishable from slavery itself, in that the tax confiscates the product of a working man’s labor! Keep in mind that there are countless ways to raise a federal revenue other than laying a direct tax upon the property which a working father living in Harlem has in his labor. Also keep in mind that “direct taxes” under our Constitution, among which is any federal tax laid upon real or personal “property”, is required to be apportioned among the states. [1]
This rule of apportionment requires Congress to determine a specific sum of money to be raised, and then requires Congress to determine each state’s share of that burden by the following formula:
Our Constitution’s fair share formula for direct taxes when laid by Congress!
States’ population
--------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
Once each state’s share of the total sum being raised by Congress is determined by our constitutionally mandated fair share formula, our founding fathers intended Congress to send a bill to each state for payment, leaving the various state Governors and Legislatures with the responsibility of meeting their state’s burden, but allowing Congress to send forth its officers to lay and collect that burden within any state’s borders who may be negligent in meeting its burden in a time period set by Congress. [2]
If Obama, really cares about poor working people, especially those living in Harlem, South Philly, Newark, N.J., etc., he would declare Congress may no longer tax the wages labor has earned, which were never intended to be taxed as “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment!
The lost revenue could easily be made up by a federal luxury tax laid on specifically chosen articles of consumption ___ a kind of tax our founding fathers intended, and was successfully used until Congress tried to increase these taxes beyond reasonable levels and led to a drop in sales of the articles and a reduced level of revenue for Congress. But this just happens to be the beauty of such a tax. This type of tax [taxing specifically chosen articles of luxury] is self regulating and allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each selected article --- tax the article too high and the flow of revenue into the federal treasury is diminished as pointed out in Federalist 21. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed21.asp)
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
For a recent application of this tax see The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.5835:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:4:./temp/~c101exSUxe) click on 4. “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.5835.ENR]”, after which you may scroll down to TITLE XI--REVENUE PROVISIONS, and then click on :
PART III--TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS
`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.
`SEC. 4002. BOATS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.
`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.
`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.
`SEC. 4007. FURS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of the following articles a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000:
Note that the outrageous 10 percent imposed upon certain specific articles because of Congress’s greed caused diminishes sales of those consumer articles and adversely affected the luxury boat building industry which in turn immediately prompted Congress to repeal the tax in 1991 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263)
Had the tax on luxury boats only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded to limit Congress‘s greedy desire for revenue. As documented in Federalist No. 21, our founding fathers carefully devised a tax plan allowing the market place to prevent an “extension of the revenue” and avoided class warfare now engaged in under a tax laid upon the wages of labor.
Unfortunately, it seems quite obvious to thinking people that the existing leadership of both political parties would dread a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan [Duties, Imposts, and miscellaneous internal Excise taxes on consumption, with the additional power to lay and collect a direct apportioned tax among the states to make up any shortfall] which would not only limit Congress’s greed and make members of Congress fiscally accountable to their state Legislatures, the founder’s tax plan would also end Congress’s ability to manipulate the private lives of America’s working middle class and preclude class warfare which Obama did in fact engaged in to win an election.
In any event, we will see what happens and if Obama really does care about our nation’s laboring class people living in Harlem and if he will work to end the federal tax upon their earned wages which were never intended to be considered as “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment! But I suspect he will continue to allow Congress to tax the wages which labor has earned because the tax is not really designed to raise necessary revenue. It is designed by the Washington Establishment, the leadership of both political parties, to have an iron fisted federal control over the lives of working class people who labor on what amounts to be a federal plantation.
Regards,
JWK
[1]
Taxes on real and/or personal property were considered by our founding fathers to be direct taxes within the meaning of our Constitution. See: Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., (1895)] (http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1876-1900/reform/pollock.htm)
The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the States, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the Federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised, except on necessity; and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the States at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised, unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular States or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. . . . The power to tax real and personal property and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded; that such a tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied;
[2]
EXAMPLE OF THE APPORTIONED TAX:
Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax.
Also see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112)allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.
When slavery was practiced in America slave owners robbed the property which blacks had in their labor. The very object of slavery is in fact to seize control over a victims labor in order to acquire the product of that labor. Applying the above to taxation, it seems self evident that any tax which is calculated from the paycheck of a hard working father living in Harlem who works to meet his family’s needs, is indistinguishable from slavery itself, in that the tax confiscates the product of a working man’s labor! Keep in mind that there are countless ways to raise a federal revenue other than laying a direct tax upon the property which a working father living in Harlem has in his labor. Also keep in mind that “direct taxes” under our Constitution, among which is any federal tax laid upon real or personal “property”, is required to be apportioned among the states. [1]
This rule of apportionment requires Congress to determine a specific sum of money to be raised, and then requires Congress to determine each state’s share of that burden by the following formula:
Our Constitution’s fair share formula for direct taxes when laid by Congress!
States’ population
--------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
Once each state’s share of the total sum being raised by Congress is determined by our constitutionally mandated fair share formula, our founding fathers intended Congress to send a bill to each state for payment, leaving the various state Governors and Legislatures with the responsibility of meeting their state’s burden, but allowing Congress to send forth its officers to lay and collect that burden within any state’s borders who may be negligent in meeting its burden in a time period set by Congress. [2]
If Obama, really cares about poor working people, especially those living in Harlem, South Philly, Newark, N.J., etc., he would declare Congress may no longer tax the wages labor has earned, which were never intended to be taxed as “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment!
The lost revenue could easily be made up by a federal luxury tax laid on specifically chosen articles of consumption ___ a kind of tax our founding fathers intended, and was successfully used until Congress tried to increase these taxes beyond reasonable levels and led to a drop in sales of the articles and a reduced level of revenue for Congress. But this just happens to be the beauty of such a tax. This type of tax [taxing specifically chosen articles of luxury] is self regulating and allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each selected article --- tax the article too high and the flow of revenue into the federal treasury is diminished as pointed out in Federalist 21. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed21.asp)
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
For a recent application of this tax see The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.5835:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:4:./temp/~c101exSUxe) click on 4. “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.5835.ENR]”, after which you may scroll down to TITLE XI--REVENUE PROVISIONS, and then click on :
PART III--TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS
`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.
`SEC. 4002. BOATS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.
`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.
`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.
`SEC. 4007. FURS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of the following articles a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000:
Note that the outrageous 10 percent imposed upon certain specific articles because of Congress’s greed caused diminishes sales of those consumer articles and adversely affected the luxury boat building industry which in turn immediately prompted Congress to repeal the tax in 1991 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263)
Had the tax on luxury boats only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded to limit Congress‘s greedy desire for revenue. As documented in Federalist No. 21, our founding fathers carefully devised a tax plan allowing the market place to prevent an “extension of the revenue” and avoided class warfare now engaged in under a tax laid upon the wages of labor.
Unfortunately, it seems quite obvious to thinking people that the existing leadership of both political parties would dread a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan [Duties, Imposts, and miscellaneous internal Excise taxes on consumption, with the additional power to lay and collect a direct apportioned tax among the states to make up any shortfall] which would not only limit Congress’s greed and make members of Congress fiscally accountable to their state Legislatures, the founder’s tax plan would also end Congress’s ability to manipulate the private lives of America’s working middle class and preclude class warfare which Obama did in fact engaged in to win an election.
In any event, we will see what happens and if Obama really does care about our nation’s laboring class people living in Harlem and if he will work to end the federal tax upon their earned wages which were never intended to be considered as “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment! But I suspect he will continue to allow Congress to tax the wages which labor has earned because the tax is not really designed to raise necessary revenue. It is designed by the Washington Establishment, the leadership of both political parties, to have an iron fisted federal control over the lives of working class people who labor on what amounts to be a federal plantation.
Regards,
JWK
[1]
Taxes on real and/or personal property were considered by our founding fathers to be direct taxes within the meaning of our Constitution. See: Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., (1895)] (http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1876-1900/reform/pollock.htm)
The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the States, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the Federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised, except on necessity; and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the States at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised, unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular States or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. . . . The power to tax real and personal property and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded; that such a tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied;
[2]
EXAMPLE OF THE APPORTIONED TAX:
Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax.
Also see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112)allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.