PDA

View Full Version : Gingrich pushes progressive friendly tax reform!



johnwk
12-09-2011, 08:51 AM
Under Gingrich’s version of tax reform the corporate tax rate would be reduced from 35 percent to 12.5 percent. Taxes on estates and on capital gains would end and corporations would be allowed to write off all of the costs of new equipment in one year. As to the individual working stiff, an option is allowed to file tax returns under a “flat tax” that has a lower tax rate but limits deductions.

The biggest problem with Gingrich‘s tax reform, which is found in other Washington Establishment insider tax reform plans is, it is intentionally designed to keep alive the authority for Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes. And this is important to note because the occupation of America by progressives began in 1913 with the adoption of the 16th Amendment and taxes calculated from “incomes” . Is it not a fact that this kind of tax provides a power under which progressives and RINOs alike are free to engage in countless abuses including the class warfare game which divides the nation’s people and is destroying America from within?

The truth is, there are several fundamental objections to Gingrich’s tax plan, and they expose Mr. Gingrich for his un-American political philosophy. Let us look at some particulars.

1

.The first problem encountered with Mr. Gingrich’s flat tax on income is a working definition of “ taxable income”. The current definition of “taxable income” is both arbitrary and capriciously invented from day to day by those who hold political power. And this failure to provide a concrete definition of taxable income is an allowance to manipulate who is taxed and who is exempted from paying federal taxes which in turn invites corruption and abuse.

2.

Gingrich’s flat tax calculated from “income” ___ which apparently includes taxing the earnings of our working class members of society ___ is a tax under which government force punishes our productive members of society for every increase in their productivity, while it rewards the unproductive members of society by allowing them to escape shouldering an equal burden in supporting the functions of our federal government. Is this in the spirit of equal law, one of our nation‘s founding principles?

Keep in mind there was a time in America when everyone was expected to shoulder an equal share in supporting the functions of government. A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.

And what is Gingrich’s standard? His proposal keeps the status quo, forcing the industrious members of society to finance Congress’ expenditures under a tax measured from productivity, while the taxes thus raised will be used to spread the wealth and buy votes from a privileged class - 45 % and more of our nation’s population who will pay no income taxes under the Gingrich plan.

And this is why Mr. Gingrich’s tax reform plan is designed to keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”. His loyalty is to the progressive’s occupation of America and its enslavement of the American People via taxes on incomes. Mr. Gingrich is unwilling to end the progressive’s occupation of American which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and income taxes, which is the primary source of power the Washington Establishment uses to impose its will upon the American People and has been used to socialize America‘s once free market system.

3.

Gingrich’s tax reform plan also keeps the federal government's iron fist around the necks of America’s businesses and laboring class people [audits, record keeping, etc.] and with this extraordinary power is a weapon found to be used by the Washington Establishment to keep political foes in line.

4.

Finally, Gingrich’s tax reform plan in addition to its other faults also brazenly circumvents part of the Great Compromise made during the framing of our Constitution which commanded representation in Congress, but only with a proportional financial obligation! And it is this rule, the rule of apportioning any general tax laid among the States which is absent in Gingrich’s plan, and exposes it as a ruse to keep in tact the progressive’s source of power derived from taxes calculated from “incomes” without their being apportioned among the States!

Bottom line is, there is no meaningful tax reform unless Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” is withdrawn, and Congress is once again required to raise its revenue from taxes on consumption, and any general tax laid among the States is required to be apportioned, i.e., here is real tax reform as expressed in 32 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 added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the evil power Congress now exercises which has socialized America‘s once free enterprise system while robbing the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their labor! The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which America’s businesses and labor have produced.

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

fj1200
12-09-2011, 10:26 AM
Under Gingrich’s version of tax reform the corporate tax rate would be reduced from 35 percent to 12.5 percent. Taxes on estates and on capital gains would end and corporations would be allowed to write off all of the costs of new equipment in one year. As to the individual working stiff, an option is allowed to file tax returns under a “flat tax” that has a lower tax rate but limits deductions.

I was wondering what Newt's tax plan was, thanks for posting. Now I have another reason to not object to Newt as POTUS. :clap:

logroller
12-09-2011, 10:53 AM
That's a "progressive friendly" tax reform???

fj1200
12-09-2011, 11:09 AM
To be fair, progressive to JWK is anything that happened after 1790.

ConHog
12-09-2011, 11:23 AM
Under Gingrich’s version of tax reform the corporate tax rate would be reduced from 35 percent to 12.5 percent. Taxes on estates and on capital gains would end and corporations would be allowed to write off all of the costs of new equipment in one year. As to the individual working stiff, an option is allowed to file tax returns under a “flat tax” that has a lower tax rate but limits deductions.

The biggest problem with Gingrich‘s tax reform, which is found in other Washington Establishment insider tax reform plans is, it is intentionally designed to keep alive the authority for Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes. And this is important to note because the occupation of America by progressives began in 1913 with the adoption of the 16th Amendment and taxes calculated from “incomes” . Is it not a fact that this kind of tax provides a power under which progressives and RINOs alike are free to engage in countless abuses including the class warfare game which divides the nation’s people and is destroying America from within?

The truth is, there are several fundamental objections to Gingrich’s tax plan, and they expose Mr. Gingrich for his un-American political philosophy. Let us look at some particulars.

1

.The first problem encountered with Mr. Gingrich’s flat tax on income is a working definition of “ taxable income”. The current definition of “taxable income” is both arbitrary and capriciously invented from day to day by those who hold political power. And this failure to provide a concrete definition of taxable income is an allowance to manipulate who is taxed and who is exempted from paying federal taxes which in turn invites corruption and abuse.

2.

Gingrich’s flat tax calculated from “income” ___ which apparently includes taxing the earnings of our working class members of society ___ is a tax under which government force punishes our productive members of society for every increase in their productivity, while it rewards the unproductive members of society by allowing them to escape shouldering an equal burden in supporting the functions of our federal government. Is this in the spirit of equal law, one of our nation‘s founding principles?

Keep in mind there was a time in America when everyone was expected to shoulder an equal share in supporting the functions of government. A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.

And what is Gingrich’s standard? His proposal keeps the status quo, forcing the industrious members of society to finance Congress’ expenditures under a tax measured from productivity, while the taxes thus raised will be used to spread the wealth and buy votes from a privileged class - 45 % and more of our nation’s population who will pay no income taxes under the Gingrich plan.

And this is why Mr. Gingrich’s tax reform plan is designed to keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”. His loyalty is to the progressive’s occupation of America and its enslavement of the American People via taxes on incomes. Mr. Gingrich is unwilling to end the progressive’s occupation of American which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and income taxes, which is the primary source of power the Washington Establishment uses to impose its will upon the American People and has been used to socialize America‘s once free market system.

3.

Gingrich’s tax reform plan also keeps the federal government's iron fist around the necks of America’s businesses and laboring class people [audits, record keeping, etc.] and with this extraordinary power is a weapon found to be used by the Washington Establishment to keep political foes in line.

4.

Finally, Gingrich’s tax reform plan in addition to its other faults also brazenly circumvents part of the Great Compromise made during the framing of our Constitution which commanded representation in Congress, but only with a proportional financial obligation! And it is this rule, the rule of apportioning any general tax laid among the States which is absent in Gingrich’s plan, and exposes it as a ruse to keep in tact the progressive’s source of power derived from taxes calculated from “incomes” without their being apportioned among the States!

Bottom line is, there is no meaningful tax reform unless Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” is withdrawn, and Congress is once again required to raise its revenue from taxes on consumption, and any general tax laid among the States is required to be apportioned, i.e., here is real tax reform as expressed in 32 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 added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the evil power Congress now exercises which has socialized America‘s once free enterprise system while robbing the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their labor! The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which America’s businesses and labor have produced.

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

I realize I only have 3 degrees in US History, but I was wondering if you could tell me why you believe the founding fathers demanded one form of taxation over another.

Oh, and I oppose an income tax, I just don't think it's against the founder's wishes. Rather , I think they left that intentionally blank as to how taxes would be calculated.

Little-Acorn
12-09-2011, 11:39 AM
In the Constitution, didn't the Founders mandate that any "direct taxes" must be collected from each state, in proportion to the population of the state?

In other words, the only tax allowed on people, was a "head tax". You pay $1,000, I pay $1,000, Bill Gates pays $1,000, the homeless guy on the corner pays $1,000.

But they mandated that it be collected on a state by state basis. Meaning that, if the homeless guy couldn't pony up his $1,000 (or whatever amount was set), the state was free to tax other residents within its borders more, to make up for it. As long as the total amount from each state, finally arrived at Federal coffers in proportion to that state's total population.

This mandate, that direct taxes be proportional to state populations, was what ruled out the Income Tax.

The Founders were very much against income taxes. They went so far as to make them UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They figured we'd never be crazy enough to ratify a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to change that.

One of the few places the Founders got it wrong, sadly.

ConHog
12-09-2011, 12:17 PM
In the Constitution, didn't the Founders mandate that any "direct taxes" must be collected from each state, in proportion to the population of the state?

In other words, the only tax allowed on people, was a "head tax". You pay $1,000, I pay $1,000, Bill Gates pays $1,000, the homeless guy on the corner pays $1,000.

But they mandated that it be collected on a state by state basis. Meaning that, if the homeless guy couldn't pony up his $1,000 (or whatever amount was set), the state was free to tax other residents within its borders more, to make up for it. As long as the total amount from each state, finally arrived at Federal coffers in proportion to that state's total population.

This mandate, that direct taxes be proportional to state populations, was what ruled out the Income Tax.

The Founders were very much against income taxes. They went so far as to make them UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They figured we'd never be crazy enough to ratify a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to change that.

One of the few places the Founders got it wrong, sadly.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...



nowhere in there does it say what form that tax has to be in. And certainly income taxes weren't and aren't unconstitutional , as upheld in case after case. And in any case , the 16th Amendment would effectively nullify any such argument anyways since our COTUS was in fact set up by the fathers themselves to be modified when necessary.

In other words, the founders themselves very well could have believed it was unconstitutional to let blacks have full citizenship rights (just using an example here), but once the various amendments were passed what the founders believed effectively became a moot point.

Little-Acorn
12-09-2011, 12:40 PM
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So I was wrong about its being collected state-by-state, states are not mentioned. Only the entire population.

A "Capitation" tax is literally a Head Tax. A tax that is the same for each person. "Other direct taxes" could be anything, I guess... except this provision says they must be proportional to the entire population of the country. If the population goes up by 10% next year, the amount collected in direct taxes must go up by 10%... unless the direct-tax burden on the ENTIRE population is changed, in which case all must pay the same (new) amount.

My basic premise was correct: The only direct taxes allowed, are taxes proportional to the entire population, where each person pays the same amount. Indirect taxes (Excise taxes, such as taxes on wheat, liquor, etc.) or import/export duties don't have to be in proportion to population.

This provision excludes income taxes, because income taxes can make one person pay more than the next. It took a Constitutional Amendment to change this. Sadly, we enacted one.

johnwk
12-09-2011, 01:36 PM
In the Constitution, didn't the Founders mandate that any "direct taxes" must be collected from each state, in proportion to the population of the state?In other words, the only tax allowed on people, was a "head tax". You pay $1,000, I pay $1,000, Bill Gates pays $1,000, the homeless guy on the corner pays $1,000.But they mandated that it be collected on a state by state basis. Meaning that, if the homeless guy couldn't pony up his $1,000 (or whatever amount was set), the state was free to tax other residents within its borders more, to make up for it. As long as the total amount from each state, finally arrived at Federal coffers in proportion to that state's total population.This mandate, that direct taxes be proportional to state populations, was what ruled out the Income Tax.

You are right on target!

Of course, this rule of apportionment was not intended to apply to imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge), nor internal excise taxes laid on judiciously selected articles of consumption which our founders intended to be Congress primary means to raise a federal revenue.. But if Congress ever found it necessary to lay a general tax among the states to meet an emergency such as war or extinguishing an annual deficit, the rule of apportionment was to be strictly enforced and precludes the class warfare game which is now carried out under income taxation!

NOTE: Here is our constitutionally mandated fair share formula.

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

But let our founding fathers speak for themselves with regard to the rule of apportionment:

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

“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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)

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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink),“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then 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 in meeting their payment on time.

JWK

Is it not time to return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) and end the progressive’s occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and taxes laid and collected calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”?

logroller
12-09-2011, 02:29 PM
Just did a quick cap tax estimate, It's about 8500. Interestingly, California, the highest gross source of tax revenues pays almost exactly that per person. my family of five would pay $42500; while our income is $44000. Hmmm, curious how I would provide food shelter and clothing to my family for less than $4.20 per day. Indentured servitude maybe, but that progressive Thirteenth Amendment-- Time to get back to constitution the way it was!

johnwk
12-09-2011, 07:53 PM
I realize I only have 3 degrees in US History, but I was wondering if you could tell me why you believe the founding fathers demanded one form of taxation over another.

What did post that encouraged you to arrive at that conclusion? Aside from that, a reading of the historical record during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified supplies a wealth of documentation to conclude our founders intended that Congress would raise its necessary revenue from impost, duties and excise taxes, but if a deficiency arose from those sources, a direct tax among the states was intended to be used. For example see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

Similar wording is contained in a number of the other ratification documents.

JWK