johnwk
06-13-2011, 01:37 PM
On June 11th, 2011, while appearing on FoxNews, Journal Editorial Report, Herman Cain in defending the “fairtax” (H.R. 25) made the following statement in response to the fear that we would still pay taxes calculated from incomes under the fairtax. Herman Cain stated:
”In the legislation there is a clause that says the fairtax cannot go into effect until the 16th Amendment is repealed. So that puts pressure on the States and on Congress to repeal the 16th Amendment before the fairtax, the national consumption tax, goes into effect.”
The truth is, if H.R. 25 were adopted by Congress the 23 percent tax goes into effect immediately. However, if after a seven year period, during which time the America People most certainly will get comfortable to paying and complying with the tax, and the Sixteenth Amendment is not repealed, Congress will presumably end the 23 percent tax. And if one believe that baloney ….
Here is the text of H.R. 25:
TITLE IV--SUNSET OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED.
“If the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not repealed before the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, then all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to any use or consumption in any year beginning after December 31 of the calendar year in which or with which such period ends, except that the Sales Tax Bureau of the Department of the Treasury shall not be terminated until 6 months after such December 31.”
So, Herman Cain has in fact misrepresented the fairtax when stating it will not go into effect until the 16th Amendment is repealed.
But let’s pretend H.R. 25 is adopted and the Sixteenth Amendment is repealed before the seven year period. Well surprise, surprise! Congress still maintains power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other income. For example, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment Congress adopted the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 which was calculated from profits and gains, and it was upheld in Flint vs. Stone Tracy. Also prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment Congress laid a tax calculated from income during the Civil War and this tax was likewise upheld in Springer vs. United States. And so, the repeal of the 16th Amendment as it is worded in H.J. RES 16 [the fair tax companion legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment] is totally meaningless and an illusion to end taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes unless specific language is contained in the repeal forbidding Congress to lay any tax calculated from income, e.g., 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
I have tried for years to get the ringleaders of the “fair tax” to adopt the above wording into their repeal of the 16th Amendment, but they persist in refusing to adopt such language. Why?
So, the question is, why does Herman Cain continue to misrepresent what H.R. 25 would actually accomplish?
Finally, why does Herman Cain not support the following tax reform which also would deal with annual deficits?
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
“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 (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! These words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!
"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 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 a deficit would be:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!
"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."
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.
Bottom line is, why is Herman Cain misrepresenting the “fairtax” and not supporting a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan?
JWK
Are we really to believe the founder of fairtax.org., Leo E. Linbeck Jr. and Herman Cain, both former ringleaders of the federal reserve banking cartel which plunders our national treasury?
”In the legislation there is a clause that says the fairtax cannot go into effect until the 16th Amendment is repealed. So that puts pressure on the States and on Congress to repeal the 16th Amendment before the fairtax, the national consumption tax, goes into effect.”
The truth is, if H.R. 25 were adopted by Congress the 23 percent tax goes into effect immediately. However, if after a seven year period, during which time the America People most certainly will get comfortable to paying and complying with the tax, and the Sixteenth Amendment is not repealed, Congress will presumably end the 23 percent tax. And if one believe that baloney ….
Here is the text of H.R. 25:
TITLE IV--SUNSET OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED.
“If the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not repealed before the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, then all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to any use or consumption in any year beginning after December 31 of the calendar year in which or with which such period ends, except that the Sales Tax Bureau of the Department of the Treasury shall not be terminated until 6 months after such December 31.”
So, Herman Cain has in fact misrepresented the fairtax when stating it will not go into effect until the 16th Amendment is repealed.
But let’s pretend H.R. 25 is adopted and the Sixteenth Amendment is repealed before the seven year period. Well surprise, surprise! Congress still maintains power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other income. For example, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment Congress adopted the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 which was calculated from profits and gains, and it was upheld in Flint vs. Stone Tracy. Also prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment Congress laid a tax calculated from income during the Civil War and this tax was likewise upheld in Springer vs. United States. And so, the repeal of the 16th Amendment as it is worded in H.J. RES 16 [the fair tax companion legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment] is totally meaningless and an illusion to end taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes unless specific language is contained in the repeal forbidding Congress to lay any tax calculated from income, e.g., 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
I have tried for years to get the ringleaders of the “fair tax” to adopt the above wording into their repeal of the 16th Amendment, but they persist in refusing to adopt such language. Why?
So, the question is, why does Herman Cain continue to misrepresent what H.R. 25 would actually accomplish?
Finally, why does Herman Cain not support the following tax reform which also would deal with annual deficits?
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
“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 (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! These words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!
"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 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 a deficit would be:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!
"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."
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.
Bottom line is, why is Herman Cain misrepresenting the “fairtax” and not supporting a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan?
JWK
Are we really to believe the founder of fairtax.org., Leo E. Linbeck Jr. and Herman Cain, both former ringleaders of the federal reserve banking cartel which plunders our national treasury?