Here is a MESSAGE TO FAIR TAX RALLY PARTICIPANTS

Regards,

JWK

My goodness Ms U

That’s one heck of a rebuttal to the arguments presented in a MESSAGE TO FAIR TAX RALLY PARTICIPANTS Simply call it a rant and make an unsubstantiated claim.

Perhaps you wish to expand somewhat on your assertion?

Waiting…….still waiting…….

Regards,

JWK
ACRS

In answer to TD’s post 15 above, I posted links to arguments against H.R. 25 rather than post the particular arguments in their entirety as a courtesy to not flood another’s web page. But since you present a challenge, how about debunking the following argument concerning the socialist friendly, big government friendly H.R. 25 tax proposal?

H.R. 25 proposes to create a massive redistribution tax plan under its family consumption entitlement.

Heck, even the President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform identified the family consumption allowance as an “entitlement” program…the largest entitlement program in America [if H.R. 25 should pass] costing about $ 600 billion per year which would make Hillary Health Care look like chicken feed!

The panel found in its conclusion:

“Like other consumption taxes, the full replacement retail sales tax has pro-retail growth features. Nevertheless, the Panel does not recommend a full replacement retail sales tax. Without a large cash grant program to ease the burden of the tax, a retail sales tax would not be appropriately progressive. A cash grant program to make the tax appropriately progressive would cost at least $600 billion per year – which would make it America’s largest entitlement program. The Panel concluded that it was inappropriate to recommend a tax reform proposal that required the federal government to collect and redistribute this amount in additional revenue from taxpayers. The Panel also was concerned with administrative and compliance issues associated with a retail sales tax, as well as difficulties involving coordination with existing state sales taxes.”

The unavoidable truth is, the family consumption allowance entitles those who do not work for a living and do not contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance. Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; prostitutes and bookies and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but make babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. As a matter of fact the above would be getting an approximate $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25 for either breaking the law or sitting at home making babies. Why on earth would a freedom loving American support H.R. 25?

The family consumption allowance happens to be a socialist windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and, would be a gift to Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress who would gladly promise to increase the family consumption allowance during elections to buy votes and remain in power!

Can you picture Ted Socialist Kennedy on the Senate Floor giving a speech to increase the family consumption allowance to offset the tax on the necessities of life?

How dare those who have imposed H.R. 25 on our nation’s poor, now refuse to increase the family consumption allowance to relieve the oppressive nature of a tax which taxes the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then taxes the coffin used to bury her child because she could not afford the taxes imposed upon other necessities of life under H.R. 25!

The family consumption allowance would create a new and very dangerous voting constituency dependant upon government for a monthly government check. Why in the world would any freedom loving person support such a plan over our founding fathers original tax plan?

NEWSFLASH!

The ACLU filed a class action suit in federal court today on behalf of five hundred inmates in the Skunks Hollow County Jail who are demanding they receive the $400. per month family consumption allowance under H.R. 25 to offset the 23 percent tax they pay on articles purchased at their jailhouse commissary, and pay on other articles purchased through the mail.

A spokesman for the ACLU claimed the family consumption allowance being excluded to inmates under a provision of H.R. 25, simply because they are in jail, is a violation of equal protection of the law.

The Judge, Lefty Leftotwit, told the Attorney General who is defending the exclusion of the allowance to inmates, that he is inclined to rule in favor of the inmates and sees no reason why inmates should be subject to different tax law simply because they are inmates. The Constitution requires the uniformity of such taxes and until the Constitution is amended, he stated, his hands are bound by the Constitution and it appears each inmate is entitled to the $400 per month allowance.

Judge Leftotwit gave the Attorney General two weeks to prepare a brief as to why federal tax law should apply differently in this case.

Rumors were afloat that a lawyer named Boortz was being contacted by the Attorney General to assist in the case.

Regards,

JWK ___ a proud supporter of our founding father’s original tax reform plan.

“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.” ___Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

A GENERAL MESSAGE TO ALL

H.R. 25, in my opinion, is a socialist type of tax and violates a fundamental rule of our Constitution.

I have provided irrefutable documentation in Republican Tax Reform Attacks Federalism, free market, and promotes democracy!
that H.R. 25 violates the agreed upon rule by which the various states, under the Constitution, agreed to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury.

Our founding fathers agreed during the Convention of 1787 to change the rule for a general tax from a tax based upon wealth, to a general tax among the states which tied representation and taxation together!

Each state agreed, by its ratification of our Constitution, to pay a general tax based upon its voting strength which would insure that those states paying the lions share of the tax burden to fund the Constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government, would likewise have a proportional voice, equal to their financial contribution, in how their money would be spent.

H.R. 25 ignores this important rule. H.R. 25, just as income taxation [ a Marxist type of tax], seeks to intentionally calculate the amount of tax to be paid from wealth, property and financial success ___ a political philosophy advocating from each state according to its ability, rather than an equal per capita tax apportioned among the states as the founding fathers intended and the various states agreed by their ratification of our Constitution.

Why on earth would one support a tax proposal which would, just as income taxation now does, undermine and subjugate our founding fathers rule for a general tax among the states?

Seems to me if a person is a sincere supporter of our Constitution and they want a fair system of taxation, they would, at the very least, demand a provision to be attached to H.R. 25 requiring the rule of apportionment to be observed when laying the H.R. 25 tax among the states. And, without such a rule being applied to the tax, they would not support H.R. 25 as it violates this important rule of fairness.

Regards,

JWK
ACRS

“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” _____Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),