Truth is, the text of H.R. 25 merely proposes the 16th Amendment “should be” repealed. In addition, neither does H.R. 25 propose to get rid of taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”. And, none of the co-sponsors of H.R. 25 propose to get rid of taxes calculated from profits, gains salaries and other “incomes”.

The architects of H.R. 25 have left a very clever loophole in the language of H.R. 25 allowing Congress to continue calculating taxes from profits and gains and other “incomes“. This of course would also allow a continuance of the existing misery of record keeping under taxes laid upon “incomes“.

H.R.25 stipulates the following:

SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.

Well, isn’t that peachy? But, there is no language in H.R. 25 suggesting to repeal all taxes which may be calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”! Why is this pertinent and ought to cause alarm? To understand this one must study FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), a case decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment. The Court upheld an excise tax, ‘the corporation tax’ law of 1909, which was laid upon the privilege of being a Corporation and the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from profits and gains realized under the corporate charter granted by government. Although such a tax looks like and quacks like an “income tax”, it is not a generic “income tax” and is not even suggested to be repealed by the language of H.R. 25!

If H.R. 25 were adopted, our socialist Congress would have no difficulty gaining popular support to use its “excise” taxing power to enact a small excise tax on the “windfall profits” of those evil corporations and then calculate the amount of tax to be paid from their profits, or, how about also laying a windfall profits tax on those evil and wealthy scoundrels in America who make millions of dollars a year in profits by bleeding the poor working people, such as was alleged about Leona Helmsley who they sent to jail for an alleged tax fraud, but who actually contributed more in federal taxes than any twenty average working people in New York.

If the architects of H.R. 25 are really sincere and determined about ending taxes calculated from income, then they would have said so in crystal clear language such as:

“The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any“ tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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”

But as it turns out, not one of the co-sponsors of H.R.25 have proposed a companion bill to H.R. 25 with specific language proposing a constitutional amendment to forbid Congress from calculating any tax or burden from “profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money”, and would be necessary to end the misery which now occurs under “income taxation”. What has been proposed is the following clever and empty language:

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 16

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article —
`The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.

And what do the architects of H.R. 25 propose within the language of H.R. 25? The language of H.R. 25 merely says that the 16th Amendment “should be repealed”. But if H.R. 25 were adopted, and 10 or 15 years down the road the 16th Amendment by some remote chance is finally repealed by the above proposed language in H. J. RES. 16, Congress still maintains the power to calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” under its excise taxing powers, and, the SCOTUS has already upheld such a tax in the FLINT CASE mentioned above!

“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”

Regards,

JWK

The framers of our Constitution intended to allow Congress to raise its necessary revenue from imposts and duties [taxes at our water‘s edge], and miscellaneous excise taxes [internal taxes]. And if imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and a general tax among the states were found necessary to meet Congress’s expenditures, the following formula would be observed:

State`s population

——————————X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

After determining the total sum needed, and each state’s share was calculated, each state’s Congressional Delegation was to then return to their own state with a bill to extinguish their state’s share of the tax. and the various state legislatures and Governors were then to retain the responsibility of having to meet that financial responsibility in their own chosen way, which would prevent Congress from entering the states and taxing the people as Congress may think proper, and manipulating who shall pay the federal burden.

In addition, Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 was also a compromise the insure that those states paying the lion’s share of the federal tax burden in a general tax among the states, would be compensated by a vote in Congresses equal to the financial contribution ___ a vote to be exercised when Congress determines how to spend their money! And this is another aspect of our founding father’s plan, representation with proportional obligation which socialists and the friends of our Washington Establishments political plum job empire hate with a passion, and H.R. 25 is designed to subjugate.

Keep in mind there is a vast difference in laying miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption from a general tax among the states which is specifically intended to be Congress’s primary source to fill the national treasury___ the latter type of tax being the very type of tax for which the rule of apportionment was adopted ___ a general type of tax among the states as a primary means to fill the national treasury which would make the most productive states in the union carry the largest share of the federal tax burden! And so, a compromise was reach tying such a tax and representation by the same standard…each state‘s population‘s size

Of course this has already been established by the SCOTUS in POLLOCK V. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429; (1895) which struck down a tax because it would have subjugated the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted! The Court carefully documents the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted___ two illuminating references being:

Mr. George Nicholas said: “the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil. . . . Each State [*568] will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled.” 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked 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

CLICK HERE FOR An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the united states1st direct tax July 14, 1789 for $2 million and each state’s share of the $2million being raised.

CLICK HERE FOR Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.

H.R. 25 proposes to subjugate the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted. PERIOD

Supporters of H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax, and the socialists who worked very hard to adopt the 16th Amendment, both have something very much in common ___ the subjugation of the rule of apportionment by which the people of the various states agreed they would contribute into the common treasury if imposts, duties [external taxes] and miscellaneous excise taxes [inland taxes on consumption] were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures.

But the difference between the socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment and those who now promote the alleged fair tax is this.

The socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment were up front and promoted exactly what they wanted:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But the weasels behind H.R. 25, who are obviously the friends of big government, are not being up front in saying exactly what they want, which is:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes within the various states on the sale of property, real and personal, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Instead of saying exactly what they want, direct access to the people’s property, real and personal, they hide their evil by calling it the “fairtax“! But when all is said and done, H.R. 25 is the same socialists type taxing pig we now have but in a different dress!

The only tax reform freedom loving people need is to have the following words added to their Constitution, bringing us back to ourFOUNDING FATHER‘S ORIGINAL TAX PLANwhich was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than having Congress control the people:

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

Regards,

JWK

Rescued from the Spam Filter–Kevin

The framers of our Constitution intended to allow Congress to raise its necessary revenue from imposts and duties [taxes at our water‘s edge], and miscellaneous excise taxes [internal taxes]. And if imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and a general tax among the states were found necessary to meet Congress’s expenditures, the following formula would be observed:

State`s population

——————————X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

After determining the total sum needed, and each state’s share was calculated, each state’s Congressional Delegation was to then return to their own state with a bill to extinguish their state’s share of the tax. and the various state legislatures and Governors were then to retain the responsibility of having to meet that financial responsibility in their own chosen way, which would prevent Congress from entering the states and taxing the people as Congress may think proper, and manipulating who shall pay the federal burden.

In addition, Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 was also a compromise the insure that those states paying the lion’s share of the federal tax burden in a general tax among the states, would be compensated by a vote in Congresses equal to the financial contribution ___ a vote to be exercised when Congress determines how to spend their money! And this is another aspect of our founding father’s plan, representation with proportional obligation which socialists and the friends of our Washington Establishments political plum job empire hate with a passion, and H.R. 25 is designed to subjugate.

Keep in mind there is a vast difference in laying miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption from a general tax among the states which is specifically intended to be Congress’s primary source to fill the national treasury___ the latter type of tax being the very type of tax for which the rule of apportionment was adopted ___ a general type of tax among the states as a primary means to fill the national treasury which would make the most productive states in the union carry the largest share of the federal tax burden! And so, a compromise was reach tying such a tax and representation by the same standard…each state‘s population‘s size

Of course this has already been established by the SCOTUS in POLLOCK V. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429; (1895) which struck down a tax because it would have subjugated the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted! The Court carefully documents the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted___ two illuminating references being:
Mr. George Nicholas said: “the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil. . . . Each State [*568] will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled.” 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked 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

CLICK HERE FOR An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the united states1st direct tax July 14, 1789 for $2 million and each state’s share of the $2million being raised.

CLICK HERE FOR Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.

H.R. 25 proposes to subjugate the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted. PERIOD

Supporters of H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax, and the socialists who worked very hard to adopt the 16th Amendment, both have something very much in common ___ the subjugation of the rule of apportionment by which the people of the various states agreed they would contribute into the common treasury if imposts, duties [external taxes] and miscellaneous excise taxes [inland taxes on consumption] were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures.

But the difference between the socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment and those who now promote the alleged fair tax is this.

The socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment were up front and promoted exactly what they wanted:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But the weasels behind H.R. 25, who are obviously the friends of big government, are not being up front in saying exactly what they want, which is:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes within the various states on the sale of property, real and personal, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Instead of saying exactly what they want, direct access to the people’s property, real and personal, they hide their evil by calling it the “fairtax“! But when all is said and done, H.R. 25 is the same socialists type taxing pig we now have but in a different dress!

The only tax reform freedom loving people need is to have the following words added to their Constitution, bringing us back to ourFOUNDING FATHER‘S ORIGINAL TAX PLANwhich was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than having Congress control the people:

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

Regards,

JWK

It seems that your biggest objection is with the political class rather than the Fair Tax.
I agree that the politicians as a rule are not trustworhty, but there are a few of them that know why they are in Washington and who it was that sent them. John Linder is one of them. As the author of the Fair Tax Bill(HR25) he made sure that the language of the bill requires the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment before anything else can go forward. I guarantee that he will not let that provision be changed.
The Fair Tax is the best proposal out there to not only give transparency of the process, but to give a huge boost to the economic strength of this country. By relieving the corporate community of the onerous burden of the current tax code, you free them up to do what they do best- drive the economy. What better way to keep the ecomony strong than to create an influx of businesses previously going to our overseas competition because of our tax structure. One prime example of which was Diamler-Chrysler. We lost their corporate headquarters because of the unfair tax burden that all U.S. companies bear.
Small businesses also have to deal with these same taxes. You said that you wanted to start a company,but you didn’t like having an uninvited party coming in and taking part of your transaction at the point of a gun. Well you will be doing that anyway because part of your cost of doing business is figuring in the tax liability of you and your employees in your overhead and therefore in your prices. YOU’RE ALREADY PAYING THEM, it’s just hidden from your and your customer’s view. That’s why they call them embedded.
It’s going to take a grassroots effort like this one to make any changes in D.C. Quit bitching about everyone elses proposals and do something.

The Aardvark, you are basically saying that a schoolyard bully DOES have your support. You just think he will be LESS bullying than the other guy.

This is precisely NOT what the FairTax would do. Part and parcel with the FairTax is the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, so no, it would not be in addition to the current income tax.

Ultimately, NO tax is easily borne, as one with no rights to your money steps in and demands a portion of yours, like a schoolyard bully. The FairTax is simply the most transparent and least onerous of the choices. It has my support.

Billy, you say that Knapp and I want to “roll over and play dead”. That is a total misreading of what we are saying about the Income Tax versus the Fair Tax. It implies we don’t want to make any change at all to the Income Tax, when that is definitely NOT the case.

One of the, if not the MAIN, objections to the Fair Tax is that it is revenue neutral.
(This seems to be one reason why the Mises Instutite and Congressman Ron Paul are not enthusiastic supporters of it)

The reason people hate the income tax is that it is so excessive and funds SO MANY unnecessary bureaucratic agencies. I really doubt that a national sales tax, gathering the SAME amount of money, and administered from a federal agency – yes there would have to be some IRS-equivalent agency – would gain support from the average person once they understood what LITTLE real difference it would make.

Our objection to both forms of taxation is simple – it is theft, no matter how you try to phrase it.
If I have a business, selling goods that people desire to buy, each customer enters into a willing transaction with ME (rather than a competitor, assuming my goods seem more valuable). The government steps in, uninvited, and takes money from one of us. By force, if necessary. That is your so-called Fair Tax.

To answer the question of how the government would get its money if there is no taxation at all, I guess I would say…THATS NOT MY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

You and your ilk make a living by the negative commentary without ever proposing something better.

To me it’s time for you to put up or shut up.

These objections aren’t on the MERITS of the Fair Tax proposal, i.e., what is set forth in the Fair Tax Act itsself, but instead, on what Congress and others MIGHT do in the future. (Do you have a crystal ball or something?) The Fair Tax isn’t perfect, but there’s just something about the federal government FINALLY getting a cut of the currently UNtaxed income of drug dealers, prostitutes, gamblers, undocumented aliens, et al., when they BUY stuff . . . and stuff they WILL buy.