Roger, your first statement that: "This income tax replacement plan is wholly consistent with the ideals of our Founders . . . not Karl Marx (who advocated the income tax system we now have, only more steeply graduated)." and "This is the self-limiting restraint on the amount of government that our Founding Fathers intended . . . visibility of taxes."
Well Grandpa Roger, that's not entirely true is it. Our Founders DECLARED in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE that WE THE PEOPLE had "FUNDAMENTAL INALIENABLE RIGHTS!
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added)West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)
"All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident."
* * *
"The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission."McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
In convention, begun at the city of Detroit, on the second Monday of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty five:
We, the PEOPLE of the territory of Michigan, as established by the Act of Congress of the Eleventh day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and five, in conformity to the fifth article of the ordinance providing for the government of the territory of the United States, North West of the River Ohio, believing that the time has arrived when our present political condition ought to cease, and the right of self-government be asserted; and availing ourselves of that provision of the aforesaid ordinance of the congress of the United States of the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and the acts of congress passed in accordance therewith, which entitle us to admission into the Union, upon a condition which has been fulfilled, do, by our delegates in convention assembled, mutually agree to form ourselves into a free and independent state, by the style and title of "The State of Michigan," and do ordain and establish the following constitution for the government of the same.
"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen." (italics, the Court's; bold emphasis added)Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) (Justice Field Concurring, joined by JJ. Bradley, Harlan, and Woods)
Eating is a "FUNDAMENTAL INALIENABLE RIGHT" that cannot be taxed. The fact that you are proposing to "PREBATE" a portion back to each individual is Marxist Socialism because the only way you can do this is by using the tracking number of the Social(ism) Security System and base your Prebate on the Federal Poverty Level Standards.
First. All political power is inherent in the people.
2. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, and to abolish one form of government and establish another, whenever the public good requires it.
21. All acts of the legislature contrary to this or any other article of this Constitution shall be void.
The legislative debate on the 1909 act took place in the broader context of the debate on tariff reduction. Opponents of tariff reduction, mostly from Northeastern states, viewed high tariffs as essential to protecting American industry. They argued that the benefits of such tariffs extend to ordinary workers as well as to captains of industry. Proponents of tariff reduction, mostly from the West and the South, argued that high tariffs raised the price of goods consumed by ordinary Americans to benefit the rich. They argued that an income tax was more progressive and was also better suited to fluctuations in economic conditions (because income is more responsive to economic recessions than is consumption).
Initially, it seemed likely that the Republican majority in both houses of Congress would enact the tariff bill (named the Payne-Aldrich Tariff after its co-sponsors). In the House, income tax proponents like Cordell Hull, a Democrat from Tennessee, were unable to attach an income tax amendment to the tariff bill. In the Senate, however, progressive Republicans like Robert La Follette of Wisconsin and Democrats like Joseph Bailey of Texas were more effective in arguing for the income tax. La Follette and Bailey argued that because the rich benefited more than the poor from government protection, they should pay more for it, and that enacting the income tax would silence the "envious voice of anarchy" (by which they meant socialism).But as you can see today by the FREE TRADE Agreements, we still have PROGRESSIVE Republicans like Pete Hoekstra in office, and we now have MORE Foreign made products and less American Owned Manufactures and less Jobs. Thanks Pete for voting for NAFTA, CAFTA and TARP.
Now Grandpa Roger, here's the real danger we face. Look what happened.
MAJOR COURT REVIEW AND INTERPRETATION
In 1911 the Supreme Court held that the corporate tax was an excise tax and not a "direct" tax, and therefore not unconstitutional under the 1895 precedent. This argument was made obsolete in 1913 when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, enabling Congress to adopt an income tax on individuals. However, the corporate tax was maintained and added to the individual income tax. It has been part of the Internal Revenue Code ever since.As we see below, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific, the Sixteenth Amendment did NOT make this argument obsolete.
[240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...
But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another;...
At the very beginning, however, there arose differences of opinion concerning the criteria to be applied in determining in which of the two great subdivisions a tax would fall. Without pausing to state at length the basis of these differences and the consequences which arose from them, as the whole subject was elaborately reviewed in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, we make a condensed statement which is in substance taken from what was said in that case.
Upon the lapsing of a considerable period after the repeal of the income tax laws referred to, in 1894 [28 Stat. at L. 509, chap. 349], an act was passed laying a tax on incomes from all classes of property and other sources of revenue which was not apportioned, and which therefore was of course assumed to come within the classification of excises, duties, and imposts which were subject to the rule of uniformity, but not to the rule of apportionment. The constitutional validity of this law was challenged on the ground that it did not fall within the class of excises, duties, and imposts, [240 U.S. 1, 16] but was direct in the constitutional sense, and was therefore void for want of apportionment, and that question came to this court and was passed upon in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912.
Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress. (emphis added)BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
The Supreme Court issued an important precedent interpreting the corporate tax in 1920. In the case of Eisner v. Macomber, the Court held that Congress did not have the power to tax dividends of corporate stock. In that context, the Court pointed out that corporations are separate taxpayers from shareholders and that shareholders could not be taxed on the undistributed income of corporations (as was done under the Civil War income tax).
The court treated the construction of the act as inseparable from the interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment; and, having referred to Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 Sup. Ct. 912, and quoted the Amendment, proceeded very properly to say
(242 Fed. 704):
'It is manifest that the stock dividend in question cannot be reached by the Income Tax Act and could not, even though Congress expressly declared it to be taxable as income, unless it is in fact income.'
The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,158 U.S. 601 , 15 Sup. Ct. 912, under the Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 509, 553, c. 349, 27), it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by article 1, 2, cl. 3, and section 9, cl. 4, of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:
'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among [252 U.S. 189, 206] the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 , 112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 , 173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432. (emphis added)
EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
All of the pleadings filed in the case can be found here.
"The Solicitor noted the differences between what Congress proposed and the states ratified, and presumed, that because states do not have the authority to alter a proposed Constitutional amendment, that none did. He concluded, therefore, that the differences in language were nothing more than minor clerical errors in the preparation of the Certificates of Ratification. Knox then declared the 16th Amendment had been ratified.
The legislative journals conclusively establish, that despite not having the power to do so, several states intentionally modified the language of the proposed amendment. The presumption relied upon by the Solicitor was wrong! Benson discovered other discrepancies too. He wrote and published a book on what he discovered, The Law That Never Was, available on his web site at www.TheLawThatNeverWas.com. Benson contends that less than thirty-six states actually ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment."
The issue of taxation and the Sixteenth Amendment is a political question. We, as Americans, supposedly have an inalienable right to the free debate of these issues without government interference. We, as Americans, supposedly have the right to require the government to answer our questions. We, as Americans, supposedly have the right to require the government to prove its allegations against us in Court. We, as Americans, supposedly have the right, when charged with a crime, to present a defense.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Petition for Redress Regarding the WAR POWERS CLAUSES
The Petition for Redress Regarding the GUN CONTROL LAWS
The Petition for Redress Regarding the FEDERAL INCOME TAX
The Petition for Redress Regarding the FEDERAL RESERVE
The Petition for Redress Regarding the USA PATRIOT ACT
The Petition for Redress Regarding the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
The Petition for Redress Regarding the NORTH AMERICAN UNION
So the Michigan Fair Tax, Grandpa Roger, is all smoke and mirrors to distract from the real issue. Hence, we now have MARXISM holding hands with FASCISM.