Friday, March 5, 2010

Fair Tax Plan or Judge Napolitano's Plan?

In spite of what the promoters of the Michigan Fair Tax tell you, things like,

"Everyone can't be a policy maker, and it is an American Fact that wide-sweeping changes can't happen overnight. One thing at a time, one step at a time. We got here through Progressivism, and if we are to get away from it, we must step back, one step at a time."

Or, "Take responsibility for your own previous apathy, and do something in united fashion now, letting fringe conservative arguments rest until another day!"

"While waiting for citizens to address their level of taxation, the FairTax will extract revenue from the economy in the least damaging way to the economy."

Well, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano disagrees with these statements. In his new book, and last night on Glenn Beck, Judge Napolitano said what we FRING CONSERVATIVES have been saying all along. "WE, the American people have the power to end the Income Tax and Get RID of the IRS. We don't need to "Step back, one step at a time." The Judge doesn't advise "Stepping back, one step at a time."

Where does this power come from? Take a look at Article I § 1 of your state constitution.

§ 1 Political power.
Sec. 1.

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.

How does a peaceful people take back their country and stop the government from stealing them blind and enslaving future generations? JURY DUTY.

If people knew and understood that a Grand Jury is an independent body of government and not under the control of the prosecutor, they would be demanding that the IRS provide the LAW that shows LIABILITY and not indict on a mere Penalty Statute as they do now.

If people knew their Power and Duty while serving in the jury box, they would know that:

The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).

But they should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983),
cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).

They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.

But, you don't have to believe me, get Judge Napolitano's new book and read it for yourself.

Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History ORDER HERE






The Census Bureau Refuses to Answer About
Its Collection and Use of Personal Information




Liberal Delusions About Freedom

Contradictions

First of all, let’s talk about the economic system that existed in the United States from the inception of the nation to the latter part of the 19th century. The principles are simple to enumerate: No income taxation (except during the Civil War), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, economic regulations, licensure laws, drug laws, immigration controls, or coercive transfer programs, such as farm subsidies and education grants.

There was no federal department of labor, agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, or homeland security. There was no SEC, DEA, FEMA, OSHA, or EPA.

There was no Federal Reserve System and no paper money or legal-tender laws (except during the Civil War). People used gold and silver coins as money.

There were no foreign military bases and no involvement in foreign wars. The size of the military was small.

Now, I ask you a simple question: Does that way of life resemble even in the remotest way the way of life under which Americans live today? Of course it doesn’t, because the way of life under which we live today is precisely opposite to that under which our American ancestors lived. Today’s Americans do live under all those programs, departments, and agencies, and principles that were absent during the first 125 years or so of American history. FULL STORY

23 comments:

Daar said...

I am in agreement with you on the Jury nullification issue, that our government has over-stepped its Constitutional limitations for which taxpayer monies are spent, and this would not have been possible without well-organized efforts to deceive.

Where I'm scratching my head is at your very fuzzy connection between what one (uncited) MI FairTax advocate believes as against what you say Judge Napolitano believes, and how it specifically relates to the FairTax. I've spoken up before where I felt that you've misled your audience; this is another illustration.

Your tax policy prescription is also defective, as I see it. Government has a Constitutional right to raise revenue. And, regardless of how the tax is laid, we the citizens will be the payor of all taxes. You state that all taxes should be laid against corporations. The trouble is that when you lay taxes against corporations, essentially making "tax collectors" of them, they simply pass their costs through to you and me, at a mark-up to cover compliance and tax avoidance costs, in higher prices - invisibly. The government gets away with a cover-up that keeps us ignorant. At the same time, the corporations comply with a tax code, which - for the right price - can be amended. They hire lobbyists to interact with legislators to give them an edge against competition, and we end up paying for all of these costs, again, in higher prices.

So, you'll hollar and scream about a personal income tax, but not a corporate one which still brings with it all kinds of mischief.

A couple of years ago, Massachusetts floated a ballot question that called for repeal of that state's income tax, without replacement. It failed overwhelmingly because the proposal bit off more than the people were willing to chew. Yet, that's your prescription for depression-ridden Michigan.

What's more, the MI FairTax would do what your prescription would fail to do: It caps the dollars that Lansing can spend. At present, spending is not capped. If they can raise it, they can spend it! Besides the cap, and visibility, here are some other vital features that go into operation upon enacting the MI FairTax:

• Ends gov't "paying itself first" via wage withholding
• Stops diluting business energies to tax collections (it passes through to us in higher prices)
• Pays for gov't, only as we bless our families with purchases
• Un-taxes resident MI families' poverty-level spending with a monthly cash prebate - no (game-able) tax code needed
• Prebate reduces 9.75% rate to 2.7% (avg) "effective rate" (median stat on family of four)
• Monies placed into savings are monies not available to be taxed (and interest / investment income is accrued tax-free)
• Decreases points of collection by 90%
• Pressures the tax rate downwards, as the economy experiences rapid growth
• Makes MICHIGAN NO. 1 FOR JOBS! Businesses and population will flock to our shores.

Enacting the MI FairTax means:
• NO MORE income tax filings (personal or business)
• NO MORE loopholes (tax code GONE, together with lobbyists who game it)

It’s often misstated that the MI FairTax doesn't address spending, yet it does (witness the spending cap). But, less obvious is the manner in which how this tax is collected is crucial to the electorate understanding its true tax load and having the information it needs to make a successful challenge to government spending in the public forum. Anything other than a progressive consumption tax, at the retail level, does not provide the transparency "fuel" needed to bring the heat (that we surely will), upon any demands for an increased rate once its operational. Vigilance is a responsibility of good citizenship. We've been lax, and have paid a dear price. Hopefully, the awakening of the Tea Parties is the beginning of a continuing process.

Rose said...

Daar,

you are the one who is misrepresenting here. What the Judge said in the video is that the American People have the POWER to end the Income Tax and get rid of the IRS.

That means get rid of Corporate Income Tax Daar, because that is who is required to file and pay in the first place. But you don't get into education anyone on that issue do you.

What you are doing is trying to promote another slave taxing to replace the Corporate Tax before more people catch on. That's why you go ballistic every time anyone brings up that issue.

We don't need a new way to tax us Daar, we need less government and your plan doesn't do a thing to accomplish that.

Troy Citizens United said...

The Mi Fair Tax idea is becoming more favorable to me as I study the implications of keeping our present corrupt tax system in place versus altering the very method of collection in a major way such as taxing consumption instead of income. I actually think the Mi Fair Tax is a far less intrusive form of taxation and by that very nature it is less conducive to government manipulation and misuse. The plan forces a vote of the people before an increase could be instituted and quite frankly it would take moving a mountain before most clear thinking individuals would "vote to increase taxes" now that we have the power of an alternate mass communication network like the Internet (and if someone's response to me is something negative like "most people aren't clear thinking," I would challenge their worldview of negativity when in fact ignorance is not evil [as stated by Ayn Rand] because ignorance can be corrected through education ... and I refer back to the power of the Internet). The national mechanism is already in place for the government to track us via social security numbers; however if this system were to be utilized to provide a poverty level payment to all legal citizens instead of tracking potential "lawbreakers" who are trying to skirt the convoluted tax system we currently have in place, I think that would be a much more transparent use of a national tracking system that {knock, knock} isn't going to go away just because we might wish or want it to go away. The least we could do is try to convert it to the best of our human {and therefore imperfect} ability to become a help instead of a hindrance to society. Nothing is perfect; our present tax system must be choked off as soon as possible; and I have yet to hear anyone suggest a better system than taxing only the initial purchase of a product. I say we need to take this bold step and if some particular aspect of the new Fair Tax system requires tweaking, let's use the power of the Internet and the power of the ballot box to make the changes that we SEE rather than stop the advancement of our society based upon what we FEAR.

Rose said...

The national mechanism is already in place for the government to track us via social security numbers;

So, let me be clear, you are saying that it's OK With you that the government is already tracking us with SS# and we should just accept it. RIGHT.

It's OK with you that the IRS is misapplying the tax code and we should just accept that. RIGHT.

So, here in Michigan, we should just sit down, shut up, and pay so that our employees can have a better life. Right. After all, they have a UNION, and we don't.

Since when isn't equal rights, not equal in this state? Have you bothered to read the Michigan Bill of Rights? Or are you one of those people who holds a government job and want's to protect it?

Self Employed people have to pay their own health care, their pay check is determined by what they produce. Unlike those of you who work for us and demand everything be paid for by US.

Get a life and get real. You don't have an argument here so go find a real job.

Troy Citizens United said...

First of all I never said that I was okay with the government having the ability to track us ... you leapt to that conclusion all on your own ... I said that no matter what we do, it is a reality that our government has that ability, we cannot change the reality of the situation, it is too far gone and so if we can use the tracking mechanisms to our advantage rather than to our detriment that would be preferable to me. I don't have any grandiose illusions that we are going to be able to click our heels and arrive home safe and sound any time soon. Second, I am a 20 year entrepreneur who has never relied upon a government salary and who has year after year paid my 15% to the Ponzi scheme social security system because I am the source of my own income. I might add that if I were a bitter person I would probably take offense to your blatant, cruel and uncalled for attacks against me; however, I am not a bitter person so I will leave your untoward comments alone and simply consider the source to be completely off the mark and prone to negativity when attempting to discuss rational opinions with anyone else other than when speaking to the face in your mirror. I won't waste my time on your self-serving blog ever again and quite frankly there is no need for you to reply to this post ... I have no interest in reading any more of your personal vitriol against persons who simply express opinions outside of your world view. And, these comments are not attributable to Troy Citizens United. I am not sure why my posts are coming from that group. These are solely my opinions. Best regards, Janice Daniels

Daar said...

At present: Constitution permits raising revenue. Citizens pay ALL taxes. Citizens are not aware of their true tax costs, because business taxation ends up hidden in prices.

Right now we have the worst of all worlds, an income tax on personal wages and business income. We have forced compliance under threat of audits, interest, penalties, even jail time. 4.3 million tax returns need be processed in MI at taxpayer expense - and everyone is a prospective walking "tax deficiency."

The politicians have socially-engineered our personal and business behavior via "rewards and punishments" - continually-legislated modifications to the income tax code. A primary feature of political campaigns, today, are candidates who tell us how much of our own money they are going to permit us to keep. Nevermind the "power" that Napolitano tells us we have - we permit it! Too many MI citizens have bought into the need for gov’t programs; and they are not going to accept a "meat ax" approach to changing things without some positive change in their financial well-being (like, having a job?!).

We’ve adapted to being drained of our $$ blood, every working hour. We’ve come to accept "Net" and "Gross." We don’t know what we really make, we quote the "Gross" automatically, as if we were really receiving it!

So, what does FairTax do? It does NOT preach "meat ax" approach cuts to spending - THAT IS NOT ITS IMMEDIATE PURPOSE which is to:

• Eliminate wasteful tax compliance.
• Make visible our true tax load by ending the "tax the corporations" straw man. (Corporations pass there costs through to us.)
• Bring JOBS BACK TO MI because business will come to a state that isn't making tax-collection demands upon it. MI’s economy will BOOM.
• Cap spending in Lansing, setting the stage for accountability.
• Ending the legislature's ability to raise "the rate" without a vote of the people.
• End the economic (and emigration) damage that reckless administration of an income tax system permitted.
• Setting in place a tax system that works (to the benefit of citizens, but at cost in power to politicians and lobbyists); and that will domino through the states (and on to Washington).

In Michigan, the FairTax eliminates this "beast" called the income tax - in a revenue-neutral manner - not because we support spending levels, but because we must first:

• Lay waste to the corrosive income tax code.
• Dismantle the lobbyist industry that surrounds gaming that code.
• Make ALL MI dollars "pre-tax GROSS" dollars actually received.
• Place Lansing on the expense side of the family ledger.
• Restore a robust and vibrant MI ECONOMY (it will be 1st in the nation).
• Enable MI families to attend to THEIR needs FIRST.
• Enable MI families to acquire wealth with "pre-tax GROSS" dollars that don't require dragging the state gov't along to ACQUIRE wealth.

Once you return ownership and control of the family purse to the family, create a robust economy that places a premium on wages, then you're revamp taxpayer psychology. ONLY THEN will citizens have the WILL TO EXERCISE THEIR POWER given displeasure with Lansing's spending (and that would be to "buy used," or grow their own food, make their own clothes - BUT THEY WILL STILL BE ABLE TO WORK, AND THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS WILL BE SAFE FROM INTRUSION AND CONFISCATION.)

Rose said...

I'm not sure why your posts are coming from Troy either.

I would however like to point out to you that there is one person so far that you may want to take a closer look at if you haven't already. Rick Snyder who does at least have a plan that's posted for all to read.

http://www.rickformichigan.com/

I have also been self employeed and my husband has always been self employeed. I just don't believe as you do that we don't have the ability to turn this around. We do and we always have. That's why I now spend hours every day posting this information on a blog.

I know that the Fair Tax is not going to do what they promoters claim it will do and people need to really take a look at this proposal to see it.

whether you come and read my blog or not is up to you. But as an intelligent woman who runs her own business, don't you think it's time to say enough is enough? I do. It really is sad when I hear people say that we cannot change what is so we should make the best of it.

That's the type of opinions that are keeping us slaves to this system instead of changing it. I hope that somewhere along the way, you might get Napolitano's book to understand that.

R. George Dunn said...

The deception of putting words in Judge Napolitano's mouth come from the title of this posting. FairTax does in one big swoop eliminate income tax and the IRS as we know it, 160,000 pages of enslavement or lobby granting to Congressman for bribes paid. Did you know that congressman can keep their Campaign funds when they retire?

FairTax also, in one big swoop makes near all taxes transparent. The frustration will be the size of tax needed to cover Government tyranny at both State and Federal level. hiding tax in the cost of product or service by taxing a corporation is the greatest folly in taxation there is Rose.

By the way, not knowing enough about Judge Napolitano still makes me think he is the best choice for President.

By the way, keeping the systems we have and just tweaking them or making it flat is compromising with the Devil. Lobbyists will still corrupt the Government and congressman will still be bribed legally.

Constitutional conduct and transparent FairTax please.

R. George Dunn said...

On Rick Snyder, I looked into him when he first started announcing his intention and found him to be a big government big business type who has liberal leanings for government to empower over our lives, not a real conservative at all.

We need to repeal State laws on many departments including educationa dn healthcare. Imagine repealing all the education laws and letting local communities determine what qualifies a teacher and at what cost? Fake sheepskin being replaced by proper attitude and apptitude teachers from we the people, not from the bureaucrats determinations.

Rose said...

George,

Show us in the actual verbiage of the proposed Fair Tax legislation where it says it will in "One Big Swoop Eliminate Income Tax and the IRS.

We all want to read the actual words that says that!!!

R. George Dunn said...

Rose, here is the FairTax Bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-25

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Fair Tax Act of 2009’.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Congressional findings.

TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES

Sec. 101. Income taxes repealed.

Sec. 102. Payroll taxes repealed.

Sec. 103. Estate and gift taxes repealed.

Sec. 104. Conforming amendments; effective date.

TITLE II--SALES TAX ENACTED

Rose said...

And did you read this clause?

(2) a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax. Terminates the sales tax imposed by this Act if the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (authorizing an income tax) is not repealed within seven years after the enactment of this Act.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h25/show

R. George Dunn said...

Yes, the reason the repeal of the FairTax plan is called for if the 16th amendment is not repealed is to appease the duplication of taxation that arises from introducing federal sales tax and not eliminating the other taxes. It is also to present how serious FairTax plan is to eliminate the 16th Amendment.

You have heard the latest rally of the left on taxation, calling for the VAT, Value Added Tax, being used in Europe. It hides salestax in product, only placing a small % of salestax on the retail sales and the rest built in at wholesale sales.

We must end the current tax structure, eliminate the 16th amendment so that direct tax cannot come back. As of today, the federal government can put a sales tax on top of what we have now. With the unconstitutionally ratified 16th amendment being held up as Law, the federal government can tax in any way they can imagine and this must end.

R. George Dunn said...

On the need of the Government to have an ID on a citizen to distribute the pre-bate is not mandatory. We will still have the freedom to not register for the monthly check.

Illegal aliens will not be able to register and will not be able to retain the tax they pay on essentials by receiving the prebate allowance at the ceiling level of income %.

As to not being identified, that all went out the window with the forcement of social security numbers on new borns, unless you are born at home and are not registering your children. The fear of government being able to control our lives is not from them knowing who we are, but from their taxing of what we have, the property we own, to include the wages we earn. Our money is as much a property as our homes, which should not be subject to property tax either. The founders idea of an indirect tax is the greatestmethod of protecting you from government. It leaves you with the option of not paying it. That is what fairtax offers, that and the end of lobbyists being able to bribe Congressman and legislators for a waiver of tax law, as under FairTax, the tax law will not be amendable, period.

Rose said...

I see what your problem is here George.

One, the 16th Amendment is Constitutional as it is and has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be an Excise Tax.

Like the challenge made to the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax Act, a challenge was also made to the constitutionality of this 1913 income tax act. The Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916), declared that the federal income tax was, in a constitutional sense, an excise tax. See also Hale v. Iowa State Bd. of Assessment and Review, 302 U.S. 95, 106 (1937) ("Finally, and even more conclusively, decisions of our own court forbid us to stigmatize as unreasonable the classification of a tax upon net income as something different from a property tax, if not substantially an excise. People ex rel. Clyde v. Gilchrist, 262 U.S. 94 , 43 S.Ct. 501; New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 , 57 S.Ct. 466, 108 A.L.R. 821; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 36 S.Ct. 236, L.R.A.1917D, 414, Ann.Cas. 1917B, 713, all point in that direction.").

R. George Dunn said...

Here is a paragraph on the MiFairTax home page:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION BY AMENDING SECTIONS 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11 OF ARTICLE IX, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 43, 44, 45, 46, AND 47 TO ARTICLE IX. THE AMENDMENT IS BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: The Michigan Fair Tax Proposal would amend the Constitution of the State of Michigan to eliminate the Michigan Income Tax of 4.35% and the Michigan Business Tax and replaces those taxes with a 9.75% sales tax on all consumer purchases of goods and services, but does not tax business to business transactions. No other statewide tax could be restored, enacted, or the sales tax increased without a vote of the people. The state shall reimburse to every Michigan citizen's household an amount based on the Federal Poverty Level Guidelines. This proposal would constitutionally guarantee Revenue Sharing for counties, townships, cities, and villages.

Here is the link to the MiFairTax proposal:
http://mifairtax.org/resrcs/MI_Fair_Tax_Proposal_Proposed_language.pdf

We need jobs in Michigan and being our State is near the highest in taxes built into the product manufactured in Michigan, FairTax will begin to grow jobs immediately upon the people passing the Constitutional amendment. If we can convince Congress or 37 States to amnd the constitution, to embrace FairTax federally, we will see more jobs then workers to fill them, thus creating inflation from employers bidding for the employment of Americans. We have not had wage inflation since the Federal Reserve began controlling interest rates, keeping enough employees in the workpool, over 5%, until recently, when it became clear that our nation was beginning to hemmorage fiscally in the late 1990's.

Please reconsider your view of FairTax and embrace it as the Founders would of in this day.

Rose said...

George,

Illegal aliens will get the pre-bait the same way they get welfare now. It's called anchor babies. Go read County Spends $600 Mil On Welfare For Illegal Immigrants on my blog.

R. George Dunn said...

Rose, I am not a friend of the 16th amendment nor the 17th amendment.

Thanks for putting the legal presence of the 16th so clearly. I must say though, that property tax is not a federal tax, it is a local or State tax, and the Constitution does not speak to this, other then being silent to State powers preserved to the States by not enumerating the Federal Government such power.

Under the 16th Amendment, the Federal Government can levy a property tax if they so chose. Without the 16th, a direct tax on property is not lawful, thus the income tax would be eliminated from federal right of power, as it is a direct tax, as is property tax.

R. George Dunn said...

The frustration of illegal immigration goes on and on and on. My answer is to put our miltary on the border and protect our economy as without an economy, we fail as a Nation, making the underground economy an viper, a leach, a ruin to our fiscal value.

I am not sure, but logic would dictate, that anchor children of illegal aliens would not be able to draw on the pre-bate, as the prebate requires a head of household and children cannot meet tha. Just a guess, note that those who are rich that earn income that is exempt by congress or hidden off shore will pay as will the illegal business owners.

Rose said...

No one said property tax was a federal tax George. But you claim the 16th is un-constitutional. If you bothered to read the SC rulings on the issue you would know that the 16th is constitutional because it is a Excise Tax and it is a tax on the Income of Corporations.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&page=1

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [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, as follows:

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; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

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 vacations; 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.

2. The act provides for collecting the tax at the source; that is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax on interest due on bonds and mortgages, unless the owner to whom the interest is payable gives a notice that he claims an exemption. This duty cast upon corporations, because of the cost to which they are subjected, is asserted to be repugnant to due process of law as a taking of their property without compensation, and we recapitulate various contentions as to discrimination against corporations and against individuals, [240 U.S. 1, 22] predicated on provisions of the act dealing with the subject.

(a) Corporations indebted upon coupon and registered bonds are discriminated against, since corporations not so indebted are relieved of any labor or expense involved in deducting and paying the taxes of individuals on the income derived from bonds.

R. George Dunn said...

My claim to unconstitutionality of the 16th has to do with one state lack of the needed number for State ratification.

As to the legality of income tax and the calling it the property of corporations, I would argue that logic as greatly flawed. We are getting away from the theme of this thread, but when an employee agrees to work for so much property, at a certain paylevel, it is the employees portion that is taken in income tax.

FairTax removes all this insanity we ahve in DC and in the courts. It eliminates the IRS and sets up a few much smaller agencies with little power, certainly none over we the people. As to lowering the unconstitutional spending in DC, it will take the election of constitutional character statesman to do so. We can replace SSI
& medicare by either nothing or by States' mandated HSA/IRA. We need to fix DC for sure and FairTax will go a long way to changing the congress to whom they serve, the people rather then the lobbyist.

Off subject, if we make it so only registered voters may donate to candidates, it will eliminate the rest of the graft in DC and Lansing.

Rose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rose said...

It's your thinking that is flawed George, which is why you will never convince any of us who take the time to read through the supreme court decisions and the actual codes themselves that this is a good thing.

Your fair tax does nothing but transfer a corporate income tax to a head tax on the people called a sales tax.

Why don't you do some homework like...Who Is Liable.
http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35&Itemid=37