Neal Boortz does not answer the critics of the alleged fair tax!
I’m sure that Mr. Boortz is fully aware that our progressive crowd
was behind the 16th Amendment who hated the rule of apportionment. And they hated the rule of apportionment with regard to federal taxation because it created a fair share formula preventing the federal government from entering the most productive States and compelling the most productive people therein to carry the federal burden of taxation while the less productive people would be relieved of the obligation to contribute into the federal treasury.
The irrefutable fact is, on JULY 12TH of the Convention which framed our Constitution, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."
Eventually this compromise became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention agreed upon with these words--- contrary to the myth advanced by our progressive sympathizing news media and government operated schools, that our Constitution made Black’s 3/5ths of a person --- the real intention for these words was the creation of two rules: one was intended to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress; and a second rule for filling the national treasury was agreed upon if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to resort to a general tax among the States which reached property, real or personal.
The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows one of which was intended to apply to any general tax among the States which reached the people or their property:
__________ X Number of Reps. = State`s No. of Reps
__________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
The irrefutable fact is, the alleged fair tax, just as “progressive” income taxation now does, circumvents our founding father’s intended rule for any general tax among the states. And it should further be noted that it violates the rule of apportionment because it is a “progressive” tax and is intended to rob from the productive the rewards of their success, and then redistribute that wealth to those who are unproductive. Even the ringleaders behind the alleged fair tax are proud to announce the tax is a “progressive” tax, see: What is the FairTax plan?
“The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment“.
In any event, if we adopted the following 32 words to our Constitution, many of the sufferings we now experience by Congress’ doings would come to a screeching halt.
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
BTW, the apportioned tax was intended to be used to extinguish deficits! CLICK HERE FOR DOCUMENTATION In other words, we don’t need no stinking balanced budget amendment. We need to follow our Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted!
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot’s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.