[no02rSx2]

A Consumption Tax is a great way to screw the poor. !

Especially the consumption tax plan Neal Boortz is promoting!

It’s amazing that people like Boortz, who claim to uphold the intent of our Founding Fathers written Constitution, supports a consumption tax plan 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 the necessities of life!

But just what did the Founding Fathers intend?

To summarize our Founding Fathers tax plan, they intended to first rely upon external taxation___ duties and imposts on imported articles. As Madison states during the framing of our nation’s first revenue raising act:

“___ a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.” see:Madison April 8, 1789

Take note at the above link that each articles is judicially selected by Congress and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax to be imposed upon each specific article chosen. In addition, the power of external taxation was also intended to be used by Congress to encourage America’s domestic industries and businesses and not businesses owned by internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation for that matter.

Example:

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specific articles of consumption which were imported, the first revenue raising Act (July 4th, 1789) also imposed an across- the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports shipped in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

“a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof.

This patriotic and skillful use of external taxation not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's merchant marine becoming the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, when I visit the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area today, I am saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels.

Yes, there was a day when our national treasury was gladly filled by foreigners paying for the opportunity to do business on American soil. But this was when members of Congress, and those running for Office, put American interests first and would have considered the NAFTA, GATT and the WTO as acts of sedition, and would have tarred and feathered those participating in the surrender of America's sovereignty which such Acts have obviously accomplished.

A national sales tax plan which omits external taxation as a principal source to fill our national treasury and to encourage domestic industries and businesses, is in fact a surrender of national sovereignty to the advantage of foreign and/or international interests!

In effect, our founding fathers, as a first method of raising a revenue, had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on American soil.

But if insufficient revenue was raised from external taxation, then an internal tax on articles of consumption was intended to be resorted to. But once again, each article was to be specifically selected and then evaluated for the appropriate amount of tax. This of course allows Congress to exclude from taxation specifically chosen articles. But why omit certain articles of consumption?

It seems to be self evident that specific articles related to business and industry ought to be excluded from the list of taxables to encourage a healthy business environment on American soil in order for America to compete with foreign made goods, and to form a strong domestic manufacturing capability which is essential to the survival of our nation and providing good paying jobs. It also seems to be self evident that articles of necessity, such as food, clothing, medical expenses, etc., ought not be taxed to avoid an oppressive burden upon the poor and working class, but all such articles excluded must be excluded upon a truthful assessment of what constitutes luxury as opposed to a necessity.

Tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct business, food, shelter, clothing, and even medical expenses can truthfully be claimed to be both a necessity and luxury in particular instances, and the very reason why a close examination by Congress of each particular article in question is necessary, which is far different from an across the board tax on consumption as supported by Boortz.


As Hamilton states with reference to a tax on articles of consumption, they:


”__ may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions__ It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which can not be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue__” See No. 21 of the Federalist

Surely there is a clear enough distinction between such foods as caviar and chicken eggs, between wine and milk, between silk and cotton underwear, between a Chevy Nova and BMW to truthfully say one is a luxury and the other a necessity. And therefore, it is Congress’ rightful duty and responsibility to select such articles as done under our nation’s early revenue raising acts, and in so doing, ought to take into account the people’s overall perception which would help to diminish the outrageous inequalities and oppression now experienced under federal taxation.

But in the final analysis, it is far better to have Congress spend its time selecting specific articles of consumption for taxation than legislating our freedoms away and manipulating the definition of “taxable income” to mean whatever the powerful want it to mean and then place the burden of taxation “directly” upon particular economic classes from which they have no escape.

It should also be noted that it is far easier for the ordinary people, and those with little education, to keep track of and understand the validity of a tax placed on, or not placed on, a specific article of consumption, than to understand the complicated and incompressible tax code created by Congress in which Congress manipulates taxation with a slid of hand to favor some while burdening others.

But what happens if the above sources are insufficient to meet Congress’ exigencies or an emergency should occur causing Congress to borrow and thereby creates a deficit? Our Founding Fathers provided a thoughtful solution which not only imposes fiscal disciple upon Congress, but makes each states’ congressional delegation immediately accountable to their state Governor and Legislature by having a direct tax laid upon the states under the Founding Father’s Fair Share Formula___Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states___ as set forth in Article I, Section 2, clause 3, of the United Constitution.

Under the direct tax each state was intended to contribute a share of the total figure being raised by Congress, basing each state’s bill upon its number of votes in Congress,___ representation with proportional obligation, something which our big spenders in Congress dread! No loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, were to bring home to their state’s Governor a bill for the largest share of the direct tax ___ a very important check and balance of our founding fathers encouraging each state’s legislature and governor to keep a jealous eye on their congressional delegation’s spending habits while in Washington, which is no longer being practiced, but if practiced, would be an immediate cure for today’s irresponsible spending habits of Congress who have enslaved our nation’s younger generation with a national debt which now exceeds $50 trillion! see:Measuring the Federal Government's Unfunded Liability

For a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, see HERE and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward.

So, just why does Neal Boortz support a plan which ignores the important and necessary checks and balances of our founding fathers intended by a written constitution, and prefers to support a plan 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 the necessities of life?

Sorry for being so long winded, but Boortz needs to be exposed for his ignorance or intentional support of a plan designed to tighten the iron fist of government upon the people’s productivity, while it also makes the poor and needy to shamefully kneel to feed from that same iron fist. [see the plan’s required registration under its family consumption allowance___ an allowance which would not be necessary if the necessities of life were not taxed as our Founding Fathers intended!].

To study the proposed Fair Tax legislation see: H.R.25, and S.1493

Sincerely,
JWK
ACRS

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address