Monday, February 14, 2011

The Original Fair Tax is still fair

The original constitution had a fair tax before the progressive liberals changed it.

The Federal Government was explicitly barred from direct taxation of the people. They could only tax commerce and states with apportionment. This was done on purpose. Madison argued this was one of the two protections in the constitution to prevent the Federal Government from becoming a tyranny or some entity that governs by decree without any concern at all for the people.

The reason Madison considered this a protection is because it takes money to have a tyranny. There would be no way for the Feds to steal enough money to become a tyranny, With the State governments in between the people and the Feds. The Progressives removed this just before 1920 and 90 years later we now have a Federal Government feared by Patrick Henry.

So what is a fair tax? Simple, no tax at all from the federal level. Go back to the original tax code mentioned in the Constitution which specifically says the feds must effectively send a bill to the states and leave it up to each state on how to pay it. There is also argument supporting corporate taxation. Both are safer because it places at the hands of the people the power of state governments and big business to keep the Federal Spending in check.

There is no way the President or Congress could deficit spend, ear mark spend or spend to the levels of today, if state governments were there to tell the feds to take a hike, every time they attempt to get out of control.

Corporate taxes work because any of the larger companies have the resources to battle Uncle Sam to keep those taxes low.

With the current tax system, the Feds are able to do what is done today, class warfare between income levels, bypass state governments with spending and no individual person is able to stop the government from doing whatever it wants with each individuals money.

There was a reason the Founding Fathers barred the Federal Government from most Tax sources, perhaps we should consider these reasons and protect ourselves by putting this protection back in force.


  1. Go back to WHAT??

    Go back to the original Constitution?

    Oh, you want to buy a slave girl and spend time in the barn?

    You do realize, don't you, that most of the Founding Fathers bounced on slave girls or boys at night, right?

    If you think class warfare is new, you better learn more history.

    Maybe you should learn some history and logic, and try again.

  2. Mr. Seeker has provided an excellent example of non sequitur. Instead of actually commenting on the post, he instead brings in a completely unrelated topic to imply that somehow slavery is returned by the act of removing the Federal Government's ability to directly tax the population. He seems to not understand that slavery was never legal since the right to freedom is unalienable.
    Additionally, the implication that a comment about class warfare somehow implies the belief that there was never any previous class warfare makes for an interesting unrelated comment as well.

    For the history and logic lesson Mr. Seeker seems to have missed it. Madison defined the ban on direct taxation to the federal government as a protection against a Federal system that will do anything it wants to the population. He was right. Without this protection the United States has become what Patrick Henry feared.

    Mr Seeker we the people are more likely to be enslaved again if the Federal Government continues on its path to confiscate all property and resources because there is no protection. Removing the Federal capacity to confiscate money places back the protection and makes it far less likely to see slavery return.

    Perhaps in the future you might comment on the actual topic instead of attempting to discredit it with unrelated and inflammatory nonsense.