Cory Booker, presidential hopeful, rolls out establishment tax plan

Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
#1
See Cory Booker unveils plan to cut taxes for half the country


“Booker''s plan calls for expanding the EITC's benefits to higher incomes — from a maximum income of $54,000 to $90,0000 for married couples — and raising the maximum benefits as well. Joint filers could receive a 25 percent higher maximum credit, topping out at about $8,000 per year. The plan includes a bigger bump in benefits for childless workers, whose EITC payout is currently capped at about about $500, but would rise up to about $4,000 under Booker's plan.”


The problem with Booker’s plan is, it makes no attempt to end the unconstitutional and oppressive Temporary victory tax of 1943 which began our federal government’s modern-day confiscation of working people’s earned wages.


Let us not forget it was the Socialist Democrats who passed the 1943 "Victory Tax". Roosevelt’s 1943 "Victory Tax" expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was specifically, and intentionally sold as a way to tax “unearned income” as distinguished from earned wages, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort.


But to this very day, Roosevelt’s Temporary Victory Tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, interfering with poor working people from accumulate wealth, and has forced millions upon millions of poor working wage earners into a state of poverty, and then dependency upon government for their subsistence ___ an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and financially dependent underclass voting block!


If Cory Booker and his fellow democrats were sincere about ending a tax system which benefits the supposedly rich and powerful, they would promote an end to the 1943 temporary Victory Tax ____ ending a tax on working people’s earned wages, tips, salaries, etc. In its place, the would advocate a small [maybe one or two percent} luxury tax upon specifically selected articles classified as "articles of luxury" to make up the difference ___ taxing all those articles which “the rich and powerful” enjoy and the poorest among us only dream of enjoying. Of course, this kind of tax, a voluntarily paid tax upon articles of luxury voluntarily purchased, is the very kind of tax our founders considered as fair. In Federalist No 21 with regard to this type of tax we find:


”The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his 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 should also be noted that the use of this type of tax allows the market place to determine the limit of tax placed upon each article.


”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 cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.” ___ Fed. No. 21


Hamilton’s reasoning was proven correct when Congress decided to place an outrageous 10 percent "luxury" tax on a number of articles under the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990”. The outrageous 10 percent luxury tax, particularly on boats, was found so onerous that sales dropped dramatically and the tax was repealed the following year! Of course, Congress, with its insatiable desire to spend money, does not like a tax system which is self-regulating ___ meaning regulated by our market place. Nor do Democrat Leaders like a tax system which allows working people to keep the bread they have earned, accumulate wealth, and participate in a free market, free enterprise system.


So, when you hear the tax reform proposals offered by Democrat president hopefuls, keep in mind the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:


“…..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


JWK


Socialist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do get political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.
 
Jul 2018
1,566
382
Earth
#2
You should know by now that all Congress Critters who run for President are full of shit about what they will do as President when they have never done a damn thing while in Congress.
 
Dec 2018
1,115
645
Unionville Indiana
#3
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. -- Jefferson to J. Madison, 1785.

The Founding Fathers considered the concentration of wealth in a few families dangerous to a free republic.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
#4
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. -- Jefferson to J. Madison, 1785.

The Founding Fathers considered the concentration of wealth in a few families dangerous to a free republic.

So, you have no comment with respect to taxation, which is the subject of the thread. What else is new?


JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
 
Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
#6
I see no one has commented on ending the Victory Tax of 1943 which began a tax on working people’s earned wages, and replacing it with a luxury tax on specifically selected articles of consumption considered to be luxury.

Wouldn’t such a tax bring a measure of fairness to federal taxation in that the poorest among us could avoid the tax while the wealthy would only be subject to the tax when voluntarily purchasing articles of luxury?

JWK

“…..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
 
Nov 2018
3,727
1,831
Inner Space
#7
See Cory Booker unveils plan to cut taxes for half the country


“Booker''s plan calls for expanding the EITC's benefits to higher incomes — from a maximum income of $54,000 to $90,0000 for married couples — and raising the maximum benefits as well. Joint filers could receive a 25 percent higher maximum credit, topping out at about $8,000 per year. The plan includes a bigger bump in benefits for childless workers, whose EITC payout is currently capped at about about $500, but would rise up to about $4,000 under Booker's plan.”


The problem with Booker’s plan is, it makes no attempt to end the unconstitutional and oppressive Temporary victory tax of 1943 which began our federal government’s modern-day confiscation of working people’s earned wages.

.... Roosevelt’s 1943 "Victory Tax" expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was specifically, and intentionally sold as a way to tax “unearned income” as distinguished from earned wages, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort.

.....robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, interfering with poor working people from accumulate wealth, and has forced millions upon millions of poor working wage earners into a state of poverty, and then dependency upon government for their subsistence ___ an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and financially dependent underclass voting block!....

If Cory Booker and his fellow democrats were sincere about ending a tax system which benefits the supposedly rich and powerful, they would promote an end to the 1943 temporary Victory Tax ____ ending a tax on working people’s earned wages, tips, salaries, etc. ....

..... Nor do Democrat Leaders like a tax system which allows working people to keep the bread they have earned, accumulate wealth, and participate in a free market, free enterprise system.

...
So, Johnwk, is arguing that he is really mostly concerned with the poor while advocating for the wealthy! He does not seem to appreciate that social benefit programs (public education, shared resources, public transportation, social security, medicaid, etc.) paid by taxes disproportionately benefit the poor. Apparently those programs only deprive the poor of the motivation that comes from being poor and interferes with the process of wealth accumulation. Purely coincidentally, of course, protection of wealth incidentally benefits THE RICH. So progressive taxation, by Johnwk's reasoning, actually damages the poor by reducing the opportunity of the wealthy to aggregate wealth. Once again, it is only by protecting the wealthy from inconvenient taxation, that the poor can benefit. In the strange "down the rabbit hole" world of Johnwk we are told that only by tax reduction on the rich are we going to have better opportunities for the poor!
 
Likes: Rescue Basket
Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
#8
So, Johnwk, is arguing that he is really mostly concerned with the poor while advocating for the wealthy! He does not seem to appreciate that social benefit programs (public education, shared resources, public transportation, social security, medicaid, etc.) paid by taxes disproportionately benefit the poor. Apparently those programs only deprive the poor of the motivation that comes from being poor and interferes with the process of wealth accumulation. Purely coincidentally, of course, protection of wealth incidentally benefits THE RICH. So progressive taxation, by Johnwk's reasoning, actually damages the poor by reducing the opportunity of the wealthy to aggregate wealth. Once again, it is only by protecting the wealthy from inconvenient taxation, that the poor can benefit. In the strange "down the rabbit hole" world of Johnwk we are told that only by tax reduction on the rich are we going to have better opportunities for the poor!
So, Biff misrepresents what I have posted and then attacks his own misrepresentations, a very, very old and tired stupid debating trick.

:rolleyes:

JWK



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims to be an advocate of hard working people living in the Bronx. If that is so, why is she not advocating an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal confiscation of the bread which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor, which is then redistributed by the hand of government?
 
Nov 2018
3,727
1,831
Inner Space
#9
So, Biff misrepresents what I have posted and then attacks his own misrepresentations, a very, very old and tired stupid debating trick.

:rolleyes:

JWK



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims to be an advocate of hard working people living in the Bronx. If that is so, why is she not advocating an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal confiscation of the bread which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor, which is then redistributed by the hand of government?
I think I nailed it, Johnwk.
You profess concern for the poor and opportunities for the poor to become wealthy but really are just interested in protecting the wealthy from taxes. Very disingenuous!
 
Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
#10
I think I nailed it, Johnwk.
You profess concern for the poor and opportunities for the poor to become wealthy but really are just interested in protecting the wealthy from taxes. Very disingenuous!
No, Biff. What you have done is misrepresent what I have posted and then attack your own misrepresentations.


I see you have not commented on ending the Victory Tax of 1943 which began a tax on working people’s earned wages, and replacing it with a luxury tax on specifically selected articles of consumption considered to be luxury.

Wouldn’t such a tax bring a measure of fairness to federal taxation in that the poorest among us could avoid the tax while the wealthy would only be subject to the tax when voluntarily purchasing articles of luxury?

JWK

“…..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
 

Similar Discussions