It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nafta Toll road is unconstitutional

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I figured out something a couple of months ago and after some thought I figured I would start sharing this and get some reactions to it.

Did you know you have the right to tax-free imported goods? And the right to export goods tax free out of the United States?

And how does this tie into Nafta?

Well here goes nothing.

Being a truck driver and having to pay those ridiculous highway tolls in the northeast to deliver a load into NYC I got to thinking about it. And remembered something from the US Constitution. So I went looking for it. And found more than I bargined for. This is what I found specifically.

Article 1 sec. 9 paragraph 5.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

Article 1 sec. 10 paragraph 2.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

So do you see the problems here? If not here they are.

The Nafta superhighway is supposed to enable easy importation of foreign goods. But the plans for this road are for it to be a network of toll roads. But these tolls are a road use tax imposed by state governments. But according to the Constitution they cannot impose taxes on foreign goods for purposes of revenue. And it's the consumer that winds up paying those taxes.

The Nafta Toll road is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The goods traveling on it would be immune to those tolls.

But that being said try to comprehend this.

Anyone out there recently buy anything imported recently? Or a product with imported componets like a car? And ask yourself this. Did you pay sales tax?

And in light of Article 1 sec. 10 paragraph 2 ask yourself this. How much tax should have I paid?



And the biggest question of all. Did the states conviently forget this restriction on their taxing power or is it deliberate???



KTK

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I know in my country some tolled roads are "owned " by companies and the charges are a service and not a tax. I say "owned" because it involves shady dealings with the state governments that I cant even get my head around. I know one of the companies that tolls the roads in my country is involved with tolling this road. It does go global and it is hard to trace all the companies involved. Perhaps this is the loophole they are using.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by KTK
I know in my country some tolled roads are "owned " by companies and the charges are a service and not a tax. I say "owned" because it involves shady dealings with the state governments that I cant even get my head around. I know one of the companies that tolls the roads in my country is involved with tolling this road. It does go global and it is hard to trace all the companies involved. Perhaps this is the loophole they are using.


All things considered I think this is a quirk in the US Constitution that everyone forgot about. They just don't teach this stuff over here anymore.

But the reason it's there is because the guys who ran that little thing called the Boston Tea Party got to write this Constitution. This detail is probably not in your nations constitution. But I also think what happened was there just wasn't many imports coming into the US until recently. (20-30 years)

But you are right in saying that they are trying to start up the same shady stuff that they are pulling over there. But it would still be considered an attempted "end around" the Constitution. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a DUCK. Or in this case an illegal tax. Unless they send the profits to the federal government.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.



The Nafta superhighway is supposed to enable easy importation of foreign goods. But the plans for this road are for it to be a network of toll roads. But these tolls are a road use tax imposed by state governments. But according to the Constitution they cannot impose taxes on foreign goods for purposes of revenue. And it's the consumer that winds up paying those taxes.


Are they imposing a tax on foreign goods, or just imposing a toll for the use of the highway?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.



The Nafta superhighway is supposed to enable easy importation of foreign goods. But the plans for this road are for it to be a network of toll roads. But these tolls are a road use tax imposed by state governments. But according to the Constitution they cannot impose taxes on foreign goods for purposes of revenue. And it's the consumer that winds up paying those taxes.


Are they imposing a tax on foreign goods, or just imposing a toll for the use of the highway?


Its both. The toll is a road use tax on the truck. But the truck is carrying imported goods. But does the trucking company eat the tax? No. It is passed on to the consumer. Meaning the toll is taxing the imported goods.
Which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


You actually have to pay the tax? That's pretty absurd that your company doesn't pay it.

That clause is included in the Constitution so that each State in the Union does not have to pay import/export fees to any other State for goods that are produced inside of that State, unless the Federal Government declares it.

Section 8 applies to imports/exports to the Federated Union (country) i.e "United States"



Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Now, as far as NAFTA is concerned, most tariffs have been lifted between Mexico and Canada, so it sounds like you're just going to be paying a toll to pay for the road use wear/tear. I've heard many rumors that the tolls will goto Mexico, or wherever.

If you are being taxed based on the actual goods you are carrying then there may be a problem, but a toll is normal. Why would you assume that the NAFTA highway would not have a toll?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Well actually I get reimbursed for any tolls I pay on the road. But quite simply the problem is that a highway toll is a tax. Taxes on imported goods for the purposes of revenue placed on them by state or local government is unconstitutional. They cannot keep the money. It is earmarked to the federal treasury. All things considered the states probably owe the federal government billions of dollars by now. Not that they could ever collect.

The states are placing illegal taxes on imported goods and are expecting you not to notice the fact that they are illegal.

So are we stupid? Or just uninformed.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The tolls wont be going to the goverment of the United States or Mexico or even Canada.

A private firm in Spain won the right to collect tolls on the NAFTA Superhighway. Pretty disgusting scam going on there. The US taxpayers pay for the construction of the road and then we get to pay a private foreign company to use the road we OWN and paid for.

Oh and did I mention to build this highway the govt has to confiscate 584,000 acres of private land ? Ranch owners and farmers who have owned these lands for generations are being forced to sell, absolutely disgusting.

The spanish company is called Cintra. And guess which politician stands to make millions off this deal...Rudolph Guliani.

Taken from www.renewamerica.us...

"At the center of negotiations for multiple legs of the Superhighway Corridor throughout Texas, is none other than Rudolph Giuliani's law firm which landed the Comprehensive Development Agreement for a widening of Interstate-35, now referred to as the TTC-35, in addition to the Master Development Plans for State Highways 121 and 130 among other legs of the TTC. All negotiations for Cintra were and are presently handled by the law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP, of which Republican Presidential candidate, Rudolph Giuliani, has been a senior executive partner since March 2005. His law firm is the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra. Bracewell & Giuliani is comprised of 400 attorneys, based in Houston, TX with offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., London and Kazakhstan"

Just another politician selling us down the river literally. And does the media mention this ? Do they ask Guliani about this clear conflict of interest ? Nope, they just roll their eyes and snicker whenever Ron Paul mentions to conspiracy known as the NAU



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Is the toll a specific value for each vehicle?

Or is it based on the weight or value of the goods shipped?

If it’s the first, it is perfectly constitutional.

Only if it’s the second is it unconstitutional.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Dude, I'm sorry but I have a hard time being sympathetic here. Fords, Gm's, etc are made in Canada, yet I have to pay on average 15000 bucks more than you do for the same car. I can drive to the USA and purchase a vehicle that was made in Canada cheaper than I can buy it in Canada.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Is the toll a specific value for each vehicle?

Or is it based on the weight or value of the goods shipped?

If it’s the first, it is perfectly constitutional.

Only if it’s the second is it unconstitutional.


You still don't understand. It's a blanket ban on all state taxation of imported goods for the purposes of revenue.

The toll may be on the truck but its the freight that pays the bills. If the freight is immune so is the truck.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ntech

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Is the toll a specific value for each vehicle?

Or is it based on the weight or value of the goods shipped?

If it’s the first, it is perfectly constitutional.

Only if it’s the second is it unconstitutional.


You still don't understand. It's a blanket ban on all state taxation of imported goods for the purposes of revenue.

The toll may be on the truck but its the freight that pays the bills. If the freight is immune so is the truck.

Nope. That’s like saying if I work in the import/export business, I should be exempt from income taxes, since obviously I derive my income from imports and exports.

The toll road is NOT unconstitutional, because it taxes travellers fairly.

It would POSSIBLY be unconstitutional if it singled out trucks.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MurderSmurf

Originally posted by ntech

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Is the toll a specific value for each vehicle?

Or is it based on the weight or value of the goods shipped?

If it’s the first, it is perfectly constitutional.

Only if it’s the second is it unconstitutional.


You still don't understand. It's a blanket ban on all state taxation of imported goods for the purposes of revenue.

The toll may be on the truck but its the freight that pays the bills. If the freight is immune so is the truck.

Nope. That’s like saying if I work in the import/export business, I should be exempt from income taxes, since obviously I derive my income from imports and exports.

The toll road is NOT unconstitutional, because it taxes travellers fairly.

It would POSSIBLY be unconstitutional if it singled out trucks.


You havent read read Article 1 sec. 10 paragraph 2 thoroughly. Those tolls work out to be a duty. While the states or their agents may be allowed to collect the toll they are not allowed to keep it. It must be sent to the federal treasury.

The idea was not to allow them to make a profit at taxing imports or exports.

Fairness has nothing to do with this.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ntech]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I understood you perfectly well the first couple of times you said it, and I’ve already told you why you’re wrong.

If you’re just going to keep repeating yourself without adding anything new I’m going to take it as an insult and act accordingly.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Cintras pretty much owns all the tolls on I-80 from NYC to Chicago with the exception of Ohio. Pennsylvania does not have a toll on I-80. However it has all of I-76 (which is also most of I-70) through PA.

Trucks pay a much, much higher toll than passenger cars. I think I paid about $120 to drive through Indiana on I-80. It was about $12 for a car to do it if memory serves. But for the arguement of wear and tear, trucks are a bit heavier by about 65,000lbs on average.

As for tolls being a use tax. No. Trucks pay far more in use taxes, fuel taxes, operating authority fees (taxes)and god forbid income taxes per year than most people do in a five years at a (near) minimum wage job and renting.

I just hope that if/when the SHTF and the Interstate system becomes exclusive domain of the military as was part of the justification and was indeed put into action post Katrina in a limited fashion that we the US taxpayers do not have to pay a "loss of income" to Cintras when their roadways are comstocked.

And a quick review of the constitution clearly states that a state cannot enter into an independent contrat or treaty with another country. If there can be proven that Cintras or their Australian company counterpart recieves any assistance or tax benefit from another country other than the US then IL and IN and TX and OK and few other states might be in a bit of trouble with the people.

But to the OP. My company gave me the option cutting me a Comdata check if I needed some upfront cash for tolls. I always payed upfront and took the extra in payroll for the tax advantage. It made for some nice paydays from a bottom feeder company and I rarely paid out more than $200 in week in tolls because I had some freedom in routing. Exceptions were running into NJ and PA and the odd run through OK from or to Chicago-Dallas-Los Angeles. But OK's tolls aren't that bad. Worst week was about $750 in tolls if I remember right. But the miles were pretty good that week too as they were A to B long hauls.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

But as I pointed out Article 1 sec. 10 paragraph 2 specifically states all duties or imposts.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States;

Duty-A compulsory contribution, usually of money, that is required for the support of a government

Are tolls compulsory? Yes. Are they used to support a government? Yes. Are they money? Yes. Are they adding to the costs of a import or an export? Yes.

Is a toll considered a duty on imports or exports as defined by Article 1 sec. 10 paragraph 2? Yes. It meets all the tests.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ntech]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ntech]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


You actually are wrong about this... but,

Ok, wow - mystery solved!

So, what? What are you going to do now? Are you going to protest?

Are you going to go on strike? Notify the union?

Seriously, now that you've come to this revalation by an erroneous interpretation of the constitution, what are you going to do?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Probably just keep crying about it here.

From my interaction with him so far, obviously he didn’t come here for insight.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I come by once in a while to check up on old threads.


But so far I haven't seen a convincing argument that my interpretation is invalid. The best argument so far is that tolls are indirect duties but the counter argument is that Article 1 section 10 paragraph 2 says "all duties and imposts". That would include indirect ones as well.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


Too bad it doesn't say "all tolls"

A Duty is a TAX on GOODS. A road is not a GOOD, you are not BUYING IT, or TAKING IT WITH YOU. YOU DO NOT IMPORT IT, OR EXPORT IT.

A road is a SERVICE that allows easy/safe travel from one place to the next.

A TOLL is a fee to use that service. You pay the toll when, and only when you use the service. Think of a telephone, a TOLL-free 800 number does not have a fee associated with it, but a normal long distance call does have a toll.

Just because you happen to be importing goods into the country and have to drive on a toll road does not mean the toll magically converts to a tax, a duty, or an impost. If you are not going through customs and not being charged a certain amount (e.g $1 duty per bottle of wine, .02 cents per washer, 5 cents per bunny rabbit) based on your inventory manifest and what it contains, then you are not being "taxed".

Depnding on who is constructing your imaginary - or not - NAFTA highway, they aren't going to do it for free and let people drive all over it. If it is a private company, then they will not be charging "taxes" and will need to offset the cost and make a profit by charging tolls.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join