California`s illegitimate 55 electoral college votes!

9/23/2012 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

The apportioned tax is an equal per capita tax. It taxes rich and poor alike. It does not take wealth into consideration and is not a class warfare tax. And, it was intended to only be used if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable articles of luxury, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures.

JWK

[donmeaker]

Have you read ‘Atlas Shrugged’?

[donmeaker]

I don’t think that the rule of apportionment is ignored. Rather, they enact indirect taxes where the rule does not apply.

[andyk]

No, but I’ve seen part one of the movie, LOL!

[donmeaker]

The book is always better! “The Fountainhead” is a pretty good movie though.

[JOHN W K]

And what would our founders call a tax on earned wages?

[donmeaker]

An indirect tax. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion, an insurrection begun in opposition to an indirect tax that was suppressed by the founders.

[JOHN W K]

Look, we all know Obama supporters want their one man one vote part of the Constitution, but run from their one vote one dollar constitutionally mandated obligation. We also know most of Obama supporters want their vote for nothing more than to get free stuff!

HERE IS A TYPICAL OBAMA SUPPORTER yapping about her free Obama phone

The rule of apportionment was intended to prevent this very evil! We need to reclaim Representation with proportional financial obligation and put an end to progressives‘ theft by vote!

JWK

The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVES`S nightmare and not the American Dream

[donmeaker]

Point is there are direct taxes, and indirect taxes. Indirect federal taxes (such as taxes on wages, tariff, excise taxes on liquor) have never been required to be apportioned by population in the present constitution.

Taxes on property were required to be apportioned by population before the 16th Amendment, and were not required to be apportioned by population after the 16th amendment. Most US federal taxes are not direct taxes.

[donmeaker]

The 16th amendment was in response to Pollock . Income from wages was, an indirect tax. Income from property was, per Pollock, a direct tax. The 16th Amendment permitted taxes on Income from what ever source, to be treated as an indirect tax, and thus, not subject to apportionment.

[donmeaker]

Apportionment only applies to some taxes, the ones that are direct. Indirect taxes are not subject to apportionment. Examples of indirect taxes include excise taxes on liquor, income taxes on wages, tariff on imports, Capital gains tax, fee of 200 dollars on manufacture of a firearm, and, post 16th Amendment, income tax on income from property.

That the indirect taxes are legal per the apportionment clause doesn’t make them right. It just means you need a different argument.

[JOHN W K]

I’m not sure what your point is in brining up the 16th Amendment, but it certainly did not change the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.

Aside from that I get the feeling you have a problem with the very intentions for which the rule of apportioning any general tax among the States was adopted. Am I correct in thinking this?

JWK

“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.

[donmeaker]

The point is that there are direct taxes and indirect taxes. Direct taxes are apportioned as you say. Indirect taxes do not need to be apportioned.

You seem to be confused in that you seem to want to apply the rule on direct taxes to indirect taxes. The 16th Amendment was passed so taxes on income from property would be treated as an indirect tax. Income from wages, excise taxes, tariff, and various fines and fees are indirect taxes.

Taxes on property as property, or on a per head basis would be direct taxes, and would still be subject to apportionment.

[JOHN W K]

You never answered the question. I get the feeling you have a problem with the very intentions for which the rule of apportioning any general tax among the States was adopted. Am I correct in thinking this?

JWK

[donmeaker]

I don’t have any problem with apportionment of direct taxes. I do have a problem with a presumption that the required apportionment of direct taxes is some kind of general provision for all other taxes.

[JOHN W K]

There is no presumption the rule of apportionment applies to all taxes. But it was intended to apply to any general tax laid among the States! Let us look at the document intentions of the founders:

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

And Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.”4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:

“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.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any question about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

The very intention for the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation was that if Congress could not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically selected article of consumption, preferable articles of luxury as intended by our founders, and a general internal tax among the states was found necessary to meet Congress exigencies, the rule of apportionment would apply so each state’s share of a total sum being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress. This is also pointed out in several of the State Ratification documents. For example see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

So, as it turns out, the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted was to insure that the people of each state, if a general tax was levied among the states, would be obligated to pay a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress.

Do you agree this is the documented intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted with regard to taxation?

JWK