[JOHN W K]

CA should have paid $ 336,901,607,890, but only paid $313,998,874,000. That is almost a $23 BILLION deficiency under the rule of apportionment. And yet California gets to exercise 55 electoral college votes to elect the president which is not what the founders intended under the rule of apportionment!

The pinko politicians out in California have not only bankrupted their own state’s treasury, they are not paying their state’s FAIR APPORTIONED SHARE into the federal treasury relative to their massive pinko electoral college vote.

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]

No. Taxes on wage income were considered indirect, even before the 16th Amendment, as were taxes from Excise (liquor taxes are an example) or tariff.

Property income was treated as a direct tax, per Pollock v.Farmers Loan and Trust Company. After that the source of the income had to be considered, with things ‘like’ income from property being direct and things ‘like’ income from wages being indirect.

Until the 16th Amendment, permitted tax on income from what ever sources. The 16th amendment had no effect on wage income, oddly enough.