Posted on 07/02/2012 9:37:44 AM PDT by donjuanluis07
If you read my recent post, "Supreme Court Upholds Poll Tax?" you might have a little trouble understanding why this is important to all Americans. The reason is simple, the decision made by the Supreme Court on the 28th of June, a day that will live in infamy, WAS ILLEGAL!!! Our constitution is clear about the power and type of authority the Federal Government has to levy taxes, and the Federal Government of the United States of America is barred by our Constitution from imposing a direct tax on individuals. In other words they may NOT impose a direct tax on an individual because he or she does not purchase a health care product.
http://www.rinolist.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/johnny-bobby.jpg
(Excerpt) Read more at rinolist.org ...
From Wikipedia:
Direct tax
The term direct tax generally means a tax paid directly to the government by the persons on whom it is imposed.
1 General meaning
2 U.S. constitutional law sense
3 References
3.1 Sources
3.2 Notes
1. General meaning
A direct tax is one imposed upon an individual person (juristic or natural) or on property, as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction. Indirect taxes such as a sales tax or a value added tax (VAT) are imposed only if and when a taxable transaction occurs; people have the freedom to engage in or refrain from such transactions; whereas a direct tax is imposed upon a person, typically in an unconditional manner, such as a poll-tax or head-tax, which is imposed on the basis of the person's very life or existence, or a property tax which is imposed upon the owner by virtue of ownership, rather than commercial use. Some commentators have argued that "a direct tax is one that cannot be shifted by the taxpayer to someone else, whereas an indirect tax can be."[1]
The unconditional, inexorable aspect of the direct tax was a paramount concern of people in the 18th century seeking to escape tyrannical forms of government and to safeguard individual liberty. An 18th century writing about this kind of taxation explained: “The power of direct taxation applies to every individual ... it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments... The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual ... however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative, either to pay the tax, or let their property be taken for all resistance will be vain. [2]”
2. U.S. constitutional law sense
In the United States, the term "direct tax" has acquired specific meaning under constitutional law: a direct tax is a tax on property "by reason of its ownership"[3] (such as an ordinary real estate property tax imposed on the person owning the property as of January 1 of each year) as well as a capitation (a "tax per head").[4] In the late 19th century, U.S. courts also began to treat an income tax on income from property as a direct tax.[5] In U.S. constitutional law, an "indirect tax" or "excise" is an "event" tax.[6] In this sense, a transfer tax (such as gift tax and estate tax) is an indirect tax. Income taxes on income from personal services such as wages are also indirect taxes in this sense.[7] The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has stated: "Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation [ . . . ], (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property."[8]
In the United States, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes), this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes).[9]
3. References
3.1. Sources
Foster, Robert (1895). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: Historical and Judicial. 1. Boston: The Boston Book Co.. pp. 415–423.
3.2. Notes
1. ^ Britannica Online, Article on Taxation. See also Financial Dictionary Online, Article on Direct taxes.
2. ^ The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention, of the State of Pennsylvania, to their constituents.
3. ^ See, e.g., the United States Supreme Court case of Fernandez v. Wiener, in which the Court stated that a direct tax is a tax "which falls upon the owner merely because he is owner, regardless of his use or disposition of the property." Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 66 S. Ct. 178, 45-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶10,239 (1945).
4. ^ A capitation is defined as a "poll tax". Black's Law Dictionary, p. 191 (5th ed. 1979). A poll tax is defined as a "capitation tax; a tax of a specific sum levied upon each person within the jurisdiction of the taxing power and within a certain class (as, all males of a certain age, etc.) without reference to his property or lack of it." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1043 (5th ed. 1979). For background, see generally Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433 (1868); and Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) (hereinafter Brushaber).
5. ^ Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) (hereinafter Pollock).
6. ^ Also, see generally subsection (d), paragraph (3) of 26 U.S.C. § 7602. See also 26 U.S.C. § 2056A, subsection (b); 26 U.S.C. § 2701, subsection (d); 26 U.S.C. § 4961; 26 U.S.C. § 4962; 26 U.S.C. § 4963.
7. ^ See generally Pollock.
8. ^ Opinion on rehearing, July 3, 2007, p. 20, Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States, case no. 05-5139, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,531 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (dicta).
9. ^ See generally Brushaber, above. In the context of income taxes on wages, salaries and other forms of compensation for personal services, see, e.g., United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 90-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,166 (3d Cir. 1990) (tax evasion conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer's argument -- that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable -- was rejected by the Court; taxpayer's argument that an income tax on wages is required to be apportioned by population also rejected); Perkins v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 1187, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9898 (6th Cir. 1984) (26 U.S.C. § 61 ruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be "in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states"; taxpayer's argument that wages paid for labor are non-taxable was rejected by the Court, and ruled frivolous).
Further Research:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF TEXAS et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 1570., United States District Court W. D. Texas, Austin Division., February 9, 1966
HYLTON, Plaintiff in Error, versus the UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. 1794
I may have supported Obamacare if they would have made it so that you had to prove you had some form of personal medical insurance before you could VOTE.
That at least would have solved a few problems in this country.
I get the sarcasm, but I still want poor people to have the right to vote. Its not the poor that create dependency, its turncoat Republicans like George Bush who create an extension of Medicare, and let Ted Kennedy mess with education and let McCain create McCain-Feingold. Thats the problem, hence the website!
@National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Sorry, but Roberts NEVER claims to say its a tax on income, that would be stupid. Please re-read the comment, income is a circumstance, not the rational mentioned by Roberts. Besides, there is NO declaration of what type of tax this is, and is most likely due to the reasons for getting taxed, the rationale in other words, that it is a direct tax. Mark Levin, a Constitutional lawyer, already commented on this. Please see his Thursday show from last week, its free. Regrettably, I do not agree with you.
...that was upheld by Justice Roberts, aka: Johnny Bobby...
The "johnny-bobby.jpg" gave it away.
You might want to get a title correction going Admin Mod.
Try the parent link. The link I posted is the notes link at the bottom. http://www.rinolist.org/2012/06/supreme-court-upholds-poll-tax-on-americans/
That's not correct.
You are confusing the way the penalty for non-compliance is measured with the incidence of the penalty.
The mandate is not TRIGGERED by the receipt by a taxpayer of an item of income or gain. If it were, it would indeed be an income tax.
The mandate by its own terms applies to people as a class, subject to certain class exemptions.
Where the income test comes in is in the measurement of the penalty.
In a way, it is reminiscent of the way fines for breaking traffic laws are imposed in certain Scandinavian countries.
There, if you are caught for speeding, the amount of the fine varies depending on your income. Higher income individuals who break the speeding laws pay a higher fine than lower income laws.
Technically, that does not change the traffic law into an income tax.
It's the same situation with the ObamaCare mandate.
A very finely stated rebuttal. Thank you kind sir. /hattip
“I may have supported Obamacare if they would have made it so that you had to prove you had some form of personal medical insurance before you could VOTE.”
I believe that would require an amendment, as states determine voting qualifications beyond certain fundamentals, as in they can’t deny the vote on the basis of race, sex, or age over 17.
“tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, ‘without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.’”
That “any other circumstance” is ridiculous. Most people today recognize the term “poll tax” as taxes on the voting privilege, which are illgeal. I could argue, according to your quote, that wishing to vote is an “other circumstance” which the government is rationally allowed to tax. But no, we treat it like it’s a head tax, with good reason. It is.
See, the problem here is that unlike possession of land, income, purchase and consumption of goods, importing, etc., there is no activity to tax. You cannot tax the choice not to buy insurance, if there is a choice—some never buy without any specific thought either way—because no one knows when the choice is made. The feds are left with taxing the condition of being an adult citizen not in the possession of insurance, which as people have put it is a tax on breathing.
It is a head tax, and it is illegal.
If it's based on income isn't it an "income" tax?
Mark Levin, a Constitutional lawyer, already commented on this.
Ah, I see the sun rises and sets by Levin for you so there is no need to even continue this conversation any further.
So if it's not an income tax as you contend, then in your opinion what kind of tax is it?
So because he says the word income several times, its now an income tax. You can quote to death, but that does not make it what you say it is. Its NOT how the tax is calculated as what determines the type of tax, but what triggers it. You can pass a toll tax, but tax differently due to type of car, luxury vs. compact. You could, with your logic, call that an income tax too. But its what TRIGGERS the tax that determines what the tax is, so, in my illustration, its a toll tax. And OBAMACARE, but Robert’s decision, is a poll tax.
“The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance”
The “certain amount of income” stipulation is a sop to progressivism, because all taxes must have the appearance of soaking the rich even if they will mainly fall on middle and lower classes as in this case. Also, they already have this massive bureaucracy set up to track people’s income, called IRS, and it’s a convenient way to get at evil antisocial freeloaders. So in a small way income is involved in deciding whether or not you get taxed, but not for any but the poor, but not enough to be legal.
Since those who reach a “certain amount of income” who do have insurance coverage won’t be taxed, clearly not having coverage is what’s being taxed. That’s the deciding factor, once you exclude those below a certain level. Aside from them the income part is merely the means of getting at those without coverage. And since taxing people without coverage is a head tax, it is not within the government’s power to do so.
“If it’s based on income isn’t it an ‘income’ tax?”
It’s not based on income. It’s based on whether or not you own an insurance policy. Income may exclude certain people, and among those who qualify income may determine how much you pay. But only the wilfully blind on that basis will call it an income tax.
No matter what your income, if you are covered by insurance you are not taxed. That makes it a tax on not having insurance. That means it is not an income tax. Income taxes are taxes triggered by certain kinds and amounts of income. This tax is triggered by not being insured. It’s as simple as that.
First of all, in reality it is not a tax at all. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy were right about this in their dissent.
It is written in the same manner as non-tax laws are customarily written:
1. “You must do x or not do y” [obey the posted speed limit, report to the draft board, not embezzle, maintain a health insurance policy, or whatever]
2. “If you do not comply with statement 1, the following penalty applies” [pay a fine, be incarcerated, or whatever]
Anyway, that is water under the bridge. Under our system, the Supreme Court has the final say on how things are considered for purposes of the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that a horse is a camel for purposes of the Constitution, then a horse is a camel as far as the Constitution is concerned.
So Roberts has said it is a tax. What kind of a tax is it?
Roberts called it a “tax on not obtaining health insurance.”
So it is a tax on NOT doing something. If someone DOES something, then then that person is not subject to the tax.
If you are sitting on your couch and don’t do anything, then you are taxed.
On the other hand, if someone else gets up off his or her couch and goes out and meets with a nice insurance salesman and signs a wonderful contract with him, then that person is NOT taxed.
The essential point I make is this: the fact that Congress has exempted a category of people who get up off their couch and go buy an insurance contract DOES NOT CHANGE the fact that they are taxing YOU for NOT DOING ANYTHING.
A tax that does not attach to some type of activity (a purchase of a gallon of gasoline, the making of a liter of whiskey or whatever), that expressly taxes a person who does nothing at all, is a DIRECT TAX.
If it attached to the taking of an action, then it would be an EXCISE TAX.
But when Congress has taxed you for just sitting on your couch, that cannot be an excise tax, because there is no action or transaction undertaken by you as a predicate for the triggering of the tax.
The fact that Congress has exempted people who DO take actions does not change the fact that they are taxing YOU for doing nothing, and therefore cannot change the direct tax on you into an excise tax on you.
The Constitution does not permit the Congress to lay a direct tax on the people, unless it is apportioned among the states by population.
They did not want Congress to single out groups of people they did not like and tax them sitting on their couches.
Like taxing people who live in red states and not blue states.
Or taxing people who don’t eat broccoli every week.
Or taxing people who haven’t signed insurance contracts the government likes.
If they tax someone who does nothing but sit on his couch, under the Constitution that tax must be apportioned among the whole population.
That is why the “Roberts Tax” is unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.