Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Your “FAIR SHARE” of taxes?
American Constitutional Research Service | 3-31-04 | John William Kurowski

Posted on 03/31/2004 10:00:32 PM PST by JOHN W K

Every time I hear a member of the Congress of the United States refer to “fair share” with reference to direct taxation, I brace myself for the recital of some legislation intentionally designed to disburse the costs of government by identifying a specific class of individuals, and either placing the burden of taxation directly upon them, or identifying them as a privileged class and allowing them to escape the burden of taxation which other citizens are forced to pay.

It also seems to be an unfortunate truth that Democrats in Congress are well known for using the phrase “fair share” when they are about to tax the “rich”___ whatever that may mean___ to allegedly help the poor, whatever that may mean.

Likewise, one can predict when Republicans in Congress use the phrase “fair share”, taxation is intended to be manipulated in a discriminatory manner based upon the financial resources of an identifiable class of citizens, but with an opposite intent of Democrats.

So, with all the brilliance having been exhibited in the Halls of Congress,it would be nice if some of that brilliance would be directed at the creation of a system for direct taxation which would result in a non manipulative, non discriminatory “fair share” formula to raise revenue from the people of the United States to finance the costs of the federal government.

We are waiting Congress!

BTW, those interested may be surprised to learn our Founding Fathers put a “fair share” formula for direct taxation in our Constitution!

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…”[Art. 1, Sec. 2., cl. 3] Also see Art. 1, Sec. 9, cl. 4: No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So, next time you hear a politician use the phrase “fair share” with reference to direct taxation, see how it compares to the fair share formula of the Founding Fathers.

For background on the Founder’s fair share formula see: July 13th of the Convention’s debates as recorded by Madison

For important related subject matter on taxation see: EXPOSING THE FAIR TAX HOAX

JWK,Founder

American Constitutional Research Service

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: acrs; apportionment; directtax; fairshare; fairtax; flattax; incometax; taxes; taxreform

1 posted on 03/31/2004 10:00:33 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Papatom
I guess that is why the Founding Fathers adopted the rule of apportionment with regard to direct taxation...it makes the tax an equal tax among the population of the various states. Socialism and equal taxation does not get along very well!
3 posted on 03/31/2004 10:41:43 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Check out the history of top marginal tax rates since the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913--

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003

In 1913 the top marginal rate was 7% on income over $500,000.

4 posted on 03/31/2004 11:41:22 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
And.....wages earned were not taxed as being a profit or gain, which is the meaning of income within the 16th Amendment.

Allowing Congress to compute a tax from "income" must be ended! It divides the people, benefits Congress, allows Congress to manipulate the private lives of people and destroy and enslave free enterprise....and this is why the Republicans and Democrats in Congress love taxing income. We need to go back to the founding fathers’ original tax plan.

JWK
5 posted on 04/01/2004 4:22:11 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K; Papatom

I guess that is why the Founding Fathers adopted the rule of apportionment with regard to direct taxation...it makes the tax an equal tax among the population of the various states.

You should do better than guess, the founder wished to put an impediment in the use of "Direct" taxes, because the confiscated personal wealth as opposed to economic transactions entered into freely.

[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

Why would you want a tax system based on the confiscation of one's property?

Federalist #12:

Federalist #21:

 

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

  • 6 posted on 04/01/2004 8:15:16 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    As to the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it did not repeal or alter the rules for direct taxation! The power of Congress to impose a direct tax still exists, and direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states, as pointed out by the United States Supreme Court, e.g., see BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929):

    “The general power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises' conferred by article 1, 8, of the Constitution, and required by that section to be uniform throughout the United States, is limited by section 2 of the same article, which requires 'direct' taxes to be apportioned, and section 9, which provides that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census' directed by the Constitution [280 U.S. 124, 136] to be taken.As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

    And see: EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

    “Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid.

    NOTE: See the Eisner case for the definition of income…you may be very much surprised!

    JWK

    7 posted on 04/02/2004 4:30:23 AM PST by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K

    As to the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it did not repeal or alter the rules for direct taxation!

    The income tax as regards trades, occupations and professions is an indirect tax. And always has been.

     

    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

    Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

  • "The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
  • "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
  • "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
  • BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

     

    This section imposes a graduated tax 'upon the transfer by a resident by gift' during the calendar year 'of any property wherever situated. ...'

    see BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929):

    I did, and you have misrepresented the quotation, The court was stating the first premise of the appellate, immediately thereafter they proceeded to demolish that reasoning pointing out:

    The meaning of the phrase 'direct taxes' and the historical background of the constitutional requirement for their apportionment have been so often and exhaustively considered by this court, Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 , 20 S. Ct. 747; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 515 , 19 S. Ct. 522, that no useful purpose would be served by renewing the discussion here. Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.

    Totally opposite of what you indicate the court was saying, completely confirming what I stated, that direct taxes are taxes on property.

    See the Eisner case for the definition of income…you may be very much surprised!

    Nothing at all surprising, for the court did not "decide" it, the took it from the dictionary definition applicable to the first income tax of 1860:

    After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).

    Refer: A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    INCOME.
    The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals;

    ,

    Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:

    And

    Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

    And since the case also discusses the impact of Pollock, which determined rents and returns from investment property to be property a direct tax subject apportionment.

    Since the 16th was supposedly proposed to overcome the hurdle the Pollock imposed on taxing some kinds of income, we should take look to see what is says about taxing income from business privileges, employments and vocationss, don't you think?

     

    POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

    Which pretty much leaves your whole premise in the dumps for improperly applying the definition of "Direct" taxes to income taxes as general term.

    8 posted on 04/02/2004 7:49:04 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K
    I find it interesting that you are still pushing your presumptions, inspite of the fact they have been shown to be invalid in past debates

    As I pointed out to you a little over three years ago in another thread you had posted covering your positions on direct taxation, the direct tax referred to head taxes & property taxes in the time the Constitution was drafted, there concerns in apportionment was to assure slave owners obtained a representation in congress somewhat more proportionate to there property(slave + land) holdings as a protective/compromise measure for their particular concerns. Their concerns had nothing at all to do with income taxation and everything to do with protecting holdings in land & slaves:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b42f167c85.htm#33

    The purpose of apportionment as regards direct taxation, was to make provision to protect the holdings of property as regard slaves and agricultural land. Providing a count of such slaves giving a portion of additional representation to slave holders to protect the holding of that property in the form of land and slaves.

    The rule would be inapplicable to Indirect taxes as they reach the individual free person, and are automatically provided their proper representation in accord with the subject of the tax.

    The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
    reported by James Madison : July 12

    Thursday July 12, 1787

    IN CONVENTION

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to add to the clause empowering the Legislature to vary the Representation according to the principles of wealth & number [FN1] of inhabts. a "proviso that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."

    Mr. BUTLER contended again that Representation Sd.. be according to the full number of inhabts. including all the blacks; admitting the justice of Mr. Govr. Morris's motion.

    Mr. MASON also admitted the justice of the principle, but was afraid embarrassments might be occasioned to the Legislature by it. It might drive the Legislature to the plan of Requisitions.

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS, admitted that some objections lay agst. his motion, but supposed they would be removed by restraining the rule to direct taxation. With regard to indirect taxes on exports & imports & on consumption, the rule would be inapplicable. Notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary he was persuaded that the imports & consumption were pretty nearly equal throughout the Union.

    General PINKNEY liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution. He was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [FN*] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. S. Carola. has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000 Sterling all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from a [FN2] taxing Exports.

    Mr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

    Mr. DAVIE, said it was high time now to speak out. He saw that it was meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of Representation for their blacks. He was sure that N. Carola. would never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as 3/5 . If the Eastern States meant therefore to exclude them altogether the business was at an end.

    Dr. JOHNSON, thought that wealth and population were the true, equitable rule [FN3] of representation; but he conceived that these two principles resolved themselves into one; population being the best measure of wealth. He concluded therefore that ye. number of people ought to be established as the rule, and that all descriptions including blacks equally with the whites, ought to fall within the computation. As various opinions had been expressed on the subject, he would move that a Committee might be appointed to take them into consideration and report thereon.

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS. It has [FN4] been said that it is high time to speak out, as one member, he would candidly do so. He came here to form a compact for the good of America. He was ready to do so with all the States. He hoped & believed that all would enter into such a Compact. If they would not he was ready to join with any States that would. But as the Compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southn. States will never agree to. It is equally vain for the latter to require what the other States can never admit; and he verily believed the people of Pena. will never agree to a representation of Negroes. What can be desired by these States more than has been already proposed; that the Legislature shall from time to time regulate Representation according to population & wealth.

    Genl. PINKNEY desired that the rule of wealth should be ascertained and not left to the pleasure of the Legislature; and that property in slaves should not be exposed to danger under a Govr. instituted for the protection of property.

    The first clause in the Report of the first Grand Committee was postponed.

    Mr. ELSEWORTH. In order to carry into effect the principle established, moved to add to the last clause adopted by the House the words following "and that the rule of contribution by direct taxation for the support of the Government of the U. States shall be the number of white inhabitants, and three fifths of every other description in the several States, until some other rule that shall more accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States can be devised and adopted by the Legislature."

    Mr. BUTLER seconded the motion in order that it might be committed.

    Mr. RANDOLPH was not satisfied with the motion. The danger will be revived that the ingenuity of the Legislature may evade or pervert the rule so as to perpetuate the power where it shall be lodged in the first instance. He proposed in lieu of Mr. Elseworth's motion, "that in order to ascertain the alterations in Representation that may be required from time to time by changes in the relative circumstances of the States, a census shall be taken within two years from the 1st. meeting of the Genl. Legislature of the U.S., and once within the term of every year afterwards, of all the inhabitants in the manner & according to the ratio recommended by Congress in their resolution of the 18th day of Apl. 1783; [rating the blacks at 3/5 of their number] and, that the Legislature of the U.S. shall arrange the Representation accordingly."-He urged strenuously that express security ought to be provided for including slaves in the ratio of Representation. He lamented that such a species of property existed. But as it did exist the holders of it would require this security. It was perceived that the design was entertained by some of excluding slaves altogether; the Legislature therefore ought not to be left at liberty.

    Mr. ELSEWORTH withdraws his motion & seconds that of Mr. Randolph.

    Mr. WILSON observed that less umbrage would perhaps be taken agst. an admission of the slaves into the Rule of representation, if it should be so expressed as to make them indirectly only an ingredient in the rule, by saying that they should enter into the rule of taxation: and as representation was to be according to taxation, the end would be equally attained. He accordingly moved & was 2ded. so to alter the last clause adopted by the House, that together with the amendment proposed the whole should read as follows-provided always that the representation ought to be proportioned according to direct taxation, and in order to ascertain the alterations in the direct taxation which may be required from time to time by the changes in the relative circumstances of the States. Resolved that a census be taken within two years from the first meeting of the Legislature of the U. States, and once within the term of every years afterwards of all the inhabitants of the U.S. in the manner and according to the ratio recommended by Congress in their Resolution of April 18. [FN5] 1783; and that the Legislature of the U. S. shall proportion the direct taxation accordingly."

    Mr. KING. Altho' this amendment varies the aspect somewhat, he had still two powerful objections agst. tying down the Legislature to the rule of numbers. 1. [FN6] they were at this time an uncertain index of the relative wealth of the States. 2. [FN6] if they were a just index at this time it can not be supposed always to continue so. He was far from wishing to retain any unjust advantage whatever in one part of the Republic. If justice was not the basis of the connection it could not be of long duration. He must be shortsighted indeed who does not foresee that whenever the Southern States shall be more numerous than the Northern, they can & will hold a language that will awe them into justice. If they threaten to separate now in case injury shall be done them, will their threats be less urgent or effectual, when force shall back their demands. Even in the intervening period, there will [FN7] no point of time at which they will not be able to say, do us justice or we will separate. He urged the necessity of placing confidence to a certain degree in every Govt. and did not conceive that the proposed confidence as to a periodical readjustment, of the representation exceeded that degree.

    Mr. PINKNEY moved to amend Mr. Randolph's motion so as to make "blacks equal to the whites in the ratio of representation." This he urged was nothing more than justice. The blacks are the labourers, the peasants of the Southern States: they are as productive of pecuniary resources as those of the Northern States. They add equally to the wealth, and considering money as the sinew of war, to the strength of the nation. It will also be politic with regard to the Northern States, as taxation is to keep pace with Representation.

    & http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b42f167c85.htm#33

    Direct taxes are the direct confiscation of property and representation in congress was set in accord with the degree to which a State would being burdened with such taxes.

    James Madison's Notes: Tuesday August 16, 1787

    Mr. Govr. Morris: "For a long time the people of America will not have money to pay direct taxes. Seize and sell their effects and you push them into Revolts."

    Apportionment is the result of representation accorded in proportion to "direct taxation":

    James Madison's Notes; Monday July 16, 1787

    Resolved: "... the limits of the U. S. the Legislature of the U. S. shall possess authority to regulate the number of Reps. in any of the foregoing cases, upon the principle of their number of inhabitants, according to the provisions hereafter mentioned, namely - provided always that representation ought to be proportioned according to direct taxation; and in order to ascertain the alteration in the direct taxation, which may be required from time to time by the changes in the relative circumstances of the States- "

    James Madison's Notes; Tuesday August 8, 1787:

    Mr. SHERMAN. did not regard the admission of the Negroes into the ratio of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was the freemen of the Southn. States who were in fact to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the Negroes are only included in the Estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the matter.


    9 posted on 04/02/2004 12:41:49 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    John w k wrote:

    see BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929):

    ancient geezer wrote to John w k:

    "I did, and you have misrepresented the quotation, The court was stating the first premise of the appellate, immediately thereafter they proceeded to demolish that reasoning pointing out..."

    "Totally opposite of what you indicate the court was saying, completely confirming what I stated, that direct taxes are taxes on property."

    "Which pretty much leaves your whole premise in the dumps for improperly applying the definition of "Direct" taxes to income taxes as general term."

    "I find it interesting that you are still pushing your presumptions, inspite of the fact they have been shown to be invalid in past debates"

    ANSWER

    ancient_geezer

    You have made a number of assertions about what I have posted, but you never quoted my specific words to which you refer to in the above quotations. Please quote my specific words to which your above quotes apply and state your specific objection(s).

    JWK

    10 posted on 04/02/2004 2:40:52 PM PST by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K

    You have made a number of assertions about what I have posted, but you never quoted my specific words to which you refer to in the above quotations. Please quote my specific words to which your above quotes apply and state your specific objection(s).

    Your vanity screed was fully debated and answered here, the last time you brought it up. All objections and debate were well and sufficiently answered long ago.

    FAIR TAX VS FOUNDERS' ORIGINAL PLAN [Free Republic]
    9/4/2000 by John W K

    I see no point it rehashing the same issues again, where they can be so readily reviewed above.

    Good night.

    11 posted on 04/02/2004 5:28:47 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    John w k wrote:

    ancient_geezer,

    You have made a number of assertions about what I have posted, but you never quoted my specific words to which you refer to in the above quotations. Please quote my specific words to which your above quotes apply and state your specific objection(s).

    ancient geezer responds

    : I see no point it rehashing the same issues again, where they can be so readily reviewed above.

    ANSWER

    Your following statements, posted in this thread in answer to what I have posted in this thread, are groundless:

    "I did, and you have misrepresented the quotation, The court was stating the first premise of the appellate, immediately thereafter they proceeded to demolish that reasoning pointing out..."

    "Totally opposite of what you indicate the court was saying, completely confirming what I stated, that direct taxes are taxes on property."

    "Which pretty much leaves your whole premise in the dumps for improperly applying the definition of "Direct" taxes to income taxes as general term."

    "I find it interesting that you are still pushing your presumptions, inspite of the fact they have been shown to be invalid in past debates"

    Apparently, you do not want to address this thread and have decided to misdirect the conversation.

    For some reason I think you dislike an equal tax being imposed among the populations of the various states to raise a federal revenue. Is this so? If it is, why?

    JWK

    12 posted on 04/02/2004 6:02:23 PM PST by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K

    Apparently, you do not want to address this thread

    Why should I care to repeat this thread?

    FAIR TAX VS FOUNDERS' ORIGINAL PLAN [Free Republic]
    9/4/2000 by John W K

    You raise no issue not already raised in it:

    For some reason I think you dislike an equal tax being imposed among the populations of the various states to raise a federal revenue. Is this so? If it is, why?

    Don't like property taxes or capitations. Both are an immediate tax on the person and property specifically and neither is conducive to the preservation of the rights of property or of personal liberty, both of which are supposedly to be protected under our Constitution.

    [Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

    Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

    As opposed to commerce which incorporates the tax upon the transaction that transfers the value to be taxed.

    Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

     

    Federalist #12:

    The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
    (Farrand's Records)
    James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
    Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
    Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.
    "Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

    End of issue, my choice is this is one of personal liberty and preference.

    13 posted on 04/02/2004 6:55:37 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    John w k wrote:

    Apparently, you do not want to address this thread

    ancient_geezer responds:

    Why should I care to repeat this thread? [ancient_geezer then links to a thread three years old]

    ANSWER

    For the third time ancient geezer, you made a number of statements in this thread in answer to what I have posted in this thread concerning its credibility which is in fact amounts to a personal attack upon my credibility. You wrote:

    "I did, and you have misrepresented the quotation, The court was stating the first premise of the appellate, immediately thereafter they proceeded to demolish that reasoning pointing out..."

    "Totally opposite of what you indicate the court was saying, completely confirming what I stated, that direct taxes are taxes on property."

    "Which pretty much leaves your whole premise in the dumps for improperly applying the definition of "Direct" taxes to income taxes as general term."

    "I find it interesting that you are still pushing your presumptions, inspite of the fact they have been shown to be invalid in past debates"

    Now ancient geezer, all I am asking, which I believe to be reasonable, is for you to quote the specific words I wrote in this thread which:

    1. “misrepresented the quotation”

    2. Was Totally opposite of what [I indicated] the court was saying

    And, in addition, please point to my specific words in this thread to which your two following quotes apply:

    "Which pretty much leaves your whole premise in the dumps for improperly applying the definition of "Direct" taxes to income taxes as general term."

    "I find it interesting that you are still pushing your presumptions, inspite of the fact they have been shown to be invalid in past debates"

    It is very possible you have misread what I have posted, and/or, I have not been accurate in my choice of words. If so, I would very much like to know if one or the other, or both possibilities exists so clarifications may be made if applicable.

    I think it is nothing more than honorable, for one who has made the kind of statements you have made concerning what someone has stated, to at least quote those words which you are referring to, in order for those words to be defended.

    JWK

    14 posted on 04/03/2004 6:23:11 AM PST by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K
    It is remarkable that no one ever asks Kerry or any other flying monkey just how much of a share is fair.

    Questions for Senator Kerry: "What percentage of total tax revenues are now paid by the top 1%, 10% and 50% of taxpayers?"

    "Is this breakdown fair?"

    "What is the percentage of total tax revenue that the top 1% of taxpayers should pay, in order to be fair?"

    "What is the percentage of total tax revenue that the top 10% of taxpayers should pay, in order to be fair?"

    What is the percentage of total tax revenue that the top half of taxpayers should pay, in order to be fair?"

    "What is the percentage of total tax revenue that the bottom half of taxpayers should pay, in order to be fair?"

    15 posted on 04/03/2004 6:33:39 AM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer; Jim Noble
    John w k wrote:

    For some reason I think you dislike an equal tax being imposed among the populations of the various states to raise a federal revenue. Is this so? If it is, why?

    ancient_geezer responds:

    Don't like property taxes or capitations. Both are an immediate tax on the person and property specifically and neither is conducive to the preservation of the rights of property or of personal liberty, both of which are supposedly to be protected under our Constitution.

    ANSWER

    Ancient geezer,

    From what I have researched and what you have posted, I believe we may be somewhat in agreement in that the Founding Fathers preferred indirect taxation to direct taxation. But they did in fact allow for direct taxation, but only by the following rule:

    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…”[Art. 1, Sec. 2., cl. 3] and Art. 1, Sec. 9, cl. 4: No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    I think , in your posts to me in this thread, you are confusing the direct tax apportioned among the states, which I support in certain situations and is allowable by the federal constitution, with an unbridled direct tax, a capitation tax or a direct tax levied upon property, each of which the Founding Fathers provided the protection of apportioning them if decided to be laid by Congress.

    As to a direct tax apportioned among the states, such a tax can be laid by Congress in such a manner as to allow the various states to raise their apportioned share of the total being raised by Congress, as the people within the various states may feel is best suited for themselves. The collection of the tax within each state does not have to fall upon property, be raised as capitation tax, or levied as a direct tax upon the people, and the States ought to be left at liberty in their choice as to raising their “apportioned share’ of the total being raised by Congress!

    This in fact was very much the feeling of those who framed our federal Constitution, and those who ratified the Constitution…FOR EXAMPLE SEE:

    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts:

    “Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State's proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition”

    AND SEE:

    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York

    “And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid”

    Also see the ratifications of S.C., N.H., VA, N.C., and R.I. For similar language concerning the direct tax. Also see the various times this direct tax was laid by Congress.

    The truth is, ancient_geezer , instead of Congress entering the states and demanding the payment of a general tax directly from individuals after calculating an amount from their alleged “income”___ which makes the tax unequal among the people___, the Founding Fathers method for a direct tax among the states is not only an equal burden upon the populations of the states, but allows the people within the states to exercise their liberty [which you appear to be a defender of] and determine how to raise their fair share of the burden being collected by Congress as was agreed to by the ratification of our federal Constitution. Why would you disagree with this method of raising federal revenue, or do you disagree?

    JWK

    16 posted on 04/03/2004 8:02:51 AM PST by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

    To: Jim Noble
    Exactly so!

    Our Founding Fathers would have asked your questions and then promptly adopted a fair share formula…an apportionment among the states!

    The reason Congress, [Republicans and Democrats alike who are patently dishonest], do not like our Founding Father’s fair share formula for direct taxation, and prefer raising revenue by calculating a tax based upon an alleged “income’ of specific individuals, is that our Founding Father’s formula and method for direct taxation prevents manipulation and prevents Congress from laying unequal burdens upon specific identifiable economic classes of individuals, based upon their productivity of lack of productivity…something which Marxists love to do___ all in the name of equality .

    JWK

    17 posted on 04/03/2004 8:20:45 AM PST by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K
    JWK has said:

    For the third time ancient geezer, you made a number of statements in this thread in answer to what I have posted in this thread concerning its credibility which is in fact amounts to a personal attack upon my credibility.

    all I am asking, which I believe to be reasonable, is for you to quote the specific words I wrote in this thread which:

    all I am asking, which I believe to be reasonable, is for you to quote the specific words I wrote in this thread which:

    1. “misrepresented the quotation”

    2. Was Totally opposite of what [I indicated] the court was saying

    In the opening statement of this thread JWK has said:

    "Every time I hear a member of the Congress of the United States refer to “fair share” with reference to direct taxation, I brace myself for the recital of some legislation intentionally designed to disburse the costs of government by identifying a specific class of individuals, and either placing the burden of taxation directly upon them"

    in clear reference to the levy of income taxes by the present day members of Congress of the United States and the income tax of today.

    In reply #7 JWK has said:

    see BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929):

    “The general power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises' conferred by article 1, 8, of the Constitution, and required by that section to be uniform throughout the United States, is limited by section 2 of the same article, which requires 'direct' taxes to be apportioned, and section 9, which provides that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census' directedby the Constitution [280 U.S. 124, 136] to be taken.As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

    If JWK's intent was to merely support that the power to levy a direct tax is authorized in the Constitution, merely stating so by quoting the constitution is sufficient. Which JWK had done in his opening post.

    Quoting Bromley, In reply #7 , was merely quoting the Court's re-statement of the proposition of the appellate's position. However true as regards indication of the existence of authority to levy a direct tax, the quote was out of context with regard the premise of JWK's premise in the beginning of JWK's article and incomplete thereby, misleading by implication that Bromely was ruling in a manner relating to JWK's position of the income tax being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution.

    Bromley, was not ruling on the levy of a direct tax. It was ruling on a facit of the income tax as being an indirect tax, as demonstrated in its next paragraph. Which is why I quote that second paragraph to complete the Bromley statement and thus more fully represent the position of the court in that case. To wit:

    The meaning of the phrase 'direct taxes' and the historical background of the constitutional requirement for their apportionment have been so often and exhaustively considered by this court, Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 , 20 S. Ct. 747; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 515 , 19 S. Ct. 522, that no useful purpose would be served by renewing the discussion here. Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.

    It is my impression JWK has tried to attribute to the court commenting on a facit of the income tax under scrutiny, as a ruling of the court in the case, and therein a misrepresentation as regards the nature of the income tax.

    1) The 16th amendment refers to the income tax, a tax that has been held to be indirect by the Courts repeatedly.

    2) Bromley rules on a facit of an income tax (tax on income received as gifts), and holds that particular part of the income tax to be indirect.

    3) In reply #7 JWK brings attention to Eisner as well, another income tax case addressing a facit of the income tax, taxation of stock dividends. Wherein Eisner demonstrates the common & legal definition of income includes stock dividends thus upholding that facit of the income tax as Constitutional.

    In JWK's opening statement and in referring to Bromley & Eisner in reply #7, JWK has left an impression that the cases (regarding income taxes) somehow lend support to JWK's apparent position that the founder's held the "income tax" to be a direct tax by virtue of being laid upon individuals, as the term is used in the Constitution.

    That is not a supportable position and in fact is a misrepresentation both of the Court's rulings and what an income tax is.

    JWK has said:

    It is very possible you have misread what I have posted, and/or, I have not been accurate in my choice of words. If so, I would very much like to know if one or the other, or both possibilities exists so clarifications may be made if applicable.

    I think it is nothing more than honorable, for one who has made the kind of statements you have made concerning what someone has stated, to at least quote those words which you are referring to, in order for those words to be defended.

    The question becomes, is the "income tax" a direct tax as that term is used in the Constitution? The courts of the day did not hold so nor did any of that era's proponents of the Constitution. Quite the contrary.

    Taxes levied in regard property & slaves and capitation (i.e. head & poll taxes) were held to be "direct", while many of taxes of the time expressly laid on individuals were held to be indirect. Thus invalidating JWK's connection of direct = laid on the individual.

    In fact uniformity insofar, as being the rule of indirect taxes, was specifally described affecting the individual without regard states or intervention of assessments by the earliest court, closest to the times of the writing of the Constitution, about a tax levied on individual citizens as regards their use of personal carriages:

    Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • That same case in distinguishing "indirect taxes" from "direct taxes" pointed out very clearly

  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
  • Which by no means encompasses income taxes and there in lay the misrepresentations and error of JWK.

    18 posted on 04/03/2004 9:02:55 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K
    JWK has stated:

    The truth is, ancient_geezer , instead of Congress entering the states and demanding the payment of a general tax directly from individuals after calculating an amount from their alleged “income”___ which makes the tax unequal among the people___,

    ANSWER

    Again, JWK mischaracterises the income tax as a "direct tax", by alluding to it being impressed upon the people directly. This is a mistatement of what a "direct tax" as held by the Founders under the Constitution is.

    Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

    "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

    However, the real question becomes whether or not a direct tax is advisable and can reasonable be placed upon the people an apportioned basis and be fair to each individual in that state.

    JWK has stated:

    the Founding Fathers method for a direct tax among the states is not only an equal burden upon the populations of the states,

    It should be noted that if JWK's "equal burden" were levied on the basis of state populations through the rule of apportionment, as he holds to be appropriate. That tax would vary in its impact upon those states economies in a very unequal and unfair manner, by the only measure that fairness can objectively be applied:

    Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

    As is shown in States 2000 per capita income tables, per capital income varies 2 to 1 from the highest income states to the lowest. Connecticut at more than $26k & Mississippi barely breaking above $13K.

    Thus the heaviest economic burdens would be placed upon the residents of the poorest states by a margin of 2 to 1. This is somehow fair an equal burden upon states and populations in those states in JWK's eyes?

    The Founders did not believe so:

    Federalist #21

    Neither the value of lands, nor the numbers of the people, which have been successively proposed as the rule of State contributions, has any pretension to being a just representative.

    JWK continues:

    but allows the people within the states to exercise their liberty [which you appear to be a defender of] and determine how to raise their fair share of the burden being collected by Congress as was agreed to by the ratification of our federal Constitution.

    What was agreed to by the founders was the Constitutition as written, which included indirect taxes as the primary means of raising revenues:

    The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
    (Farrand's Records)
    James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
    Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
    Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

    "Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

    And not just the few recommendations added to ratification documents of the minority of states that you imply represent the broad view the the nation as represented in all the ratification docoments and by what was subsuquently ratified as amendments to the Constitution. Which was pointed out to you in

    FAIR TAX VS FOUNDERS' ORIGINAL PLAN [Free Republic]#69

    And which JWK has chosen once again to over look in his screeds recommending a direct tax be levied upon the American people.

    JWK has inquired:

    Why would you disagree with this method of raising federal revenue, or do you disagree?

    Simply put, to apportion income taxes would demand a different economic burden on each state, which is why most states found such taxes to be inappropriate and unfair.

    No two states have the same per capita income nor economic product.

    Which why the Founders provided for indirect taxes as fairer means of equitably spreading economic burdens among the population as a whole.

    Constitution for the United States of America:


    19 posted on 04/03/2004 10:20:54 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

    To: Ken H
    If you look at the top marginal rates for 1932-1941 you will see exactly why the Great Depression lasted longer than 10 years and why it took a global war and essentially full employment in the US to end it. This is a perfect example of government restraining the economy.

    If Hoover and Congress had any sense with the stock market bust in 1927 they would have dropped the marginal rate to 7% again.
    20 posted on 04/03/2004 10:29:58 AM PST by TASMANIANRED
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer; Jim Noble; TASMANIANRED; Ken H; Papatom
    Ancient geezer writes:

    In the opening statement of this thread JWK has said:

    "Every time I hear a member of the Congress of the United States refer to “fair share” with reference to direct taxation, I brace myself for the recital of some legislation intentionally designed to disburse the costs of government by identifying a specific class of individuals, and either placing the burden of taxation directly upon them"

    Ancient geezer then says: in clear reference to the levy of income taxes by the present day members of Congress of the United States and the income tax of today.

    ANSWER

    Ancient geezer, what is the point you are trying to make by your above words?

    As to BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929): I quoted from the case, as well as EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920): to simply confirm and document for those who may be interested, that the Sixteenth Amendment has not changed the constitutional rule for apportioning direct taxes. I said:

    “As to the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it did not repeal or alter the rules for direct taxation! The power of Congress to impose a direct tax still exists, and direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states, as pointed out by the United States Supreme Court,”

    I then posted the two above mentioned cases, each containing passages confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states. Now, what problem do you have with my provided documentation to support what I say to those who read my work? Are you simply trying to confuse the issue and troll?

    In addition, Ancient geezer, you continually use the phrase “income tax”. Is that phrase in the federal constitution, or is the phrase “taxes on incomes” in the constitution and the proper wording you are searching for?

    You see, Ancient geezer, from my research, Congress has always had the power to calculate a tax from income under its “excise” taxing power…for example see FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) upholding a tax calculated from income in which an excise tax was imposed upon corporations, and, the thing taxed was not merely “income”, but rather, the subject matter of a “privilege” of being a corporation was taxed, which makes the tax indirect and not requiring apportionment, and, the amount of “income” [profit and/or gain] realized from that privilege was merely used as a measure to calculate the amount of tax to be paid.

    What the Court stated in the Flint case should clear this matter up for you Ancient geezer, especially with reference to a tax upon a privilege as being indirect and within Congress’ excise taxing power:

    “The thing taxed is not the mere dealing in merchandise, in which the actual transactions may be the same, whether conducted by individuals or corpo- [220 U.S. 107, 162] rations, but the tax is laid upon the privileges which exist in conducting business with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity of those taxed, and which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals. These advantages are obvious, and have led to the formation of such companies in nearly all branches of trade. The continuity of the business, without interruption by death or dissolution, the transfer of property interests by the disposition of shares of stock, the advantages of business controlled and managed by corporate directors, the general absence of individual liability, these and other things inhere in the advantages of business thus conducted, which do not exist when the same business is conducted by private individuals or partnerships. It is this distinctive privilege which is the subject of taxation, not the mere buying or selling or handling of goods, which may be the same, whether done by corporations or individuals……The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.”

    Ancient geezer suggests my work is: “misleading by implication”

    My, my, that is indeed a very novel charge___ to be guilty of misleading by making an “implication”? And who is sitting in judgment of what is being implied?

    Ancient geezer then says:

    “It is my impression JWK has tried to attribute to the court commenting on a facit of the income tax under scrutiny, as a ruling of the court in the case, and therein a misrepresentation as regards the nature of the income tax.”

    Your “impression“? and therefore a “misrepresentation“?

    Ancient geezer then says:

    "JWK has left an impression that the cases (regarding income taxes) somehow lend support to JWK's apparent position that the founder's held the "income tax" to be a direct tax by virtue of being laid upon individuals, as the term is used in the Constitution."

    And where have I in this thread even remotely suggested the Founder’s held “the income tax to be a direct tax by virtue of being laid upon individuals”? Please cite my word.

    Ancient geezer then says:

    “The question becomes, is the "income tax" a direct tax as that term is used in the Constitution? The courts of the day did not hold so nor did any of that era's proponents of the Constitution. Quite the contrary“.

    And where is the term “income tax” found in the Constitution?

    Are you referring to “taxes on incomes” laid under Congress’ excise taxing power, which is understood to be an indirect tax as in the Flint case cited above, and are not, nor ever were, required to be apportion and which the 16th Amendment merely confirmed?

    I see from your post, Ancient geezer that you do not believe in an equal tax apportioned among the states based upon population size, which, if it were laid by Congress directly upon the people within the various states would be an equal tax paid by all___ no privileged classes, no exemptions, but an equal tax! If what you say is true about the burden of taxation being placed “upon the residents of the poorest states by a margin of 2 to 1.” if the direct tax were laid, why did the Framers and Ratifiers agree to such an inequity? Were they really so stupid to accept what you suggest? I prefer to have faith in the Founding Fathers, and especially when it comes to taxation.

    Ancient geezer says:

    “What was agreed to by the founders was the Constitutition as written, which included indirect taxes as the primary means of raising revenues“

    You statement above in inaccurate. The truth is, it was the overwhelming intention for indirect taxation to be the primary means of raising federal revenue, but it is not included in the wording of the constitution. This intention is found in the historical records, such the Federalist papers, Madison’s Notes, and the state ratifications I posted for you, and are there to guide us when questions arise as to the intentions of the framers and ratifiers, but which you seem to have cast aside with a glib remark, to wit:

    “And not just the few recommendations added to ratification documents of the minority of states that you imply represent the broad view the the nation as represented in all the ratification docoments and by what was subsuquently ratified as amendments to the Constitution.

    The most fundamental rule of constitutional law, Ancient geezer, is to carry out the intent of the constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it. In this case, the intent [indirect taxation to be the primary means to raise a federal revenue] was pretty much agreed to by the Founding Fathers

    Now, what was the intent for permitting a direct tax? Answer___ just as I have posted and documented for you.

    Truth is, Ancient geezer, the truth cannot be changed to what it is not!

    JWK

    21 posted on 04/03/2004 1:15:28 PM PST by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K

    Ancient geezer, you continually use the phrase “income tax”. Is that phrase in the federal constitution, or is the phrase “taxes on incomes” in the constitution and the proper wording you are searching for?

    I merely use the common vernacular expression "income tax",

    I do mean taxes on incomes as they are referred to in the Constitution.

    And no I am not searching for the term I use the vernacular merely for convenience.

    JWK has stated

    The most fundamental rule of constitutional law, Ancient geezer, is to carry out the intent of the constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it.

    and I do agree:

    Furthermore JWK has encouraged us to :

    Also see the various times this direct tax was laid by Congress.

    So For reference so we know what a direct tax really meant at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and how it was imposed upon the people of the states.

    Here as a hyperlink to an actual example, the first law describing the administration of direct taxes apportioned among the states as actually implemented by those who ratified the Constitution.

     

    United States Statutes at Large

    Thirteenth Congress Session. I. Ch. 16. 1813
    Chapter XVI. An Act for the assesment and collection of direct taxes and internal duties.(a)

    Do take a look, it is indeed eye opening as to what JWK actually proposes in encouraging the adoption of "direct taxes":

    Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

    "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

    held to be a "fundamental error" by the "founders" and proponents of the Constitution:

    Federalist #21:

     

    JWK has stated:

    The most fundamental rule of constitutional law, Ancient geezer, is to carry out the intent of the constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it. In this case, the intent [indirect taxation to be the primary means to raise a federal revenue] was pretty much agreed to by the Founding Fathers

    Now, what was the intent for permitting a direct tax?

    Now JWK would have us believe the intent of permitting a "direct tax", (i.e tax on property and slaves) was expressed by those who ratified the document after it was authored. It is interesting that he has avoided the mention of the intents of direct taxation as a tax on property and slaves, and apportionment to assure additional representation to slave holders as a compromise measure to protect their interests, as expressed by the delegates to the convention that authored that document.

    see reply #9 where we covered that thoroughly.

    Furthermore in his attempt to justify these impositions on property, JWK goes further to partially quote:

    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts:

    “Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State's proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition”

    Conveniently leaving out the predicate paragraph preceding this quotation, which identifies it as a recommended amendment to the new constitution, which upon inspection of the Constitution and amendments clearly was not accepted by the states, nor ratified, at any time.

    Leaving the essential and original intent of the Constitution's author's and founders unchanged in this regard.


    Further JWK quotes from:

    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York

    " And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.

    Leaving out the preceding portion of that paragraph

    In full Confidence nevertheless that until a Convention shall be called and convened for proposing Amendments to the said Constitution, the Militia of this State will not be continued in Service out of this State for a longer term than six weeks without the Consent of the Legislature thereof;-that the Congress will not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall neglect or refuse to make Laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same, and that in those cases such power will only be exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises;-that no Excise will be imposed on any Article of the Growth production or Manufacture of the United States, or any of them within this State, Ardent Spirits excepted; And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid

    As the state of New York was expressing its intent as regards what it's actions would be "until a Convention shall be called and convened for proposing Amendments"

    It is to be noted further that there are no subsequent amendment to the Constitution implementing the so called intents expressed in the above paragraph by the state of New York in their ratification document.

    The Constitution of the United States is the controlling document as written and expressly amended, not the expressions of intent of actions waiting for the Convention for amendments to be held, nor even the miscellaneous amendment proposals of the states in their ratifying documents.

    "We the people of the United States, ..., do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Not a series of proposals merely proposed by states which were not actually ratified or included in the main body of the Constitution


    JWK has also encouraged us to

    "Also see the ratifications of S.C., N.H., VA, N.C., and R.I. For similar language concerning the direct tax. "

    Let us do look at them. In fact let's look at all the State's ratification documents locating the proposals for amending the intents and treatement of taxation under the Constitution as written. Specifically looking to determine whether or not such language was subsequently adopted in amendment to the constitution to reflect those states desires in modifying the taxation elements of the basic Constitution.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratct.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Connecticut; January 8, 1788.

    In the Name of the People of the State of Connecticut.

    We the Delegates of the People of sd State in general Convention assembled, pursuant to an Act of the Legislature in October last, Have assented to and ratified, and by these presents do assent to, ratify and adopt the Constitution, reported by the Convention of Delegates in Philadelphia, on the 17th day of September AD. 1787. for the United States of America.


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratde.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Delaware; December 7, 1787.

    "We the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in Convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the Deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the City of Philadelphia on the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, Have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these Presents, Do, in virtue of the Power and Authority to us given for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and our Constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm the said Constitution. "


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratga.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Georgia; January 2, 1788.

    "In Convention; Wednesday, January the second, one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight:

    To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting. "

    ***

    "Now Know Ye, That We, the Delegates of the People of the State of Georgia in Convention met, pursuant to the Resolutions of the Legislature aforesaid, having taken into our serious consideration the said Constitution, Have assented to, ratified and adopted, and by these presents DO, in virtue of the powers and authority to Us given by the People of the said State for that purpose, for, and in behalf of ourselves and our Constituents, fully and entirely assent to, ratify and adopt the said Constitution."


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratme.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Maryland; April 28, 1788.

    "In Convention of the Delegates of the People of the State of Maryland 28 April 1788.

    We the Delegates of the people of the State of Maryland having fully considered the Constitution of the United States of America reported to Congress by the Convention of Deputies from the United States of America held in Philadelphia on the seventeenth Day of September in the Year Seventeen hundred and eighty seven of which the annexed is a Copy and submitted to us by a Resolution of the General Assembly of Maryland in November Session Seventeen hundred and eighty seven do for ourselves and in the Name and on the behalf of the People of this State assent to and ratify the said Constitution."


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratma.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788.

    "In Convention of the delegates of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts February 6th 1788

    The Convention have impartially discussed, & fully considered the Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America, & submitted to us by a resolution of the General Court of the said Commonwealth, passed the twenty fifth day of October last past, & acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe in affording the People of the United States in the course of his providence an opportunity deliberately & peaceably without fraud or surprize of entering into an explicit & solemn Compact with each other by assenting to & ratifying a New Constitution in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare & secure the blessings of Liberty to themselves & their posterity; Do in the name & in behalf of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts assent to & ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America.

    And as it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth & more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government, The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution. "

    ***

    "Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor ***"

    An Opinion Expressed but no amendment or modification to the Constitution ratified or adopted regards this recommendation.
    [Refer: The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) ]


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratnh.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788.

    "In Convention of the Delegates of the People of the State of New-Hampshire June the Twenty first 1788.

    The Convention haveing Impartially discussed and fully considered the Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America & submitted to us by a Resolution of the General Court of said State passed the fourteenth Day of December last past and acknowledgeing with gratefull Hearts the goodness of the Supreme ruler of the Universe in affording the People of the United States in the Course of his Providence an Opportunity, deliberately & peaceably without fraud or surprize of entering into an Explicit and solemn compact with each other by assenting to & ratifying a new Constitution, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, Insure domestick Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves & their Posterity-Do In the Name & behalf of the People of the State of New-Hampshire assent to & ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America. And as it is the Opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good People of this State & more Effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government- The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.- "

    ***

    "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; ***"

    An Opinion Expressed but no amendment or modification to the Constitution ratified or adopted regards this recommendation.
    [Refer: The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) ]


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratnj.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Jersey; December 18, 1787.

    "In Convention of the State of New Jersey

    ***

    "Now be it known that we the Delegates of the State of New-Jersey chosen by the People thereof for the purposes aforesaid having maturely deliberated on, and considered the aforesaid proposed Constitution, do hereby for and on the behalf of the People of the said State of New-Jersey agree to, ratify and confirm the same and every part thereof. "


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratny.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.

    WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.

    ***

    Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution. In full Confidence nevertheless that until a Convention shall be called and convened for proposing Amendments to the said Constitution, *** ; And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition ***"

    Merely statement of what they will do until convention for amendment to be proposed but no amendment or modification to the Constitution ratified or adopted regards taxation proposal.
    [Refer: The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) ]


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratnc.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of North Carolina; November 21, 1789.

    "In Convention, August I, 1788.

    Resolved, That a Declaration of Rights, asserting and securing from encroachment the great Principles of civil and religious Liberty, and the unalienable Rights of the People, together with Amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptional Parts of the said Constitution of Government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the Convention of the States that shall or may be called for the Purpose of Amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the Ratification of the Constitution aforesaid, on the part of the State of North Carolina.

    ***

    AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

    ***

    III. When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the executive power of each state, of the quota of such State, according to the census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised: And if the legislature of any state shall pass a law, which shall be effectual for raismg such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected in such state.

    ***

    "IN CONVENTION Whereas The General Convention which met in Philadelphia in Pursuance of a recommendation of Congress, did recommend to the Citizens of the United States a Constitution or form of Government in the following words Vizt.

    Resolved, that this Convention in behalf of the freemen, citizens and inhabitants of the State of North Carolina, do adopt and ratify the said Constitution and form of Government. Done in Convention this 21 day of November 1789"

    An amendment proposed but no amendment or modification to the Constitution ratified or adopted regards this proposal.
    [Refer: The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) ]


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratpa.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Pennsylvania; December 12, 1787.

    "In the Name of the People of Pennsylvania

    Be it Known unto all Men that We the Delegates of the People of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in general Convention assembled Have assented to, and ratified, and by these presents Do in the Name and by the authority of the Same People, and for ourselves, assent to, and ratify the foregoing Constitution for the United States of America. Done in Convention at Philadelphia the twelfth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratri.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790.

    Ratification of the Constitution, by the Convention of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations

    We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known

    ***

    We the said delegates, in the name, and in the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence nevertheless, that until the amendments hereafter proposed and undermentioned shall be agreed to and ratified,

    ***

    And the Convention, do in the name and behalf of the People of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, enjoin it upon their Senators and Representative or Representatives, which may be elected to represent this State in Congress, to exert all their influence, and use all reasonable means to obtain a ratification of the following Amendments to the said Constitution, in the manner prescribed therein, and in all laws to be passed by the Congress in the mean time, to conform to the spirit of the said amendments, as far as the constitution will admit.

    ***

    AMENDMENTS

    ***

    7th That no capitation or poll-tax shall ever be laid by Congress.

    8th In cases of direct taxes, Congress shall first make requisitions on the several states to assess, levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions, in such way and manner, as the legislatures of the several states shall judge best; and in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion, together with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, from the time prescribed in such requisition.

    9th That Congress shall lay no direct taxes, without the consent of the legislatures of three fourths of the states in the Union.

    Amendments proposed but no amendment or modification to the Constitution ratified or adopted regards these proposals.
    [Refer: The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10)


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratsc.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South Carolina; May 23, 1788.

    In Convention of the people of the state of South Carolina by their Representatives held in the city of Charleston on Monday the twelfth day of May and continued by divers Adjournments to friday the twenty third day of May Anno Domini One thousand seven hundred and eighty eight, and in the twelfth Year of the Independence of the United States of America.

    The Convention having maturely considered the constitution or form of Government reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United states of America and submitted to them by a Resolution of the Legislature of this State passed the seventeenth and eighteenth days of February last in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure Domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to the people of the said United States and their posterity DO in the name and behalf of the people of this State hereby assent to and ratify the said Constitution.


    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratva.htm
    Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788.

    Virginia to wit

    We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; .

    ***

    Subsequent Amendments agreed to in Convention as necessary to the proposed Constitution of Government for the United States, recommended to the consideration of the Congress which shall first assemble under the said Constitution to be acted upon according to the mode prescribed in the fifth article thereof:

    ***

    and no aid, charge, tax or fee can be set, rated, or levied upon the people without their own consent,

    An amendment proposed but no amendment or modification to the Constitution ratified or adopted regards this proposal.
    [Refer: The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10)


     

    All should be careful to distinguish between mere wish lists of proposals never ratified by 3/4ths of the states legislatures, and true amendments binding the constitution and its interpretation.

    At no point did ratification of the Constitution hinge upon the acceptance of the tax doctrine John W K has proposed.

    JWK has stated:

    Truth is, Ancient geezer, the truth cannot be changed to what it is not!

    Indeed JWK, Indeed.

    But then as I stated very early on, everything you are bringing up now, has already been debated and answered fully

    Here:

    FAIR TAX VS FOUNDERS' ORIGINAL PLAN [Free Republic]
    9/4/2000 by John W K

    So why do you waste our time and bandwidth in repeating rather than referencing your original vanity thread?

    For all we are doing is rehashing the same debate posted in that thread, the meat of which you have chosen to ignore to continue on with your proposal to levy "direct taxes" (i.e. capitations and taxes on property.) in lieu of the current tax system we have which is apparently adequate in meeting the intent you hold up as being held by the founders.

    "That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies "

    Since the tax on incomes specifically as it regards wages and salaries which were taxed in the income tax of Springer is of the class of an excise:

    Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

  • "The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
  • "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
  • "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
  • As recognized in Pollock

    POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

    And the specific business tax on income as another element included within the more general term of "income: upheld in Flint as well, as JWK has provided for us.

    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107

    And similar taxes on income after the 16th amendment, were held to be excises taxes subject to the rule of uniformity as opposed to apportionment of property taxes:

    BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

     

    Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:

    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

    When wages and salaries obviously were expressly included in the Constitutional usage of income and upheld a taxable:

    Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

    Obviously even the criteria of levying a direct tax that JWK held out for us as supposedly the ruling intent of the founders in allowing property and capitations taxes (i.e. "direct taxes") is not met.

    That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies

    Since obviously, the current tax system and its levies on income is "sufficient to publick exigencies", indeed far in excess of what would have been termed reasonable or of "exigency" in the time of the founders.

    But then these points have be debated in JWK's earlier thread,

     

    But then as I have pointed out, everything JWK is bringing up now, has already been debated and answered fully

    Here:

    FAIR TAX VS FOUNDERS' ORIGINAL PLAN [Free Republic]
    9/4/2000 by John W K

    To rehash old material, is especially vexing in this thread which is showing itself nothing more than a repeat of ground long covered.

    I refer all to

    FAIR TAX VS FOUNDERS' ORIGINAL PLAN [Free Republic]
    9/4/2000 by John W K

    for reference until such time a JWK comes up with something substantially new and not addressed in material of he the older thread.

    22 posted on 04/03/2004 3:56:07 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

    Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

    To: ancient_geezer
    Still trolling ancient geezer, wasting enormous band width and attempting to confuse the issue with repeated and lengthy posts?

    The irrefutable facts are as follows:

    FACT: Congress is granted power to lay a direct tax by the federal Constitution.

    FACT: Under this direct taxing power, after deciding upon the total amount to be raised by a direct tax, Congress is required to determine each state’s apportioned share as stated in the Constitution.

    FACT: Congress may then notify each state of its apportioned share and a time period in which to make payment, leaving to the various states the decision on how to raise their particular apportioned share.

    FACT: The 16th Amendment did not alter the rule by which Congress is to apportion direct taxes among the states.

    Now, ancient geezer, do you disagree with any of the above listed FACTS?

    And, do you agree with what the Court stated in the Pollock decision with regard to direct taxation:

    “The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.

    Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language.”

    Oh, BTW, I do not intend to come up with “something new“...I believe the Founding Fathers original tax plan is still valid today...including the direct apportion tax among the states, which you appear to disagree with . But that‘s too bad because the power does exist, has been used, and is far more fair than Congress calculating a tax based upon an individuals annual profits and or gains which happens to be a Marxists idea

    JWK

    24 posted on 04/03/2004 6:31:48 PM PST by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K

    FACT: Congress is granted power to lay a direct tax by the federal Constitution.

    FACT: Under this direct taxing power, after deciding upon the total amount to be raised by a direct tax, Congress is required to determine each state’s apportioned share as stated in the Constitution.

    Correct:

    Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
  •  


    FACT: Congress may then notify each state of its apportioned share and a time period in which to make payment, leaving to the various states the decision on how to raise their particular apportioned share.

    Correct:

    PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433

    FACT: The 16th Amendment did not alter the rule by which Congress is to apportion direct taxes among the states.

    Correct:

    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

     

    Now, ancient geezer, do you disagree with any of the above listed FACTS?

    Not at all.


    I believe the Founding Fathers original tax plan is still valid today...including the direct apportion tax among the states,

    Correct:

    LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)

    which you appear to disagree with .

    Not at all.

    the power does exist, has been used,

    Correct:

    United States Statutes at Large

    Thirteenth Congress Session. I. Ch. 16. 1813
    Chapter XVI. An Act for the assesment and collection of direct taxes and internal duties.(a)

     

    and is far more fair than Congress calculating a tax based upon an individuals annual profits and or gains

    A matter of your opinion, certainly

    which happens to be a Marxists idea

    Not original with Marx certainly, Britain in 1799 & the US Treasury in

    1777-1815 The Revolutionary War to the War of 1812

    1815 Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Dallas contemplated the enactment of an income tax to raise up to $3 million dollars for the war effort. He modeled his idea after the income tax Britain adopted in 1799 to finance the Napoleonic Wars. Dallas assumed that such an income tax constituted an indirect tax, and would not require apportionment. The House Ways and Means Committee responded lukewarmly to the proposal, and the war ended before any income tax could be enacted.

    and then in

    1861-1865 The Civil War

    The first federal income tax in American history actually preceded the Internal Revenue Act of 1862. Passed in August 1861, it had helped assure the financial community that the government would have a reliable source of income to pay the interest on war bonds. Initially, Salmon Chase and Thaddeus Stevens, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, wanted to implement an emergency property tax similar to the one adopted during the War of 1812. This way, the government could adapt the administrative system that state and local governments had developed for their own property taxes. But legislators understood such a property tax as a direct tax. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution required the federal government to apportion the burden among states on the basis of population rather than property values. Emphasizing population over property value would actually render the tax quite regressive. Residents of lower-density western states, border states, and poor northeastern states stood to bear a greater burden than those of highly-populated urban states, despite the latter’s valued real estate. Their representatives also complained that a property tax would not touch substantial "intangible" property like stocks, bonds, mortgages, or cash.

    As an alternative, policy makers sought to follow the example of British Liberals, who had turned to income taxation in order to finance the Crimean War without heavy property taxation. Justin Morrill, (R-VT), Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Taxation and the architect of the regressive tariff structure, introduced a proposal for the first federal income tax. Because it did not tax property directly, congressional leaders viewed the income tax as indirect, and thus immune from constitutional strictures.

     

    However that may be,

    Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

    [Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

    Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

    for

    -- a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage.
    Alan Keyes 1999

    And

    Federalist #12:

     

    The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
    (Farrand's Records)
    James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
    Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
    Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

    "Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

    A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    "COMMERCE, trade, contracts
    .
    The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "

    Constitution for the United States of America:

    A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    DUTIES.
    In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;

    A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    EXCISES.
    This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

     

    KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

    BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

    Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)


     

    See also: rebuttal to John W K's

    FAIR TAX VS FOUNDERS' ORIGINAL PLAN [Free Republic]
    9/4/2000


    25 posted on 04/03/2004 8:29:50 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Well then, where do we disagree in what I posted in this thread? It would help if you simply stated your disagreement[s] in clear language and quoted a complete sentence and thought of mine. I know when I first involved myself in the tax issue, over twenty years ago, my thinking was very, very muddled, but the advantage I had was a desire to learn the truth, and so, I eventually arrived at the founding of our nation and its founding documents . I know you love to post documentation, which I do appreciate, as I too am always eager to offer documentation to those who may disagree with what I write . But in the current situation, I am unable to understand your particular disagreements, if any, because they have not been stated clearly. I have always submitted to and accepted a preponderance of evidence with regard to the intent of our Constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it, and would sincerely like to correct any inaccuracies I may have, or, correct any wording I have posted which is not factually correct. So, at this point in time I simply need to know, in clear and simple language what your specific disagreements are. I do not need documentation at this point in time, and will only need it if I disagree with you.


    JWK
    26 posted on 04/04/2004 5:26:44 AM PDT by JOHN W K
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K
    It is apparent that we agree on facts.

    An appropriate position rooted in facts may be taken:

    Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

    Federalist #12:

    Federalist #31:

    "As theory and practice conspire to prove that the power of procuring revenue is unavailing when exercised over the States in their collective capacities, the federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes. "

    Federalist #21:

     

    That is sufficient.

    27 posted on 04/04/2004 8:12:44 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

    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.

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson