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.]
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003
In 1913 the top marginal rate was 7% on income over $500,000.
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:]
- "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
--Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.
Why would you want a tax system based on the confiscation of one's property?
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
- The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it. I speak of it now solely with a view to equality among the States. Those who have been accustomed to contemplate the circumstances which produce and constitute national wealth, must be satisfied that there is no common standard or barometer by which the degrees of it can be ascertained. 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.
- It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. ... Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.
Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference.
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."
“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
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:
- "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
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)
- "the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"
This section imposes a graduated tax 'upon the transfer by a resident by gift' during the calendar year 'of any property wherever situated. ...'
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:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
And
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
- "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' "
- "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "
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):
- "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."
- "If that[rents from land] be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by a r the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress."
- "We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. "
- Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
- Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.
16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.
Which pretty much leaves your whole premise in the dumps for improperly applying the definition of "Direct" taxes to income taxes as general term.
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 12Thursday 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.
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
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.
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
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:]
- "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
--Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.
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:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
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.
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
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?"
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
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
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.
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:
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.
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:
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
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:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
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.