Your “FAIR SHARE” of taxes?

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.

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.

"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.]

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

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:

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.

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 s^d 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):

"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.

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

"This tax, it is expressly stated, is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year, this is the measure of the tax explicitly adopted by the statute." *** In other words, the tax is imposed upon the doing of business of the character described, and the measure of the tax is to be income, with the deduction stated, received not only from property used in business, but from every source."

"The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."

"In the present case the tax is not payable unless there be a carrying on or doing of business in the designated capacity, and this is made the occasion for the tax, measured by the standard prescribed. The difference between the acts is not merely nominal, but rests upon substantial differences between the mere ownership of property and the actual doing of business in a certain way."

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)

"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"

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."

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"

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:

"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,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."

"There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "

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.

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

"Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."

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:

"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"

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)

"It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception, and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion."

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

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.

[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.

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."

for

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

And

Federalist #12:

"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 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:

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

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; "

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)

'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'

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

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

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

An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.