Posted on 08/05/2007 5:09:48 PM PDT by Man50D
What did our founding fathers envision?
If not for the question of slavery, the term "direct tax" would not have entered the constitutional lexicon. Unfortunately, the delegates themselves never truly understood what the term was meant to connote. When Rufus King queried the convention on this point, James Madison noted that "no one answered."
The founding fathers, in their wisdom, never claimed to have all the answers. For sure, they never envisioned an immutable constitution, in fact, Jefferson suggested that each generation might wish to write its own constitution.
“Personal property is too precarious and invisible an asset to tax in any way than by the imperceptible agency of taxes on consumption.” (Fed Paper #12 Sec 6)
"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. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Federalist #21
"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.”
--Thomas Hobbes
That should do for starters.
...they never envisioned an immutable constitution, in fact, Jefferson suggested that each generation might wish to write its own constitution.
And they provided specific methods by which those things could be done. In the mean time the words of the Constitution were carefully chosen and mean EXACTLY what they say.
So, then, when no one answered Rufus King's question because the answer was common knowledge?
Did the founding father's ever envision a sales tax so high that government would first have to send checks to all households so that poor people could then pay it?
What is the history of a federal retail sales tax in the US?
I have no idea why no one answered but the record is quite clear that they had definite ideas as to what form of taxation was appropriate.
Did the founding father's ever envision a sales tax so high that government would first have to send checks to all households so that poor people could then pay it?
No! And neither did they envision the federal government becoming the all consuming monster that it has become.
What is the history of a federal retail sales tax in the US?
There isn't one but that, by no means, say that we should not create one.
After all is said and done the question that should be considered is not which system is flawless, but which system has the fewest defects, which system will produce the most economic growth?
By recent standards a good year is one in which GDP grows by 2%. That means our standard of living will double every 36 years. Under the FT there is no reason our economy couldn't grow 6%/yr in real terms resulting a doubling of GDP every 12 years.
Real living standards follow GDP, so if the goal is a better life for the most people as opposed to screwing those with the highest incomes, the FT is the way to go.
Will the FairTax make everyone smarter, more attractive and lead to a cure for cancer as well?
We’ve heard about the More Christmas and Free Lunches— what else will the FairTax drop down from heaven?
After all is said and done the question that should be considered is not which system is flawless, but which system has the fewest defects, which system will produce the most economic growth?In trying to have it all to please everyone you people double count as in the payroll tax and price reduction and then claim consumers can curb spending to avoid taxes while at the same time talk about expanding the economy by producing more.
There is no tax on production now. Imposing an exorbitant tax at the other end of production, then encouraging taxpayers/consumers to curb spending to avoid the tax does not inspire more production/growth....You're not going to have it both ways and either one could be devastating.
Why don’t you respond to #15?
Yes, and treaties have pretty much done away with that.
There isn't one but that, by no means, say that we should not create one.
Then issues of constitutionality and historical precedence only concern you when its expedient.
Can there be anything so perfect as the hypothetical?
Absolutely they do! That is in fact why I am so in favor of the FairTax!
Are you aware of what the Constitution said about direct taxes?
Just in case you are not:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3
The founder tried to ensure against the EXACT situation we have now i.e. common citizens having to directly interact with the federal government in order to pay their taxes!
Yes, thus the significance of Rufus King's question.
The founder tried to ensure against the EXACT situation we have now i.e. common citizens having to directly interact with the federal government in order to pay their taxes!
The founding fathers didn't answer King's question (asked at the Constitutional Convention)and left it for the Court to sort it out. Before the century was over the question was addressed.
That is true and the result was that for most of our nation's history, individual taxpayers rarely had any significant contact with Federal tax authorities as most of the Federal government's tax revenues were derived from excise taxes, tariffs, and customs duties.
The 16th amendment and the income tax changed all that.
Sales taxes are excise taxes of the sort used for most of this nations history for the collection of revenue.
Fairly late in the Philadelphia Convention, Rufus King of Massachusetts requested the precise meaning of “direct tax.” Madison recorded that “no one answ[ere]d. From that question, it does not seem fair to deduce that there was no known meaning to the term “direct taxes” or that the term was so devoid of content that many extra or ad hoc exemptions existed. “Direct taxes” functionally meant, “not by requisition” or “internal tax.” The state taxes, which were the apparent models, were all very broad, but they did vary considerably. Even if someone knew enough about the details, it would have been difficult to summarize them all quickly in a sentence or two to respond to the King. The usage of the term “direct tax” was commonly synonymous with “internal tax,” and internal taxes had many guises. “Direct tax” had a model and a meaning to the Founders even if the contents and borders of the term were not sharply fixed.
The 16th amendment and the income tax changed all that.
Sales taxes are excise taxes of the sort used for most of this nations history for the collection of revenue.
No, the 16th amendment did NOT change all that. The 16th amendment was passed as a direct result of the Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., which BTW, upheld income taxes on work as constitutional but found that income from investments was not because it was an extension of property. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. is the exception, effectively overturning a 100 years precedence.
You go on to quote:
The state taxes, which were the apparent models, were all very broad, but they did vary considerably. Even if someone knew enough about the details, it would have been difficult to summarize them all quickly in a sentence or two to respond to the King. The usage of the term “direct tax” was commonly synonymous with “internal tax,” and internal taxes had many guises.
Doesn't that apply to a federal sales tax?
From taxhistory.org:
Reviewing Supreme Court cases from 1796 through 1988 leads to the inevitable conclusion that Pollock represented a sharp change in direction for the Supreme Court. For almost a century the case law had provided that only capitations and land taxes were direct taxes, and that any tax that would create highly unjust results on apportionment was not a direct tax. Pollock was at odds with that doctrine. A later Supreme Court clearly considered Pollock a mistake.
Four prominent jurists, each of whom had been active in the creation or in the adoption of the Constitution, had ruled in Hylton that the carriage tax was not a direct tax. That ruling is irreconcilable with the view expressed in Pollock that a tax on invested capital would be a direct tax. For example, carriages could represent the invested capital of the owner of a carriage-for- hire business. Hylton, the work product of actual Founders, should be seen as the deciding rule on direct taxes.
Perhaps you would like to go back and tell actual founder's that they got it wrong in determining their actual intent.
If you would be so kind as to provide an answer, I would appreciate it.
I don't know. Perhaps you will be kind enough to tell me.
You are simply wrong! ALL that the 16th amendment did - and I quote it here - "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." was remove the the previous requirement that such taxes be apportioned among the several states according to the census! Doing so did, in fact, change the fact that previously individual taxpayers rarely had any significant contact with Federal tax authorities!
Sales taxes on articles of consumption are excises, clearly provided for in the Constitution, and thus not subject to apportionment.
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.