Posted on 10/01/2011 3:37:24 PM PDT by JOHN W K
FAIR SHARE OF ANY GENRAL TAX AMONG THE STATES
State`s Pop.
_________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. pop.
FAIR SHARE OF EACH STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.
U.S. pop.
JWK
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
I don’t like government’s willy-nilly interference with private industry at any level not absolutely tied to necessary government concerns. However, I’m willing to bet that if and when any corporate taxes are removed that there will be many more richer/wealthier corp executives than better off buyers and employees.
JWK....I agree. Tariffs duties and customs worked very efficiently to fund our government and keep the economy humming because it incentivized manufacturers to produce product in the USA market and avoid tariffs. It gave us the best of low debt, strong economy, and a tax that was not oppressive to constituents.
In 1913 both the Federal Reserve and Income Tax were created (probably illegally too) with the collusion of the bankers such as Rothschilds and corrupt politicians.
It created incentives where the Fed / central bank profits while the nation is kept perpetually saddled with ever increasing debt.
It is fair to say that the USA began its long economic decline and into fiscal insolvency when certain members of Congress were coerced by the banksters into establishing the Federal Reserve and the income tax. This relationship was a crucial piece of the puzzle that was a root cause of our decline. That corrupt relationship remains to this day to our detriment.
Actually, I am. The rule of apportionment applies to direct taxes. Direct taxes are applied 'directly' to individuals. An exmaple of a direct tax is a capitation, or 'head tax', charged per person. Another example of a direct tax is an income tax. The 16th amendment not only empowered the Congress to collect income tax, it exempted the income tax from apportionment.
A sales tax is an excise tax (it will be applied to a specified set of goods), and apportionment does not apply to indirect taxes like a sales tax.
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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Sales taxes are excise taxes, the congress is free to impose them, but they must be uniform (e.g. they can't apply a 10% rate to Florida and a 5% rate to California) throughout the U.S.
Article I, Section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The proportionality rule applies to direct taxes, not indirect taxes. Income taxes, which are direct taxes, are exempted from apportionment by the text of the 16th amendment.
Your argument collapses because you fail to acknowledge that sales taxes are excise taxes, and thereby not subject to the apportionment clause of Article I, Section 9.
The U.S. Congress first placed a sales tax on whiskey, and George Washington personally faced down the rebellion against it.
It couldn’t be clearer. Cain has thought this through, and it is obvious he understands economics.
“Run, Spot, run,” appears to be gobbledegook to the profoundly ignorant.
Just look at comparative executive pay over the last few decades, good times and bad times.
9-9-9: A Vision for Economic Growth
Herman Cain On His 999 Plan Part One Sept 16th 2011
Herman Cain On His 999 Plan Part Two Sept 16th 2011
Boortz Discusses Herman Cain's 999 and FairTax Support
Simon Conway Interviews Herman Cain Part 1 Sep 28, 2011
Simon Conway Interviews Herman Cain Part 2 Sep 28, 2011
999 Plan - Herman Cain for President
Herman Cain's '999 plan': long overdue tax reform or job killer?
FAIR SHARE OF ANY GENRAL TAX AMONG THE STATES
State`s Pop.
_________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. pop.
FAIR SHARE OF EACH STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.
U.S. pop.
But don’t take my word for what the founders intended. Let them speak for themselves:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
Also see: “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
And, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255
And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil of democracy being corrected by the rule of apportionment, the evil being when 51 percent of the population use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
The bottom line is, our founding fathers intended that if Congress should ever have to enter the states and tax the people directly with a general tax among the States, the rule of apportionment would be observed and guarantee to the people of those States who contributed the lion’s share under the tax an apportioned representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, which corrects evil of democracy.
Why are you so eager to defend representation without proportional oblegation?
BTW, if you can find one instance of a “sales tax”, an across the board tax laid upon the sale of property laid during the time period our Constitution was being framed, please post that information.
JWK
He has explained empowerment zones. You just need to look it up...I knew at one time, but the answer eludes me.
I'm defending the Constitution, which permits the Congress to enact excise taxes without proportionately among the States. Do you contend the Congress does not have this power, in spite of what Article I, Section 8 plainly states
You continue to conflate a sales tax (which is an excise tax) with direct taxes. Capitation refers specifically to a head tax, a tax of a fixed amount per individual. If Congress enacted a 'capitation' they were required to do so equally among the states. They couldn't place a $100/per person tax on Floridians while placing a $1000/per person tax on Californians.
That is the plain meaning of Article I, Section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Sales taxes are excise taxes, not 'direct taxes'. Sales taxes are placed on specific goods, not on individuals. That's the distinction you keep trying to blur with reference to 'general taxes', a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
BTW, if you can find one instance of a “sales tax”, an across the board tax laid upon the sale of property laid during the time period our Constitution was being framed, please post that information.
Nice effort to frame the issue ('if you can find a tax when there were almost no taxes...') while avoiding the reality:
"From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government."
At time the federal government was spending a negligible portion of GDP, they did in fact tax few articles with excise taxes, but it wasn't from a lack of the power to do so. Note that all the above sales taxes were enforced without respect to apportionment of the population or representation.
Neither of us have seen a list of what articles will be affected by Cain's proposed tax. Among the States it is common practice to not collect sales tax on articles like groceries, would that preclude you from referring to them as 'an across the board tax laid upon the sale of property'? Cain has said the federal tax he proposes would not apply to used goods in and effort to reduce it's burden on the poor. Would you still consider it 'an across the board tax laid upon the sale of property'?
LOL good one, JWK
Cain’s 9% is the same regardless of which state you are in. Regardless of the population of any state. You are saying that his 9% plan is evil. No such a thing! And you know it. Evil is a pretty strong word for you to use about Cain.
Unfortunately, Gunslinger does not seem to understand this very point, that Cain’s proposed 9 percent “national sales tax” is to be laid upon the selling price of all newly manufactured goods, including upon the sale of the very necessities of life which working people purchase, and in addition, Cain’s tax is to further reach out and burden working people with an additional 9 percent tax upon their earn wages when selling the property each has in their labor. I wonder how many millions of poor working people, who carry their own weight now, would be forced onto the public dole should Cain’s 999 plan be adopted to feed the beast in Washington.
But getting back to taxes laid upon specifically chosen articles of consumption [referred to as excise taxes when laid internally] and the founding father's understanding of this tax, Federalist No 21 is most instructive and opens a window into our founding father's clear thinking! Hamilton says:
“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised
. 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.”
From the above we learn the excise is to be laid upon "judiciously selected” articles of consumption, which is far different from laying an across the board “national sales tax” [something unknown to our founding fathers] which then becomes an across the board tax upon property.
We also learn from the above that when each article is “judiciously selected” as expressed by Hamilton, the necessities of life may be excluded from taxation and a specific amount of tax may be laid upon other specifically chosen articles which then allows the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected. Tax any article too high and it will reduce its sale, and likewise reduce the flow of revenue into the federal treasury as explained above by Hamilton!
And, the fact is, this was recently shown to be true when an outrageous excise tax of 10 % was placed upon a number of specifically selected articles of consumption under the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
PART III--TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS
SEC. 11221. TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS.
“`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.
`SEC. 4002. BOATS.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.
`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.
`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.
`SEC. 4007. FURS.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any furs a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000
Had the tax only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance or outcry. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded. People refused to purchases articles selected; the affected industries began to feel the consequences and the market place rejection of the tax led to its immediate repeal! see: 1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats
. Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under this idea would of course be determined by the economic climate of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, under this idea Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our free market system.
And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.
Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation, and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse its powers.
If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for personal gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.
Finally, keep in mind that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, then the dreaded apportioned tax among the States is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for their Governor and State Legislature to deal with.
Bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending pinko Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2011 federal deficit? I kinda think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties all over the country and big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible spending, especially $16 cup cakes which happens to be the new fad engaged in by the Washington Establishment!
Sorry for being so long winded, but I thought the subject of taxing consumption is an important issue to discuss.
Regards,
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
What I wrote was “Herman Cain perpetuates an evil of democracy”. And, I explained that in detail. Did you miss what I wrote? I wrote:
The rule of apportioning any general tax among the States was adopted by our founders to cure a vicious evil of democracy. The evil being, when 51 percent of the people in a “democracy” use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. Unfortunately we now have a situation in America under which 45 percent of the nation’s voting population pay no income tax and yet, they were instrumental in putting Obama in the White House!
Our founders saw this very kind of evil [representation in Congress without a proportional financial obligation] and to protect against such evil they adopted the rule of apportionment to be strictly enforced if imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and internal taxes on “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, in which case a general tax was then to be laid among the States but only in compliance with the rule of apportionment which predetermines each State’s share of a total sum being raised, the formula being:
FAIR SHARE OF ANY DIRECT TAX AMONG THE STATES
State`s Pop
. _________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. pop.
-------------
Herman Cain’s proposed 9 percent national sales tax if adopted would deny to the people of those States who pay the lion’s share of his tax their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution. Unlike Obama’s idea of “fair share”, our founders put the fair share formula in our Constitution! And the “fair share” of each state in any general tax laid among the states boils down to an equal per capita tax if the tax is laid directly upon the people!
For example, if the tax were laid today and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress to extinguish an annual defict, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were divided evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California is compensated by the Constitution with a larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula and gives California a greater say in how federal revenue is spent!
Does this not answer one of the reasons why California’s Congressional Delegation is infested with big spending “progressive” pinkos? They get to exercise their enormous voting strength in Congress when spending from the federal treasury. But are no longer compelled, as intended by our founding fathers and the rule of apportionment, to bring home a bill for their State to pay a “fair apportioned share” of the tab when deficits occur. And you can bet your boobee California’s Congressional Delegation will be the first to join hands with Obama’s class warfare game which is designed to do nothing more than divide and confuse the people, and which California’s few Republicans in Congress will be more than happy to join, rather than point to the rule of apportionment which our founders intended to apply across the board without distinctions based upon political party partisanship and would end the class warfare game which our Washington Establishment has learned to play to perfection.
. JWK
Now that is factually incorrect. You omitted those occasions when Congress laid a general tax among the states, and did so by the rule of apportionment:
The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.
The Act of Aug. 2, 1813, c. 37, 3 id. 53. By this act the tax was imposed upon real estate and slaves, according to their respective values in money..
The Act of Jan. 19, 1815, c. 21, id. 164. This act imposed the tax upon the same descriptions of property, and in like manner as the preceding act..
The Act of Feb. 27, 1815, c. 60, id. 216, applied to the District of Columbia the provisions of the Act of Jan. 19, 1815. .
The Act of March 5, 1816, c. 24, id. 255, repealed the two preceding acts, and reenacted their provisions to enforce the collection of the smaller amount of tax thereby prescribed.
. In regard to the taxes you mention, each article was specifically selected and a specific amount of tax was placed upon the taxed article. For example, the tax upon carriages was laid upon carriages for the conveyance of persons! It was laid upon a particular use of the article! As a matter of fact it was specifically directed at the use being “luxury”, and this distinction to tax carriages as an article of luxury is made known, in crystal clear language in the Act laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons.
“Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to charge with a duty, any carriage usually and chiefly employed in husbandry, or for transporting or carrying, goods, wares, merchandise, produce or commodities.”
The fact is, Herman Cain’s “national sales tax” when stripped of its name is a general tax laid among the States on the sale of property!
Finally, it is interesting to note that the Court in the POLLOCK decision even went on to cite the House Debates when the tax on the carriages was created: Mr. Sedgwick said that "a capitation tax, and taxes on land and on property and income generally, were direct charges, as well in the immediate as ultimate sources of contribution. He had considered those, and those only, as direct taxes in their operation and effects. On the other hand, a tax imposed on a specific article of personal property, and particularly if objects of luxury, as in the case under consideration, he had never supposed had been considered a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution."
JWK
Please provide the Act of Congress under which the “sales tax” you mention above is included in the Act. I think you may have got that "sales tax" thing from some unreliable source on the internet. I am familiar which Congress’ early acts to raise a federal revenue and have never come across a “sales tax” being laid. There have been excise taxes and duties laid upon specifically selected articles of consumption by Congress, but never to the best of my knowledge was there ever a “sales tax” laid as a general tax among the states upon the sale of property. Please cite the Act of Congress or give a link to the Act. JWK
Do you understand how direct taxes differ from indirect taxes?
Hylton v. United States upheld the power of Congress to tax consumption:
"All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes. A tax on carriages is of this kind, and of course is not a direct tax. Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income. In many cases of this nature the individual may be said to tax himself. I shall close the discourse with reading a passage or two from Smith's Wealth of Nations.
"The impossibility of taxing people in proportion to their revenue by any capitation seems to have given occasion to the invention of taxes upon consumable commodities; the state, not knowing how to tax directly and proportionally the revenue of its subjects, endeavors to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense, which it is supposed in most cases will be neatly in proportion to their revenue. Their expense is taxed by taxing the consumable commodities upon which it is laid out."
Do you understand that only direct taxes are subject to the apportionment requirements of Article I, Section 9 (and that the 16th amendment precludes income taxes from this measure)?
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company was a case where the Supreme Court ruled taxes on income from interest, dividends and rents must be apportioned. That's why the language of the 16th amendment strikes the apportionment requirement from income taxes.
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
Also see: “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
And, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255
And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil of democracy being corrected by the rule of apportionment:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
And, I previously pointed out that during the convention when our Constitution was being framed, the question was asked what is meant by “direct taxes“, but no one answered! But what was answered repeatedly was the intentions for which the founders agreed direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States, and which I have for the third time posted for you. Your dwelling up a definition of direct taxes is an attempt to avoid the crystal clear intentions for which the rule of apportionment was applied.
In addition, I‘m still waiting for you to provide one instance under which Congress power to lay an Excise tax was used to lay a general tax upon the sale of property.
And, I‘m still waiting for your to substantiate your claim. You wrote: "From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government."
Please provide the Act of Congress under which the “sales tax” you mention above is included in the Act. I think you may have got that "sales tax" thing from some unreliable source on the internet. I am familiar which Congress’ early acts to raise a federal revenue and have never come across a “sales tax” being laid. There have been excise taxes and duties laid upon specifically selected articles of consumption by Congress, but never to the best of my knowledge was there ever a “sales tax” laid as a general tax among the states upon the sale of property. Please cite the Act of Congress or give a link to the Act.
In regard to the Hylton Case, there is no dispute that Congress has power to lay taxes upon judiciously selected articles of consumption. But the power is not one allowing an across the board tax upon the sale of property which is what Herman Cain‘s proposed tax is. The tax in Hylton was laid upon a particular piece of property, and more specifically the use of a particular piece of property considered to be luxury. I also covered this for you in detail, I wrote:
In regard to the taxes you mention, each article was specifically selected and a specific amount of tax was placed upon the taxed article. For example, the tax upon carriages was laid upon carriages for the conveyance of persons! It was laid upon a particular use of the article! As a matter of fact it was specifically directed at the use being “luxury”, and this distinction to tax carriages as an article of luxury is made known, in crystal clear language in the Act laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons.
“Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to charge with a duty, any carriage usually and chiefly employed in husbandry, or for transporting or carrying, goods, wares, merchandise, produce or commodities.”
The fact is, Herman Cain’s “national sales tax” when stripped of its name is a general tax laid among the States on the sale of property!
I appreciate your responses, but you seem to continue to offer opinions which are in conflict which the expressed intentions of our founding fathers. Why are you so eager to ignore the founder’s stated intentions when adhering to the intentions of those who framed and ratified our Constitution is to respect the most fundamental rule of constitutional law?
JWK
Again, the phrase 'general tax' appears nowhere in the Constitution. It is an effort by you to obfuscate the distinction of direct taxes and indirect taxes. You refuse repeatedly to address my simple question, which goes to the heart of the matter, "Do you understand how direct taxes differ from indirect taxes?"
We can't continue this conversation until you understand how direct taxes differ from indirect taxes.
I previously pointed out that during the convention when our Constitution was being framed, the question was asked what is meant by “direct taxes“, but no one answered!
The Supreme Court answered in Hylton V. United States: "I never entertained a doubt that the principal, I will not say, the only, objects that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment were a capitation tax and a tax on land."
If Congress passed a capitation tax, or a property tax, it would have to respect the principal of apportionment so as not to overburden large, but sparsely populated States.
Furthermore, the Court also defined indirect taxes, "All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes."
Cain proposes a tax on consumption, and the Congress is empowered to enact one, as recognized by the Courts. Show me the Supreme Court decision that refutes this, and you'll have an argument. Trying to conflate the subject of direct and indirect tax with the language "general tax", which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, does not constitute a refutation.
In regard to the Hylton Case, there is no dispute that Congress has power to lay taxes upon judiciously selected articles of consumption. But the power is not one allowing an across the board tax upon the sale of property which is what Herman Cain‘s proposed tax is.
Hylton recognizes the power of Congress to lay taxes on consumption, and presupposes no limit as you assert. In fact, quite the opposite:
"The Congress possess the power of taxing all taxable objects, without limitation, with the particular exception of a duty on exports.
There are two restrictions only on the exercise of this authority:
1. All direct taxes must be apportioned.
2. All duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform."
An excise or excise tax (sometimes called a duty of excise special tax) is commonly understood to refer to an inland tax on the sale, or production for sale, of specific goods; or, more narrowly, as a tax on a good produced for sale, or sold, within a country or licenses for specific activities. Excises are distinguished from customs duties, which are taxes on importation. Excises are inland taxes, whereas customs duties are border taxes.
Any more questions on how or why Herman Cain's proposed uniform excise tax is Constitutional?
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.