Herman Cain perpetuates an evil of democracy !

I can’t imagine a true patriot proposing a new tax, a national consumption tax which would tax every necessity of life, in addition to keeping corporate taxes and taxes on the working person’s wage.

I also can’t imagine a true patriot proposing a new general tax among the States [Herman’s national sales tax] to feed the beast in Washington, and ignoring the rule of apportioning that tax among the States as required by our founding fathers clear intentions.

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:

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; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

While the rule of apportioning would still be applied to representation under Herman’s new national sales tax, i.e.,

Herman ignores applying the rule of apportionment to his new tax and in so doing would deny the People of those States who pay the lion’s share under it their representation in Congress proportionately equal to the financial contribution.

Now, let us take a look at the founder’s clear intentions for any general tax laid among the States:

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

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

So, for those who are loyal defenders of our Constitution, shouldn’t Herman Cain be asked the following question during Atlanta’s coming debate, perhaps by Michelle Bachmann?

In the implementation of your 999 plan proposing to tax incomes and tax the wages which working people earn when selling the property each has in their labor, you want an addition tax to feed the beast in Washington, a national sales tax.

Why have you not required your national sales tax to be apportioned among the States, as intended by our founder’s, and was intended to protect our nation from a vicious evil of democracy?”

BTW, as I pointed out elsewhere, the only reason why Herman won Florida’s straw poll is because the 3,500 delegates who voted in Florida’s poll were hand selected by the Republican party county’s executive committee and The Republican Party of Florida i.e., the freaken Establishment! And the Establishment has been trying to get an across the board federal tax on consumption [national sales tax, valued added tax, fairtax, etc.], for years, in addition to keeping existing income taxation, to feed to beast in Washington!

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Gunslinger,

I appreciate you posting your personal opinions and interpretations of an excise tax and I think anyone reading the thread understands your position.

You do not support the founder’s expressed intentions regarding the rule of apportionment as applied to any general tax laid among the states which I have repeatedly documented for you.

You also assert "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.”

But you omitted from you list those occasions during your stated time period 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.

And, aside from the above mentioned omissions you made, you also stated: “The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches.”

But this assertion, that the founders laid a “sales tax”, is nowhere to be found in the Acts of Congress during the year(s) in question, and as I previously noted, is probably something you found on the internet, which has never been substantiated. And it can’t be substantiated because a “sales tax” is not to be found under the ACTS RELATING TO DUTIES ON MERCHANDISE FROM FEB 22 1805 THROUGH MARCH 3RD 1815

So tell us, why did you post an assertion that the founders laid a “sales tax” when no such tax is to be found in the historical record, and laid by our founding fathers? What is you motive for doing this?

JWK

I appreciate you posting your personal opinions and interpretations of an excise tax and I think anyone reading the thread understands your position.

Nice try, but it is not 'personal opinion', it is the ruling of the Supreme Court in Hylton V. United States: "All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes," and binding case law in the United States.

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?" Your silence on this matter is as deafening as it is damning.

But you omitted from you list those occasions during your stated time period when Congress laid a general tax among the states, and did so by the rule of apportionment:

Those weren't 'general taxes', they were direct taxes, which are subject to apportionment. Again, from 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."

The taxes you listed were explicitly declared as either capitations, or property taxes, which are subject to apportionment. A sales tax is an excise tax, and as such not subject to apportionment, but instead uniformity amongst the States in implementation.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Congress can tax consumption without apportionment between the States, and without any of the limitations you have conjured.

I appreciate your continual references to the Hylton Case as a distraction, but keep in mind the Hylton case was not about an across the board tax upon the sale of property which Herman Cain’s proposed tax is.

The Hylton Case decision involved a tax laid upon a particular piece of property, and more to the point, upon a particular use of property considered to be luxury! The tax was laid not upon the property, but rather, it was laid upon the use of a particular piece of property, and the use was considered to be luxury, making the tax indirect. 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.”

There is no contention on this end challenging Congress’ authority to lay and collect taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption, nor is there a dispute that taxes of this kind, as decided in the Hylton Case, are considered to be “indirect” and do not require apportionment. You have manufactured an argument which simply is not there, and then you argue against the argument you have manufactured.

However, taxes laid upon property are considered to be direct taxes and this fact was stated during the House Debates with reference to a tax upon carriages!

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." SEE,House of Representatives, Tuesday, May 6th, 1794,page 644

In any event, the definition of what is and what is not a direct tax can be argued and debated until pigs learn to fly, and in the end the argument cannot be resolved with any certainty. As I previously pointed out to you, the question as to what was meant by “direct taxes” was raised during the framing of our Constitution, and no one answered. But what we do know is the reason for which the founders agreed that “direct taxes” shall be apportioned among the States. And the reason was repeatedly stated by our founders. The rule was adopted to insure that whenever Congress found it necessary to lay any general tax among the States (as opposed to taxes at our water’s edge, or taxes laid upon “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury as with the Act laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons., that the general tax laid among the states would be apportioned to insure the people of those States contributing the lion’s share of the tax would be guaranteed a proportional representation in Congress, equal to their contribution. But don’t take my word for what the founder’s intended and agreed upon with regard to the rule of apportionment.. Let them speak for themselves:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

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 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 a nation‘s population uses their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population:

Herman Cain’s “national sales tax” would deny to the people of those States who pay the lion’s share under it their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution. Why do you support such an absurdity, especially when it has been the bane of countless “democracies” of the past? Do you not think that taxation and representation ought to be adjusted by our Constitution’s fair share formulas, and that representation ought to be tied to an equal financial obligation?

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

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.