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?
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