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.
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:
“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 a nation‘s population uses 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
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
"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