Posted on 05/11/2014 6:09:10 PM PDT by JOHN W K
SEE: Purging Out Pollock: The Constitutionality of Federal Wealth or Sales Tax
By Calvin H. Johnson
I have studied the above cited article and was astounded that one article could have so many misrepresentations and inaccurate conclusions which were apparently concocted in the author’s mind to promote a tax scheme contrary to the true intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution’s original tax plan was agreed to.
Calvin writes:
The apportionment clauses of the Constitution say that federal "direct taxes" must be apportioned among the states according to their population … Apportionment according to population is a hobbling requirement, somewhere between utterly silly and impossible for any tax base that is uneven per capita among the states. Apportionment yields not fair results but perverse results. As a practical matter if apportionment is required, the tax is impossible.
The above comment documents that Calvin is either totally ignorant regarding how a direct tax is to be apportioned, or he is intentionally being dishonest.
As intended by our founding fathers the rule of apportioning a direct tax simply requires an adherence to a simple formula, just as a formula is used to determine each State’s representation in Congress. The two formulas, considering amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows:
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. total pop
States’ pop.
---------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = EACH STATE’S SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. total pop.
The Founders Intentions regarding apportionment as applied to taxation are expressed in several of the state ratification documents, e.g., see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire
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-
For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s share is determined.
Also see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
So, as it turns out, Calvin H. Johnson’s above assertion [an apportioned tax is “silly” and “impossible”] contradicts historical fact.
Calvin goes on to write:
Apportionment is still too silly a rule to enforce. Connecticut has about twice the per capita wealth and consumption of Mississippi.. . . An apportioned federal tax on consumption or wealth would mean that Mississippians would have to pay tax at twice as high tax rates as Connecticut citizens. The results are adverse to reason and policy, but are forced by apportionment by state. Under apportionment Mississippians would need to pay tax at twice the rates because they are relatively poor and have so little tax base over which to apportion their quota. The Founders misunderstood the effect and thought that apportionment would protect the poorer states…”
Once again Calvin displays his ignorance regarding the intentions, wisdom and brilliance of the rule of apportioning direct taxes, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its application. The irrefutable fact is, Congress does have authority to lay a capitation tax which is a direct tax, and is levied directly upon the people by Congress. However, this tax boils down to be an equal per capita tax under the rule of apportionment. If a capitation 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, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of its larger population, it is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend federal revenue, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula which boils down to Representation with a proportional financial obligation!
The wisdom of our founder’s rule of apportionment is, that although a particular state with a large population may have an overwhelming representation in Congress when spending federal revenue, such as California, it would be held in check by the rule of apportionment which commands California pays a larger share of the total tab when voting to spend federal revenue. Apparently, Mr. Calvin embraces that part of our Constitution which commands one man one vote, but rejects the financial obligation which requires one vote, one dollar!
According to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 18 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which was intended to guarantee that representation and taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size whenever Congress decides to lay and collect a general tax among the States.
In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”
And so, before Mr. Calvin H. Johnson attacks the rule of apportioning as being “silly” and “impossible”, let a few more of our Founders speak for themselves and express their intentions:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:
“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 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” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
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, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“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, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41
And so, under our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as it was intended to operate, when imposts, duties, and miscellaneous taxes on consumption are found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenses and Congress enters the States and taxes the people directly, the rule of apportionment is not found to be “silly” or “impossible” but based upon a principle which does not change with the passages of time, the principle being “representation with a proportional financial obligation”!
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.
I wish that Freepers were more cognizant of the taxing clauses in the Constitution. The current taxing scheme (income tax) is without question de facto extra-constituional. Has any of the prohibitive taxing clauses ever been repealed? No direct taxes etc? Of course not. Ignorant people will ALWAYS be slaves.
You, good sir, are from another planet where, reason, decency and common sense prevail. Here people are just interested in getting their hands on other people’s money and politicians are eager to oblige in return for votes and power. Give all my best to the good people on your planet.
The 16th amendment is still acknowledged as functional.
You can try all you want ( as have others) to dance around all of it. Those folks are all in jail and have heavy fines.
Go ahead don’t pay your taxes and tell the IRS how right you are. We will write to you behind bars
21 years ago everyone around me said the same thing. Understand?
And besides, you like everyone else simply refuse to dig, which is required. I’m not saying the 16th doesn’t conform with other aspects of the constitution. Maybe you didn’t notice my “de facto” clue. The income tax is legal, just misnamed. Here we have the classic problem. You pay, therefore you hate on non-taxpayers. I tell the truth, income is corporate profit, and no less a bureaucratic entity than the Supreme Court has declared that to be the case. Everyone I know cheats on their taxes except me... Hate on me if you wish, you cheat too I would wager.
Still not behind bars, still never been arrested, still a freeman. Understand?
Our founders lived under the tyranny of dishonest money and despotic taxation, and they provided specific protections in our Constitution against these tools of oppression which have long been used by dishonest and corrupt governments to enslave and steal the wealth which the people have produced. And yet, which of today’s “leaders” is there to address these issues as our Founders did when framing and ratifying our Constitution?
Tell me, have you ever heard one of our so called “conservative” talk show hosts ever explain how our constitution’s original tax plan was intended to operate, especially as it relates to the rule of apportionment? And when I say “conservative” talk show hosts, that would include include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.. To the best of my knowledge, not one has discussed our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate! But they all will talk about and even promote various tax schemes cooked up by our Washington Establishment which are intentionally designed to keep the iron fist of our federal government around the necks of America’s productive citizens and businesses.
For example, Mark Levin, who is embraced by “conservatives’ promotes a flat income tax with one of his “liberty amendments”. keep in mind a flat tax calculated from incomes, even if “flat”, does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners.
Does a flat tax end our despotic federal government from arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not taxable income? No! Does it end our Washington Establishment’s use of taxation to intentionally seek out America’s productive hard working citizens and transfer the bread they have earned to a dependent voting block who prostitutes their vote for free government cheese? No! How about the devastating and slavish manipulations carried out under this socialist tax calculated from incomes? Does a flat tax end that? No! Or, would a flat tax end taxation being used as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government? Heck No! So why is Mark Levin comfortable with promoting a flat tax calculated from incomes and apparently rejects the wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution’s original tax plan? Is it out of ignorance, or even worse, intentional?
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.
I know. And also I have noticed that EVERY talk show host has his or her “IRS-neutralizing” company advertising. Doesn’t this just keep the IRS palatable? Even make it seem wonderful that you could owe thousands and magically make it all go away? Isn’t that a great scheme?! Good cop, bad cop... IMHO. It stinks.
JWK
If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along withFREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Democracy, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.
Pass the tin foil
Ever heard of Irwin Schiff?
Sure. I’ll play along.. Why? Does it prove something in your mind that I have heard of Irwin Schiff? Does it prove something in your mind that people like you, who know nothing, will convict people who know the truth? But as for Schiff, he was right in his efforts, wrong in his understanding, and he will therefore forever be a person that real tax cheats like you, point to.
There are 300 million tin-foil wearing slaves in the country. You are one. Own it slave.
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
JWK
They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
The irrefutable fact is, Congress does have authority to lay a capitation tax which is a direct tax, and is levied directly upon the people by Congress.
NOWHERE is there Constitutional authority to directly tax the people despite any Amendments that have been added to the document.
The capitation tax is calculated based on the population, but all payments for such a tax to the federal government must STILL pass through the proxies of the People...the States.
The feds calculate it, inform the States of the amount, then it's up to the States to collect it and pass it back up the taxation food chain.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA..... you really ought to go out on the road. Your comedy routine is too funny
How about Warren J. Burdett, Christopher and Pamela Harrison,Scott D. Haynes, Kenneth Heath, Joseph Letscher, David Middleton, Robert L. Mosel,[50] James C. Payne,David G. Pflum, and Steven A. Swan?
You claim Schiff did not understand and yet he made the exact same arguments that Johnson and you have.
You can blather all you want. You can pretend you are oooooohh so special. But I call you out here and now. IF you work for another then your taxes are already withheld regardless of what you want to call them. IF you are completely self sufficient (which I highly doubt since you have a computer and a connection) then you have no income and wouldn’t be taxed on that anyway.
You are playing a game of semantics and trying to put yourself out there as a tax protestor. You are most definitely not.
DOn’t bother to respond. All your responses are of the you are a slave don’t be a hater category.....How very Beyonce of you
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.