Calvin H. Johnson’s attack upon the apportionment of direct taxes

5/11/14 | johnwk

[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.

[PapaBear3625]

Part of the check on excessive federal power, was that direct taxes would be apportioned among the states, and that state governments would be responsible for raising the money from among their people and sending the money to the feds (the opposite of the current practice of federal grants going to the states).

Another part of that, was that Senators were appointed by, and answerable to, their state legislatures. They would thus be uninterested in making their states shell out money for programs that would be better carried out at the state or local levels.

[JOHN W K]

I think we actually agree. Our founders intended the states to collect the tax and then transfer it to the federal government.

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.

However, if a state refuses or neglects to pay its share of the tax, then, and only then is the federal government authorized to enter that state and collect the tax.

JWK

A nation of people made dependent upon government for their subsistence, is a nation doomed to being enslaved by the iron fist which feeds them

[HMS Surprise]

Your logic is flawed. People go to jail, therefore they are wrong? So I suppose you support the Federal Reserve too then eh?