At the same time I found out that the flat rate income tax that was overturned was like the one Lincoln used a few decades earlier with no SCOTUS problems. Let me know when you find that link that says those guys make sense and follow the same constitution we do-- you're sure to find that link because you don't make mistakes like I do --at least none to speak of that is.
SCOTUS barring the vat tax,
Since a retail sales tax is not a VAT as it does not tax the purchases of businesses, such would not be applicable in any case, not to mention that taxes on any articles of consumption are indeed taxable as an indirect tax under the Article I Section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution.
the link I'd been using turned to be for the flat tax
Oh the Civil War income tax that was ruled on in Pollock decisions.
You are indeed right that Pollock decided that portions of the Civil War income tax was unconstitutionally applied.
SCOTUS ruled that taxes on the rent from real estate, dividends and interest from financial instruments were actually fruit of property ownership and to be considered an integral part of that property thus taxation of such must be by the rule of apportionment by state population rather than the rule of uniformity which requires the tax to be applied the same regardless of the state in which it is collected.
Taxation of owners on the basis of their ownership of property is considered a direct tax under prior rulings of SCOTUS:
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
in light of Hamilton's characterizations and Congress' historical application of property taxes as direct taxes.
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
- It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. ... Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.
Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference.
The Court in the Pollock ruling found that portion of the income tax to be unconstitutional for not being apportioned by state population under the rule of apportionment, improperly treating such as indirect taxes instead.
The Pollock Ruling lays their rationale and the limits of their rulings very clearly:
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
- "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."
- "If that[rents from land] be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by a r the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress."
- "We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. "
- Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
- Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.
16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.
Let me know when you find that link that says those guys make sense and follow the same constitution we do
Pollock and Hylton serve quite well, seeing as both appear to be remaining true to the powers of Congress as they are expressed in the Constitution.
The prior ruling of Spinger, found the Civil War income tax to be an indirect tax on the basis that it did not tax the whole of a personal estate as would be the situation in a property tax, thus not a direct tax on property.
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax." "The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error." "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." "[W]hen ever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves." "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."
Let me know when you find that link that says those guys make sense and follow the same constitution we do
You might try to read the actual case decisions rather than to read other's mischaracterisations of them for one thing. It is occasionally eye opening.
Does the SCOTUS get it wrong at times, yep I would say so, however any suit in law must come to a conclusion at some point, the Constitution placed a limit on settling cases by making the SCOTUS as that court of last resort. Like it or not, that is what we have. Fortunately, with time even Courts that show a tendency to be in error are ultimately correctable with eventual new blood and retesting of issues in error.
you're sure to find that link because you don't make mistakes like I do --at least none to speak of that is.\
Seeing as I have shown the ability to adjust when my opinions are in error in this thread, over the issue of capital gains as a a component of discretionary income. It is demonstrable that mistakes are made by anyone. That however does not prevent discussion, nor does it indicate that all who are in error at some point, must be always in error in all things.
Sorry, but you appear to be trying to construct a logical fallacy here. I know you can do better than that to get your valid points across. The invalid one, one should be ready to backtrack and reevaluate just where they do stand and need correction.