Posted on 10/15/2006 2:27:58 PM PDT by JOHN W K
A CHALLENGE TO H.R. 25 [alleged fair tax] SUPPORTERS
What part of our federal Constitution grants power to Congress to lay and collect a “sales tax”? I have been told by some proponents of H.R. 25 to read Article 1, Section 8, but, I do not see “sales tax” in the list of specific taxing powers granted in that part of the Constitution. I guess it’s safe to assume at this point in time the promoters of H.R.25 were pretending that a power was granted to Congress to lay and collect a “sales tax”.
In addition, those who promote H.R. 25 offer nothing as to whether or not H.R. 25 would be considered a direct tax as our founding fathers understood the meaning of the term during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, and thus requiring apportionment. Truth is, supporters of H.R. 25 have neglected to state why the tax described in H.R. 25, a tax unquestionably designed as the primary method by which the states would be called upon to fill the national treasury, is in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
There is no contention that the tax described in H.R. 25 is not imposed upon any particularly selected article of consumption as the excise tax was historically used by the founders with reference to taxing consumption. Instead, H.R. 25 proposes to tax a specifically defined class of financial transactions within each of the various states, and do so as the primary method to fill the national treasury, and, would allow the iron fist of the federal government to enter the states and lay its hand upon the sale of private property, real and personal, within each of the various states. Question is, did the founding fathers contemplate and intend to delegate this type of taxing power to the new government they were creating, and if so, did they also intend certain restrictions to apply and a specific rule to be followed when and if the tax was laid? The answer to both these questions is a resounding YES!
Chief Justice Fuller summarizes the founder’s clear intentions in the following manner: in POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
"The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.
Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language."
A review of historical documents giving birth to our Constitution reveals our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge. But if the need should arise and Congress found it necessary to call upon the states to fill the national treasury in a general tax, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation via a wealth based tax upon assessed land value within each of the states, a new rule would apply! The new rule agreed upon by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury commanded apportionment of the tax in such a manner that those states paying the lions share of the federal tax burden would be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress equal to their contribution, to be exercised when Congress Assembled determine how their money was to be spent.
Under the Articles of Confederation no such rule existed, but during the framing of our existing Constitution the method by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury was a bone of contention and the final compromise reached was “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” , the indisputable intention being an agreement as to how the states may be called upon to fill the national treasury in a general tax, a primary tax, laid by Congress. The new rule, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress
population of U.S.
Those who support H.R. 25 seem to love enforcing the rule of apportionment to gain their representation in Congress and exercise their vote when deciding how to spend federal revenue taken from the states. But when it comes time to paying the tab, those who support H.R. 25 want to subjugate our Constitution’s fair share formula by which the states are to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury, which is also part of the rule of apportionment which gave them their vote in Congress Assembled.
Instead of calculating a tax from “income” . . . without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration", the architects of H.R. 25 are attempting to extend Congress’ iron fist beyond ‘income” and reach property, real and personal, with a new federal tax calculated from its value, and, do so “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration“, even though such a tax [a tax calculated from the value of property] has been struck down by the SCOTUS as being a direct tax and requiring apportionment if laid among the states.
H.R. 25 would subtly defeat this protection and undermine federalism along with state’s rights in that the states contributing the largest share of the tax burden would not receive their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote equal to their contribution when it is determined how their money is spent which was taken from them in a primary tax calculated from a measure of their state’s economic enterprise and success.
H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment!
HERE IS A LIST which includes Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury.
Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution bringing us back to our Constitution's original tax plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
John William Kurowski, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]
We are not just talking about a “consumption tax”, we are talking about a specific tax called by its architects a “consumption tax’ and one intentionally designed to be the primary tax by which the federal treasury is to be filled by the people of the various states. We are not talking about an excise tax on gasoline, or an excise tax on liquor or cigarettes, or an excise tax as the founding fathers understood the excise tax and employed it. We are talking about a new creation, an across the board tax calculated from the value of property, real and personal, within each of the various states, and is intended to be the primary tax which fills the national treasury___ a kind of tax not to be found in America’s entire history. You may call the tax an excise and indirect tax if you choose to, but the SCOTUS has already told you, and in crystal clear language:
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. See: POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (April 8, 1895 )
The SCOTUS also informed you:, again in crystal clear language
It is said that a tax on the whole income of property is not a direct tax in the meaning of the constitution, but a duty, and, as a duty, leviable without apportionment, whether direct or indirect. We do not think so. Direct taxation was not restricted in one breath, and the restriction blown to the winds in another.
We do know taxes calculated from the value of land , which included the value of “buildings and improvements thereon”, have always been considered to be a direct tax by our founding fathers., and, the tax described in H.R. 25 proposes to calculate a tax from the value of new homes built on private property and thus, by the historical definition of a direct tax, requires the tax to be apportioned.
H.R. 25 is an attempt to blow to the wind the restriction requiring taxes calculated from the value of property, real and personal, to be apportioned! And, H.R. 25 attempts to blow to the wind the protection of apportionment by pompously calling the tax an excise, and going on from there to claim it is therefore leviable without regard to the rule of apportionment.
When studying the debates which gave birth to our Constitution and studying other historical documentation, it is inconceivable to imagine our founding fathers would not have considered the tax described in H.R. 25 as anything but a direct tax. An excellent source with carefully documented references to direct taxation is contained in the two POLLOCK DECISIONS:
POLLOCK V. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429; (1895)
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
But aside from the mountain of evidence establishing the tax described in H.R. 25 is unquestionably a direct tax and requiring apportionment, another argument is made against H.R. 25 which the promoters of H.R. 25 have refused to address, perhaps because its weight is so overwhelming no intelligent rebuttal can be formulated.
The argument is made that the tax described in H.R. 25 is a proposal to replace the nation’s existing primary method by which the people of the various states fill the national treasury. The existing tax among the states to fill the national treasury was intended to be removed from the rule of apportionment by the adoption of the 16th Amendment. But the Amendment was limited to “income”, and not made applicable to a tax calculated from real and personal property, which H.R. 25 proposes to extend Congress‘ reach to.
During the convention of 1787 the manner in which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury in a primary tax became a bone of contention because of the varying and differences in wealth between the several states. The states with more wealth wanted protection from being burdened with a higher contribution then those states having less wealth. These debates are documented in THIS POST
The agreement reached by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury commanded apportionment of the tax in such a manner that those states paying the lions share of the federal tax burden would be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress equal to their contribution, and to be exercised when Congress Assembled determine how their money was to be spent.
The rule by which the states agreed to fill the national treasury in a primary and general tax, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress
population of U.S.
H.R. 25 would subtly defeat this protection and undermine federalism along with state’s rights in that the states contributing the largest share of the federal tax burden in the nation’s primary tax, would not receive their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote equal to their contribution when it is determined how their money is spent.
H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment!
HERE IS A LIST which includes Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury.
Interested in real tax reform? Here is real tax reform, bringing us back to our Constitution’s original tax plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
JWK
Fair Tax cultists like to pretend that general sales taxes, which did NOT exist until the 20th century, are the same as the excise taxes permitted by the Founding Fathers.
But the "Fair Tax" could be used to create one, taxing property owners on the imputed rental value of their homes.
That is very true.
H.R. 25 proposes to lay and collect a tax which is intended to reach into the pockets of the people in each state without reference to a specific article, without reference to a specific event other than the sale of their property, without reference to a specific activity other than the sale of their property, without reference to a specific privilege which Congress has power to grant, without reference to a specific occupation, event or enterprise over which Congress has regulatory power or authority to issue license under, and then, your beloved tax calculates the amount of tax to be paid from the market value of property, real and personal which is sold, and does so by adding a 23 percent tax to such property. But you say it is not a tax upon property and therefore not direct.
You keep on forgetting what the SCOTUS has told you: If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. See: POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (April 8, 1895 )
You have wined and dined our eyes several times with the Hylton Case, but you fail to acknowledge what the framers of the tax involved in that case though of a tax upon carriages, and was noted by the SCOTUS in the POLLOCK decision:
“In the debates [***248] in the House of Representatives preceding the passage of the act of Congress to lay "duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons," approved June 5, 1794, (1 Stat. 373, c. 45,) 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."
So, not only is the tax in Hylton imposed upon a specific article, but a specific use of the article, and moreover, the article taxed [carriages used for conveyance of persons] by the language of the legislation are intentionally segregated from other carriages “…usually and chiefly employed in husbandry, or for transporting or carrying, goods, wares, merchandise, produce or commodities.” putting the taxed carriages into a class of luxury which was the real object of taxation!
See: 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.
Your socialist friendly, big government friendly proposed tax is a tax not known within the four corners of our Constitution and is being proposed as the primary means to fill the national treasury. In addition, the tax described in H.R. 25 determines each state’s share of the federal tax burden upon the economic enterprise carried on within each state's borders, and ignores the rule of apportionment which was intentionally agreed upon to resolved the differences in wealth between the states when a tax was laid among the states to fill the national treasury.
I sweet and simple language, H.R.25 proposes to subjugate the agree upon rule by which the various states agreed to contribute in a primary tax among the states to fill the national treasury:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
H.R. 25 would subtly defeat this protection and undermine federalism along with state’s rights in that the states contributing the largest share of the federal tax burden in a primary tax among the states, would not receive their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote equal to their contribution when it is determined how their money is spent.
H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment!
HERE IS A LIST which includes Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury.
Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution bringing us back to our Constitution's original tax plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
JWK
All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes. I will await your response to Justice Patterson in Hylton, as upheld in Pollock.
Hylton, as upheld in Pollock? Apparently you have not read Pollock, and if you have, it becomes apparent you have a reading comprehension problem!
You may repeat “All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes” as many times as you wish, but those words do not make a tax which is essentially direct indirect simply because one says the tax is on “consumption“, or a tax is on “expenses“. Saying a tax is one thing when it is another does not make it so!
But in the case of Hylton, as emphasized in Pollock which you point to, the tax was upheld not as a tax on “consumption“, not as a tax on “expenses” which you proffer, it was upheld as a tax on a particular “use” of personal property!
Of course you knew all this because I carefully provided an abundance of documentation in post # 66 concerning the tax on carriages. In addition to the documentation I provided, here are the words of the Court in POLLOCK which you point to:
From the foregoing it is apparent: 1. That the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the Constitution and those who adopted it. 2. That under the state systems of taxation all taxes on [*574] real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes. 3. That the rules of apportionment and of uniformity were adopted in view of that distinction and those systems. 4. That whether the tax on carriages was direct [**687] or indirect was disputed, but the tax was sustained as a tax on the use and an excise.
Did you see that StJacques? “…but the tax was sustained as a tax on the use and an excise.
Taxing a particular piece of private property on a particular use of that private property was found to make the tax a legitimate tax on consumption
H.R. 25 proposes to lay and collect a tax which is intended to reach into the pockets of the people in each state without reference to a particular article or use of a particular article. Your beloved tax proposes to lay and collect a tax without reference to a specific piece of property or event, but rather, it is on the sale of private property. Your tax is without reference to a specific activity other than the sale of private property without identifying the particular article taxed; without reference to a specific privilege which Congress has power to grant; without reference to a specific occupation, event or enterprise over which Congress has regulatory power or authority to issue license under; and then, your beloved tax proposes to calculate the amount of tax to be paid from the market value of property, real and personal, which is sold, and does so by adding a 23 percent tax to all such property. But you say it is not a tax upon property and therefore not direct. To bad for you pal because the SCOTUS in POLLOCK, which you have pointed to and you should read, has told you you are flat wrong.
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.
The decrees hereinbefore entered in this court will be vacated. The decrees below will be reversed, and the cases remanded, with instructions to grant the relief prayed
But aside from your silly notions and creative language concerning whether or not H.R. 25 is direct or not, there is another argument which makes the discussion of direct taxation or indirect taxation irrelevant with regard to H.R. 25!
Abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed upon is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law to be followed!
Those intentions and beliefs can be documented using a variety of historical documents, such as the Federalist and Anti Federalists papers, Madison’s, Yates, Hamilton’s etc., Notes on the Convention, and of course, Elliots Debates which records some of the debates which took place in the state legislatures during the ratification process of the Constitution.
A review of historical documents giving birth to our Constitution reveals our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge. But if the need should arise and Congress found it necessary to call upon the states directly to fill the national treasury in a general tax, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation via a wealth based tax within each of the states, a new rule would apply for a wealth based tax! The new rule agreed upon by which the states could be directly called upon to fill the national treasury in a primary tax commands apportionment of the tax in such a manner that those states paying the lions share of the federal tax burden are to be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress equal to their contribution___ a proportionate vote to be exercised when Congress Assembled determines how their money is spent.
Of course, we all know that socialists and the friends of big government do not like this rule; we all know socialist and the friends of big government just love the one man one vote idea when it comes to spending money from the federal treasury, but when it comes to filling that treasury by the rule of one vote on dollar, socialists and the friends of big government run and hide and make things up about our Constitution in an attempt to subjugate the rule of representation with proportional financial obligation.
Be that as it may, the documentation of the agreed upon rule intentionally designed for protection in a wealth based tax is irrefutable and I provided that documentation in in POST #47
Under the Articles of Confederation no such rule existed for its wealth based tax, but during the framing of our existing Constitution the method by which the states could be called upon in a primary tax to fill the national treasury, especially if it was a tax based upon wealth, was a bone of contention and the final compromise reached was “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” , the indisputable intention being was an agreement as to how the states may be directly called upon to fill the national treasury in a general tax, a primary tax based upon wealth laid by Congress. The new rule, intentionally to apply to a wealth based tax, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress
population of U.S.
Instead of calculating a tax from “income” . . . without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration", the architects of H.R. 25 are attempting to extend Congress’ iron fist beyond ‘income” and reach property, real and personal, with a new federal tax calculated from its market value, and, do so “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration“, even though such a tax [a tax calculated from the value of property] has been struck down by the SCOTUS as being a direct tax and requiring apportionment if laid among the states, as our founding fathers intended.
H.R. 25 would subtly defeat this protection and undermine federalism along with state’s rights in that the states contributing the largest share of the tax burden would not receive their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote equal to their contribution when it is determined how their money is spent which was taken from them in a primary and wealth based tax.
H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment!
If you want you tax to fly, then work to have the following amendment added to our Constitution:
Congress shall have power to lay and collect a national sales tax on new goods and services sold, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Without these words being added to our Constitution, H.R. 25, if enforced, would be a blatant subjugation of the rule of apportionment .
HERE IS A LIST which includes the names of Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury.
Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution bringing us back to our Constitution's original tax plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
Regards,
JWK
ACRS
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Hopefully there is no such decision because a tax upon “consumption” as the term is commonly understood and practiced today is in the class of indirect taxes. But keep in mind we are not talking about the usage of words as they are understood today. We are talking about the meaning of an excise tax as the founding fathers understood an excise tax and employed it.
But just because you claim H.R. 25 is a “consumption” tax, does not mean it falls within the definition of a “consumption” tax as our Founding Fathers understood the term. Truth is, their understanding of taxes on consumption required a “judicious selection” of article proper for such impositions.
For example, this is pointed out by Hamilton in : No. 21 of the Federalist:
There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
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. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
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[as H.R. 25 taxes buildings] , may admit of a rule of apportionment
In any event, I correctly pointed out to you, the tax described in H.R. 25 does not fall within the historical meaning of an excise tax as our founding fathers understood the term and practiced it. In the case of Hylton, as emphasized in Pollock which you point to, the tax was upheld not as a tax on “consumption“, not as a tax on “expenses” which you proffer, it was upheld as a tax on a particular “use” of personal property! But you know this because I provided you with an mountain of evidence concerning Hylton in POST 66
Taxing a particular piece of private property on a particular use of that property was found to make the tax a legitimate excise tax, as our founding fathers understood the term and practiced it. But H.R. 25 proposes to lay and collect a tax which is intended to reach into the pockets of the people in each state without reference to a particular article or use of a particular article. Your beloved tax proposes to lay and collect a tax without reference to a specific piece of property or event, but rather, it is on the sale of private property. Your tax is without reference to a specific activity other than the sale of private property without identifying the particular article taxed; without reference to a specific privilege which Congress has power to grant; without reference to a specific occupation, event or enterprise over which Congress has regulatory power or authority to issue license under. Your beloved tax does not meet the characteristics which identify an excise tax as our founding fathers understood the term and practiced it.
Your beloved tax proposes to calculate the amount of tax to be paid from the market value of property, real and personal, which is sold, and does so by adding a 23 percent tax to all such property.
So, now it is your turn to produce a federal excise tax laid and collected by our founding fathers that resembles the broad and sweeping kind of tax described in H.R. 25, a tax which even reaches the sale of buildings and improvements on private property!
Having said that, I noticed you have completely avoided the important part of my previous post in which stated :
But aside from your silly notions and creative language concerning whether or not H.R. 25 is direct or not, there is another argument which makes the discussion of direct taxation or indirect taxation irrelevant with regard to H.R. 25!
Am I to correctly assume you are incapable of formulating an intelligent rebuttal to what follows after the above words IN POST 66?
JWK
You are one funny dude!
BTW, does H.R. 25 propose to tax the sale of new buildings and improvements on private property?
Ranting? Ranting in post POST #66? Indeed! The ranting you refer to is documented historical facts, the same as given by the SCOTUS in the POLLOCK CASE.
In post 66 I referenced POST #47 and in post 47 there are various quotes from Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787 which documents the legislative intent for which the rule of apportionment was adopted and which the SCOTUS used in the POLLOCK CASE to establish the intention for which the rule of apportionment was adopted. The intentions as explained by the SCOTUS are the same as I have told you. In summary, I have told you the intention is as follows:
A review of historical documents giving birth to our Constitution reveals our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge. But if the need should arise and Congress found it necessary to call upon the states directly to fill the national treasury in a general tax, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation via a wealth based tax within each of the states, a new rule would apply for a wealth based tax! The new rule agreed upon by which the states could be directly called upon to fill the national treasury in a primary tax commands apportionment of the tax in such a manner that those states paying the lions share of the federal tax burden are to be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress equal to their contribution___ a proportionate vote to be exercised when Congress Assembled determines how their money is spent.
But don’t believe me, go to post POST #47 and read the debates during the framing of our Constitution and it becomes crystal clear that a compromise was reached so that the states having superior wealth, if called upon to fill the national treasury in a primary tax among the states, especially if the tax was a wealth based tax such as that which reaches real and personal property [as H.R. 25 does] a rule of apportionment would be applied so that those states paying the lion’s share of the federal tax burden would be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress Assembled, proportionately equal to their contribution___ a vote to be used when Congress determines how their money is spent.
H.R. 25 is an attempt to do indirectly that which the Founding Fathers intended to protect against___ it seeks to remove the intended protection from those states having superior wealth and deny to them a proportional vote in Congress equal to the financial contribution in a federal tax.
But the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to carry out the intentions and beliefs of those who framed and ratified the Constitution. And the clear intention of the founders, as documented in Madison’s Notes and documented in the POLLOCK decision, was to provide a rule intended to create some protection to those states having superior wealth if and when Congress found it necessary to call upon the states directly to fill the national treasury in a primary tax, especially if that tax was a wealth based tax such as H.R. 25 is.
The protection created was that those states carrying the major portion of a federal tax burden in a primary tax among the states, would likewise exercise a proportional vote in Congress equal to their financial contribution! H.R. 25 seeks to subjugate this important and intentional compromise agreed to during the framing and ratification of our Constitution.
I suggest you study up on the most fundamental rule of constitutional law.
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers“
"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .
JWK
My 2 cents...
From the way I read HR 25, the answer would be "yes" since the tax would have to be paid on the sale of these new items. This would amount to a first-ever federal sales tax on your home and what goes into it.
Here's my laundry list of HR 25 complaints...
The way I see it is that the government has never had an incentive to make anything "simpler" or "more fair". However, they always have an incentive to screw people out of more money. The products of this are HR 25 and SB 25.
Outland,
I see you have identified some of the same problems I have also identified concerning H.R. 25 but don’t often focus on because of the big picture. H.R. 25 is an attempt to do exactly what socialists accomplish with the 16th Amendment___ gain access to wealth within each of the several states and tax it without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Of course, those who have studied the debates during which time our Constitution was created know there was a big debate concerning how the states could be called upon directly to fill the national treasury. Delegates from states having more wealth were concerned about being forced into carrying the federal burden under a wealth based tax which was practiced under the Articles of Confederation. Fortunately, a compromise was reached, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which is today stupidly referred to as “making blacks 3/5th of a human”, but was simply to provide some protection to states having superior wealth. The protection was that if the states were called upon directly to fill the national treasury, and particularly in a wealth based tax such as direct taxation, those states carrying the lion’s share of such a tax would be compensated by a vote in Congress Assembled proportionately equal to their financial contribution___ a vote to be exercised in determining how their money would be spent by Congress!
The compromise reached is as follows:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress
population of U.S.
Socialists are great at spending money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury, they run and hide from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula which gives them their one man one vote.
[NOTE: direct taxation was considered by the founding fathers as a tax intentionally designed to reach wealth such a taxes on land including improvements on land; an across the board tax on accumulated personal property; and of course, taxes on “income” were also considered to be a direct form of taxation. On the other hand imposts and duties were taxes affecting imports, and, excise taxes were levied on a specific subject matter e.g., an excise may have been laid on a privilege created by a government or upon a government regulated enterprise over which the particular government which taxed had legislative authority and jurisdiction over. Such taxes were usually carried out via the issuance of a specific license or fee. Generally, this type of excise was/is driven by public policy set by the taxing government.
Excise taxes were also laid upon specific callings, occupations and events such as the government allowing the passing of money from the dead to the living, [inheritances]. In addition, excise taxes were also laid upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, such as sin taxes [taxes on spirits] and also upon specifically chosen articles of luxury as was done in the case of carriages and was challenged in the Hylton Case which is discussed at great length in the POLLOCK CASE:
“From the foregoing it is apparent: 1. That the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the Constitution and those who adopted it. 2. That under the state systems of taxation all taxes on [*574] real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes. 3. That the rules of apportionment and of uniformity were adopted in view of that distinction and those systems. 4. That whether the tax on carriages was direct [**687] or indirect was disputed, but the tax was sustained as a tax on the use and an excise.”
The Court in POLLOCK even went on to site the House Debates when the tax on the carriages was created
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."
Finally, the tax on carriages was specifically directed at “luxury”, 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.”]
In any event, you are 100 percent correct about the 16th Amendment!
“SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
(f) FINDINGS RELATING TO REPEAL OF PRESENT FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM-
Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed_____”. Just like we are told by Congress 1000 times a year the budget should be balanced
H.R. 25 is really about tightening the iron fist of the federal government’s taxing powers, extending it to reach property, real and personal, while keeping alive Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes on incomes. Of course, Congress will patiently wait for the right “emergency” to arise to start income taxation up again and lay a small tax on the “income” of those evil corporations earning “outrageous windfall profits” to help to pay for the “emergency“, and then from there, America will experience the same history as took place after the 16th Amendment was adopted which was said to be adopted to get to the profits of those evil corporations, but was to gain a totalitarian control over the American People and their productivity, which H.R. 25 is intended to enhance!
The only "tax reform" we need is:The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money, and thereby get the scum and socialists off our backs!
The above would bring us back to our Constitution's original tax plan
Regards,
JWK
Seems the supporters of H.R. 25 are unable to defend their socialist friendly proposal against the wisdom of our Founder’s original tax plan.
The only tax reform we need is to have the following words added to our Constitution:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
Here is an HONEST COMPARISON between H.R. 25 and our Constitution's original tax plan.
Regards,
JWK
| Tax Plan Alternative | Votes | Percentage |
| Current System | 1 | 1.85% |
| Forbes Flat Tax | 15 | 27.78% |
| H.R. 25 FairTax | 19 | 35.19% |
| Constitution's Original Tax Plan | 16 | 29.63% |
| Some Other Plan | 3 | 5.56% |
I have read HR 25. I have a PDF copy of it's last iteration.
Hmmm, do ou have a link to your PDF copy on the web? I have only found summaries in PDFs on the web.
As far as the actual text of the bill, and all its prior introductions, those are readily found on Thomas (the Congressional website) in HTML form.
I haven't run across any PDF copies of the actual bill on the web myself, so I'm kinda curious about what you found and where.
It would be good to do a comparison see any differences from the original bills submitted to Congress, if any, and assure that PDF copy actually is what it purports to be.
The current introduction for the 109th Congress can be accessed here =>> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.25:
Here are links to all the prior introductions, from which it is readily noticed there are very few changes indeed, and none of substance:
[108th] Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)[H.R.25]
[107th] Fair Tax Act of 2001 (Introduced in House)[H.R.2525]
[106th] Fair Tax Act of 2001 (Introduced in House)[H.R.2525]
[105th] Fair Tax Act of 2001 (Introduced in House)[H.R.2525]
Section 102, (b) refers the collection of Social Security taxes to "section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401)" which effectively states that those funds are to be deducted in the usual way.
Took a look in 42 USC 401 [here]
It is just the Social Security Act section for appropriating revenues taken from the general fund to be paid in the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds out of general revenues.
The current annual appropriations for Social Security are on the basis of the revenues paid into the general fund fromcurrent IRC payroll and self-employment tax statutes.
"The amounts appropriated by clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and the amounts appropriated by clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of this section shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, such amounts to be determined on the basis of estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury of the taxes, specified in clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection, paid to or deposited into the Treasury;"
However, the current payroll tax laws paying into the general fund are repealed by HR25 section 101 & 102 with the (24 USC 401) annual appropriations from general revenues superceded by an allocation from retail sales tax revenues directly to Trust Funds under HR25 sections 904.
With the repeal of the self-employment and payroll tax laws under HR25 no further revenues are placed in the general fund from those sources, and the approprations in regards the repealed taxing statutes becomes moot. There is no basis on which to appropriate funds for Social Security from the repealed sections of the IRC.
From what I find, the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund and the disability insurance trust fund (SS/Medicare trust funds) revenues are held separate from the general revenue fund under HR25, not mixing SS/Medicare funds with general revenues as is done to day.
There certainly isn't any requirement for withholding from wages under the retail sales tax of HR25. There is no payroll or employment tax to be withheld as those tax statutes are repealed by HR25, with funding of Social Security taken out of the national sales tax revenues directly passed to the appropriate Trust Funds referred to in 42 U.S.C. 401.
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.