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