He spoke extensively on the topic. The current view is that if necessities are not taxed that one does have choice in whether to pay the tax or not. It is this very fact that Hamilton believes makes an excise the best kind of tax. It has a self-limiting feature.
Hopefully, pigdog can link to the federalist papers..???
Yup, that is why I love it.
O'corse we have to wonder where the IRS and all the tax lawyers and the CPSs would work. I say they can guard the borders or take the jobs from the illegal folk.
I really hate that.
IMHO, enacting a 30% tax on virtually everything makes the tax unavoidable taking it out the class of excises.
The definition of the terms "excise" and "duty" of the time of the founders, and is the controlling factor of the consitutional meaning of those terms , is not so limited:
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale
And the pre income tax Supreme court doesn't seem to agree with your restriction either:
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
" It is true that in the income tax cases the theory of certain economists by which direct and indirect taxes are classified with reference to the ability to shift the same was adverted to. But this disputable theory was not the basis of the conclusion of the court. "
"The constitutional meaning of the word direct was the matter decided. Considering that the constitutional rule of apportionment had its origin in the purpose to prevent taxes on persons solely because of their general ownership of property from being levied by any other rule than that of apportionment, two things were decided by the court: First, that no sound distinction existed between a tax levied on a person solely because of his general ownership of real property, and the same tax imposed solely because of his general ownership of personal property. Secondly, that the tax on the income derived from such property, real or personal, was the legal equivalent of a direct tax on the property from which said income was derived, and hence must be apportioned." These conclusions, however, lend no support to the contention that it was decided that duties, imposts and excises which are not the essential equivalent of a tax on property generally, real or personal, solely because of its ownership, must be converted into direct taxes, because it is conceived that it would be demonstrated by a close analysis that they could not be shifted from the person upon whom they first fall. The proposition now relied upon was considered and refuted in Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509 , 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522, where the court said ( p. 515, L. ed. p. 791, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 525):