Thread: FairTax and Trade

Originally Posted by jtdc

And I'll trust Hamilton's logic over yours any day. But what he talked of then doesn't work today.

With regard to taxation, and in particular direct taxation and apportionment, the Founder's principal behind the requirement of apportioning direct taxes is as valid today as when the rule was put into our Constitution ___ it prevents government force being used to impose unequal taxation whenever a direct tax is used. And by tying the rule of apportionment to both direct taxation and representation, a barrier is erected preventing the states from misrepresenting the size of their population in order to enlarge their representation in Congress as explain by Hamilton:

". . . it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their 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."

Today, look at California which has a massive population of illegal entrants which adds to their representation in Congress, and thus its influence when passing big spending socialist bills. Would they be so inclined to carry on this way if they had to pay an apportioned share of the tab whenever Congress spent more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on articles of consumption? I think not.

And that is why socialists hate with a passion the rule of apportionment being applied to direct taxation, but embrace the rule being applied to representation in Congress ___ they hate Representation with a proportional financial obligation, or one man one vote and one vote one dollar. And you seem to be in their camp when it comes to taxation.

JWK

“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____PENDLETON