the rule of apportioning direct taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jtdc
Only one? The Constitution is a compromise between several people. And that is what we live by.
Ok. Let a number our our founders explain the validity of the rule of apportionment to you . . . a vital protection to insure equal taxation whenever the federal government taxes the people directly:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“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
JWK
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. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Why socialist hate the rule of apportionment being applied to direct taxation
Quote:
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
Rules for laying a direct tax upon the States
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jtdc
Again, "direct tax" is on the individual. "Apportioned tax" is on the whole state. "Direct Tax" is based on the individual's finances while "apportioned tax" is based solely on the number of people in the state, regardless of their, or the state's economy!
Wrong. When Congress decides to lay a direct tax upon the states as opposed to directly taxing the people, and as intended by our founders, Congress is to calculate each state’s share of a total sum being raised using the rule of apportionment after which each state is notified of is share of the direct tax and a time period in which the tax must be paid, and leaving each state free to raise its share in its own chosen way.
An example showing this legislative intent can be found in several of our Constitution’s ratification documents, such as the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:
Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from …….
For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each state is notified of its share to be paid.
And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
JWK
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.