The direct tax of 1798 and each state's share
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Judy
The Founders never used this apportionment plan they put in the Constitution, not once,not ever, in the history of the United States,
There you go again. Proving you have not done your homework.
Here is a LINK to the first use of the apportioned tax and the amount to be paid by each state.
It was also used a number of times after 1798.
JWK
The rule of apportionment, our Founders speak
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Judy
Oh absolutely. The apportionment plan in the US Constitution for direct taxes is the feudal lord system from Europe, a totally outrageous and foul concept. Completely hideous, a bold and disgusting defiance against the people of our country and the liberty for which we stand.
Representatives and direct taxes having to both be apportioned is a "feudal lord system from Europe"? What on earth are you talking about?
I think the apportionment requirement for direct taxes, which works out to be one man one vote, and one vote one dollar, which is an equal tax, is a just and thoughtful idea requiring each state, whenever Congress cannot live within the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes on articles of consumption and Creates creates a deficit, each state ought to be responsible in extinguishing that deficit by paying a share of the deficit proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.
And what did our Founders say with regard to the rule of apportionment?
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 being 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
Tell us Judy, why do you have a problem with representation with a proportional financial obligation whenever a direct tax is laid? Why do you have a problem with an equal per capita tax whenever Congress lays a direct tax upon the people? Do you not think taxation and representation ought to be tied by the same standard?
What exactly is your beef, Judy?
JWK
They are not “liberals”. They are part of a Fifth Column movement which has no intention to adhere to our written Constitution and its legislative intent which gives context to its text.