SEE: Purging Out Pollock: The Constitutionality of Federal Wealth or Sales Tax by Calvin H. Johnson
I have studied the above cited article and was astounded that one article could have so many misrepresentations and inaccurate conclusions which were apparently concocted in the authors mind to promote a tax scheme contrary to the true intentions and beliefs under which our Constitutions original tax plan was agreed to.
Calvin writes:
The apportionment clauses of the Constitution say that federal "direct taxes" must be apportioned among the states according to their population Apportionment according to population is a hobbling requirement, somewhere between utterly silly and impossible for any tax base that is uneven per capita among the states. Apportionment yields not fair results but perverse results. As a practical matter if apportionment is required, the tax is impossible.
The above comment documents that Calvin is either totally ignorant regarding how a direct tax is to be apportioned, or he is intentionally being dishonest.
As intended by our founding fathers the rule of apportioning a direct tax simply requires an adherence to a simple formula, just as a formula is used to determine each States representation in Congress. The two formulas, considering amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows:
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. total pop
States pop.
---------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = EACH STATES SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. total pop.
The Founders Intentions regarding apportionment as applied to taxation are expressed in several of the state ratification documents, e.g., see: 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 the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-
For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each States share is determined.
Also 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.
So, as it turns out, Calvin H. Johnsons above assertion [an apportioned tax is silly and impossible] contradicts historical fact.
Calvin goes on to write:
Apportionment is still too silly a rule to enforce. Connecticut has about twice the per capita wealth and consumption of Mississippi.. . . An apportioned federal tax on consumption or wealth would mean that Mississippians would have to pay tax at twice as high tax rates as Connecticut citizens. The results are adverse to reason and policy, but are forced by apportionment by state. Under apportionment Mississippians would need to pay tax at twice the rates because they are relatively poor and have so little tax base over which to apportion their quota. The Founders misunderstood the effect and thought that apportionment would protect the poorer states
Once again Calvin displays his ignorance regarding the intentions, wisdom and brilliance of the rule of apportioning direct taxes, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its application. The irrefutable fact is, Congress does have authority to lay a capitation tax which is a direct tax, and is levied directly upon the people by Congress. However, this tax boils down to be an equal per capita tax under the rule of apportionment. If a capitation tax were laid today and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although Californias total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of its larger population, it is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend federal revenue, which is also part of our Constitutions fair share formula which boils down to Representation with a proportional financial obligation!
The wisdom of our founders rule of apportionment is, that although a particular state with a large population may have an overwhelming representation in Congress when spending federal revenue, such as California, it would be held in check by the rule of apportionment which commands California pays a larger share of the total tab when voting to spend federal revenue. Apparently, Mr. Calvin embraces that part of our Constitution which commands one man one vote, but rejects the financial obligation which requires one vote, one dollar!
According to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 18 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which was intended to guarantee that representation and taxation is to be apportioned by each States population size whenever Congress decides to lay and collect a general tax among the States.
In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitutions rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes will have a very salutary effect. Madison observes in this paper . . . Were the various States 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.
And so, before Mr. Calvin H. Johnson attacks the rule of apportioning direct taxes as being silly and impossible, perhaps he ought to at least review the documented intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.
Under our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as it was intended to operate, when imposts, duties, and miscellaneous taxes on consumption are found insufficient to meet Congress expenses and Congress enters the States and taxes the people directly, the rule of apportionment is not found to be silly or impossible but based upon a principle which does not change with the passages of time, the principle being representation with a proportional financial obligation, an idea which socialists and progressives fear and hate with a passion!
JWK
Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nations population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nations hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States?
I have studied the above cited article and was astounded that one article could have so many misrepresentations and inaccurate conclusions which were apparently concocted in the authors mind to promote a tax scheme contrary to the true intentions and beliefs under which our Constitutions original tax plan was agreed to.
Calvin writes:
The apportionment clauses of the Constitution say that federal "direct taxes" must be apportioned among the states according to their population Apportionment according to population is a hobbling requirement, somewhere between utterly silly and impossible for any tax base that is uneven per capita among the states. Apportionment yields not fair results but perverse results. As a practical matter if apportionment is required, the tax is impossible.
The above comment documents that Calvin is either totally ignorant regarding how a direct tax is to be apportioned, or he is intentionally being dishonest.
As intended by our founding fathers the rule of apportioning a direct tax simply requires an adherence to a simple formula, just as a formula is used to determine each States representation in Congress. The two formulas, considering amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows:
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. total pop
States pop.
---------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = EACH STATES SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. total pop.
The Founders Intentions regarding apportionment as applied to taxation are expressed in several of the state ratification documents, e.g., see: 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 the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-
For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each States share is determined.
Also 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.
So, as it turns out, Calvin H. Johnsons above assertion [an apportioned tax is silly and impossible] contradicts historical fact.
Calvin goes on to write:
Apportionment is still too silly a rule to enforce. Connecticut has about twice the per capita wealth and consumption of Mississippi.. . . An apportioned federal tax on consumption or wealth would mean that Mississippians would have to pay tax at twice as high tax rates as Connecticut citizens. The results are adverse to reason and policy, but are forced by apportionment by state. Under apportionment Mississippians would need to pay tax at twice the rates because they are relatively poor and have so little tax base over which to apportion their quota. The Founders misunderstood the effect and thought that apportionment would protect the poorer states
Once again Calvin displays his ignorance regarding the intentions, wisdom and brilliance of the rule of apportioning direct taxes, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its application. The irrefutable fact is, Congress does have authority to lay a capitation tax which is a direct tax, and is levied directly upon the people by Congress. However, this tax boils down to be an equal per capita tax under the rule of apportionment. If a capitation tax were laid today and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although Californias total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of its larger population, it is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend federal revenue, which is also part of our Constitutions fair share formula which boils down to Representation with a proportional financial obligation!
The wisdom of our founders rule of apportionment is, that although a particular state with a large population may have an overwhelming representation in Congress when spending federal revenue, such as California, it would be held in check by the rule of apportionment which commands California pays a larger share of the total tab when voting to spend federal revenue. Apparently, Mr. Calvin embraces that part of our Constitution which commands one man one vote, but rejects the financial obligation which requires one vote, one dollar!
According to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 18 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which was intended to guarantee that representation and taxation is to be apportioned by each States population size whenever Congress decides to lay and collect a general tax among the States.
In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitutions rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes will have a very salutary effect. Madison observes in this paper . . . Were the various States 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.
And so, before Mr. Calvin H. Johnson attacks the rule of apportioning direct taxes as being silly and impossible, perhaps he ought to at least review the documented intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.
Under our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as it was intended to operate, when imposts, duties, and miscellaneous taxes on consumption are found insufficient to meet Congress expenses and Congress enters the States and taxes the people directly, the rule of apportionment is not found to be silly or impossible but based upon a principle which does not change with the passages of time, the principle being representation with a proportional financial obligation, an idea which socialists and progressives fear and hate with a passion!
JWK
Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nations population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nations hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States?
