I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.
The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.
With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate. If you had, I do not believe you would assert “indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.”
Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal “excise” taxes. This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
There was disagreement over the meaning of some of the terms on taxes in the constitution. The Nation passed an income tax during the civil war without any concern as to constitutionality. Read Kevin Phillips
Arrogant Capital on how many politicians are subservient to bankers and actually dont want to pay down debt.
I'm not sure how your post relates to what is posted above. But one thing is certain, there was no disagreement among those who ratified the Constitution with respect to direct taxes being required to be apportioned. But don't take my word, let our founder's speak for themselves:
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 those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, 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
Also see an
Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
And then see
Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
Additionally, direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:
See: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), in which the Court stated,
“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”
And this is once again confirmed in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
“As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”
Finally, Justice Roberts, in the Obamacare case also confirms
The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
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)
