.
In 1943, the decade of WWII, Congress decided to adopt the “Temporary Victory Tax of 1943”, and it was the first time our parents and grandparents were subject to a federal direct tax on the bread they earned from the sweat of their labor. Keep in mind that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Additionally, our very own Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5, of our Constitution is still in effect which requires “direct” taxes, if laid by Congress, are to be apportioned among the States.
The last time our Supreme Court confirmed any direct tax must be apportioned was in the Obamacare case when Justice Roberts wrote: "The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."
It is also important to note that after one reviews a wealth of pertinent and contemporary historical documentation (during and just after our Constitution was framed and ratified), they will find the type of federal tax put upon today’s wage earners would most certainly have been considered a direct tax by our Founders _ essentially, it would have been considered a tax upon the property one has in their own labor _ and would have to be apportioned among the States.
So, how did our federal government get around having to apportion the “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943 on wage earners? Surprise! Walt Disney created a propaganda film clip to silence any opposition to the tax, especially any opposition having to do with it being apportioned, by portraying the tax as a patriotic duty to be paid by wage earners, even though they were not subject to an un-apportioned direct tax.
Here is a link to that Disney film clip:
The New Spirit (1942)
[video=youtube_share;eMU-KGKK6q8]
The sad fact is, today’s wage earners are still paying the type of direct tax imposed 80 years ago in 1943 called the “Temporary Victory Tax”.
BTW, with regard to our Constitution’s rules regarding apportionment, the two formulas which govern apportionment are:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:
State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.
The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share of a total amount being raised by Congress by a direct tax is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!
And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress rather than Congress sending each state a bill for its apportioned share, then every taxpayer across the United States is to pay the exact same amount, i.e., one man, one vote, and, one vote, one dollar!
One final note which is important to consider.
With regard to the distinction between a direct and indirect tax, Oliver Elsworth, a delegate to the Convention of 1787 from Connecticut articulates the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect during the Connecticut ratification debates.
January 7, 1788. [On this Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]
”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man's business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”
Elsworth goes on to note:
“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”
”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ See Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 191
So, a characteristic of an indirect tax is one which is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and such a tax are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject, while direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive, and not avoidable.
The bottom line is, a tax upon the property which a working person earns by the sweat of their labor was, most assuredly, considered to be a direct tax by our founders, and requires an apportionment if laid by the federal government, but the ghost of the Temporary Victory Tax lives on.
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] 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) JUSTICE FULLER
In 1943, the decade of WWII, Congress decided to adopt the “Temporary Victory Tax of 1943”, and it was the first time our parents and grandparents were subject to a federal direct tax on the bread they earned from the sweat of their labor. Keep in mind that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Additionally, our very own Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5, of our Constitution is still in effect which requires “direct” taxes, if laid by Congress, are to be apportioned among the States.
The last time our Supreme Court confirmed any direct tax must be apportioned was in the Obamacare case when Justice Roberts wrote: "The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."
It is also important to note that after one reviews a wealth of pertinent and contemporary historical documentation (during and just after our Constitution was framed and ratified), they will find the type of federal tax put upon today’s wage earners would most certainly have been considered a direct tax by our Founders _ essentially, it would have been considered a tax upon the property one has in their own labor _ and would have to be apportioned among the States.
So, how did our federal government get around having to apportion the “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943 on wage earners? Surprise! Walt Disney created a propaganda film clip to silence any opposition to the tax, especially any opposition having to do with it being apportioned, by portraying the tax as a patriotic duty to be paid by wage earners, even though they were not subject to an un-apportioned direct tax.
Here is a link to that Disney film clip:
The New Spirit (1942)
[video=youtube_share;eMU-KGKK6q8]
The sad fact is, today’s wage earners are still paying the type of direct tax imposed 80 years ago in 1943 called the “Temporary Victory Tax”.
BTW, with regard to our Constitution’s rules regarding apportionment, the two formulas which govern apportionment are:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:
State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.
The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share of a total amount being raised by Congress by a direct tax is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!
And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress rather than Congress sending each state a bill for its apportioned share, then every taxpayer across the United States is to pay the exact same amount, i.e., one man, one vote, and, one vote, one dollar!
One final note which is important to consider.
With regard to the distinction between a direct and indirect tax, Oliver Elsworth, a delegate to the Convention of 1787 from Connecticut articulates the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect during the Connecticut ratification debates.
January 7, 1788. [On this Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]
”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man's business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”
Elsworth goes on to note:
“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”
”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ See Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 191
So, a characteristic of an indirect tax is one which is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and such a tax are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject, while direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive, and not avoidable.
The bottom line is, a tax upon the property which a working person earns by the sweat of their labor was, most assuredly, considered to be a direct tax by our founders, and requires an apportionment if laid by the federal government, but the ghost of the Temporary Victory Tax lives on.
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] 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) JUSTICE FULLER
