Why the Constitution Party opposes both the fair tax and the income tax

[jhon]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/FairTax/tabid/145/Default.aspx

 

[heavenlyboy34]

unless I'm missing something, this doesn't belong in the Rand forum, does it?

 

[FrankRep]

Fair Tax? Flat Tax? The Case for No Tax

Discussing Flat Tax v. Fair Tax is a time-waster; the solution is to greatly reduce the size, power, and cost of government itself, and have no taxes at all.​

Is Making Taxes “Fair” the Answer?

Although tax season has come and gone once again, the various proposals for tax reform are still with us.​

When a Flat Tax Is Still a Progressive Tax

The U.S. tax code is a complex and burdensome maze of rates, exemptions, exclusions, credits, deductions, phase-out levels, and exceptions.​

The Flat Tax Is Not Flat

The ideas of Karl Marx are alive and well — in the U.S. tax code.​

 

[Ronin Truth]

Perhaps they are slowly coming around to the idea that "TAXATION IS THEFT".

 

[FrankRep]

Perhaps they are slowly coming around to the idea that "TAXATION IS THEFT".

Slowly coming around? They just called it Socialism.

The Fair Tax is socialistic in nature. This allows for the continuation and expansion of big government and high taxes, ignoring the intent of the framers of our U.S. Constitution

http://www.constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/FairTax/tabid/145/Default.aspx​

 

[Sonny Tufts]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/FairTax/tabid/145/Default.aspx

It appears the Constitution Party has bought into the tax protester mythology.

The Fair Tax is an unapportioned direct tax upon the people. As such, it is not authorized by the 1787 Constitution, nor is it authorized under the 16thAmendment which changed the original intent of the founding fathers by implementing a personal income tax.

False. The only direct taxes contemplated by the Framers were capitations and taxes on land . Neither the income tax nor the Fair Tax is a direct tax.

The Supreme Court has defined "income" as a "gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege."

False. The Court has never defined income in this manner.

The original intent of the 16th Amendment was to tax income derived from invested capital, not the wages of personal labor

Yes, the intent was to tax investment income, but wages were taxable well before the 16th Amendment.

Should tariffs and excises, prove insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we would implement the apportioned "state-rate tax", in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of these United States, excluding the District of Columbia.

So we would go back to the requisition method that was such a colossal failure under the Articles of Confederation. Brilliant.

 

[mrsat_98]

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1987722507So2d215_1707

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. SCRAMUZZA
NO. 87-CA-0378.
507 So.2d 215 (1987)
The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
v.
Al SCRAMUZZA and the Class of Resident Tax-Payers of the City of New Orleans Earnings Tax, William Sanchez, Kenneth C. Fonte and Colleen Conrad Fonte and the Class of Non-Resident Tax-Payers of the City of New Orleans Earnings Tax, and Donald Johnston, in his Capacity as President of/and D.H. Holmes Co., Ltd. and the Class of Employers of Taxpayers of the City of New Orleans Earnings Tax.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 18, 1987.
Okla Jones, City Atty., Jackson P. McNeely, Thomas W. Milliner, Bruce E.
Naccari, Deputy City Attys., Eleanor K. Roemer, Asst. City Atty., Donald R. Mintz, Ellis Murov, Timothy Francis, McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz, Cellini & Long, Mack E. Barham, Galen S. Brown, M. Lizabeth Talbott, Gail N. Wise, Barham & Churchill, New Orleans, for applicant.
Jessie Guillot, Cy Courtney, Maurice E. Clark, New Orleans, Anthony R. Messina, Metairie, Louis G. Gruntz, Jr., Jefferson, James Arceneaux, Metairie, Craig C. Cimo, Asst. Parish Atty., Gretna, Walter Reed, Dist. Atty., Lane Carson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Covington, John Rowley, Dist. Atty., Marcel Gueniot, William Schuler, Asst. Dist. Attys., Chalmette, Richard D. Faulkner, New Orleans, Lawrence Chehardy, Metairie, R. Lawrence Kurt, New Orleans, Louis L. Robein, Metairie, Gilbert R. Buras, Jr., New Orleans, Gardner, Robein & Healey, Metairie, Kenneth C. Fonte, New Orleans, for defendants.
COLE, Justice.
The issue presented is whether or not the New Orleans Earnings Tax Ordinance1, No. 11, 416 M.C.S., imposes an "income tax" and is, therefore, unconstitutional under Article VII, Section 4(C) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. The lower court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional. For the reasons to follow, we affirm.
The City of New Orleans (City) filed this declaratory action seeking a determination of the legality and constitutionality of the Earnings Tax Ordinance. Named as defendants were all classes of persons affected by the earnings tax. The classes certified were: Resident Taxpayers of the Earnings Tax, Non-Resident Taxpayers of the Earnings Tax, and Employers of Taxpayers of the Earnings Tax. Separate suits were instituted against the City by the Parish of Jefferson, the Parish of St. Tammany, the Parish of St. Bernard, et al., and by Robert L. Deviney, et al. By motion of the parties these actions were consolidated with the City's original suit. Additionally, various parties originally named as defendants were allowed to re-align as party plaintiffs representing the class of Non-Resident Taxpayers who support the Earnings Tax.
The ordinance in question imposes a tax of 1.5% of annual gross earnings, in excess of $5,000, of every person working in the City of New Orleans.2 The City maintains the Earnings Tax is not an "income tax" within the meaning of Article VII, Section 4(C), because it is a tax only upon gross earnings, as distinguished from the traditional income tax premised upon a different structure, locus, and base.
Opponents of the tax argue the Earnings Tax is a form of local government income tax, prohibited under Article VII, Section 4(C) of the state constitution.3 They point out it is beyond dispute the ordinance taxes the major source of income, namely wages and salaries. It is argued a constitutional prohibition against political subdivisions taxing all income, a fortiori, includes a prohibition against a municipality taxing a component of income, i.e., earnings.
Stated another way, the prohibition against local income taxes is a prohibition against any form of local tax levied on, or measured by, a source of income. Opponents maintain the City's legal arguments are based on "semantic sophism." The City maintains the opposition presents a "simplistic semantic theory."
At trial the City presented experts qualified in the fields of economics, political science, legal history, finance, and accounting.
The general consensus of these experts was that an earnings tax differs in some respects from a traditional income tax.
Based on the testimony of its experts, the City contends a political subdivision is prohibited only from imposing an income tax which mirrors the characteristics of the complex, progressive tax levied on net income by our state and federal governments. It is argued the framers of our constitution intended only to prohibit a political subdivision from levying a comprehensive tax on net income. In brief, the City carefully distinguishes the characteristics of the state and federal income taxes from those of the Earnings Tax. The City relies heavily on the fact the Earnings Tax is levied only on one source of income and is measured by a percentage of gross earnings, rather than net income. Additionally, the City notes the Earnings Tax is for the most part not progressive and does not incorporate a complex system of deductions, exemptions, and credits. Based on its comparison of basic characteristics, the City concludes:
In light of the fact the ordinance taxes working rather than income ... one must conclude that it is not even similar to an income tax.
Under the City's interpretation, the Earnings Tax would appear to be outside the scope of Article VII, Section 4(C).
The City sought also to show it is authorized to impose an Earnings Tax under its home rule charter. Article VI, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provides every home rule charter existing when the constitution was adopted remained in effect and local governmental subdivisions retained all powers and functions provided for under their charters, except those inconsistent with the constitution.
The City of New Orleans is currently organized under a Home Rule Charter effective since May of 1954. Section 3-101(2) provides:
The Council shall have the right to levy any and all classes of taxes excises (sic), licenses, liens and fees necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the municipality for the payment of debt, and for capital improvements that are not expressly prohibited by the Constitution....
In Acorn v. City of New Orleans, 377 So.2d 1206 (La.1979), we acknowledged the City of New Orleans has full and complete power to impose all kinds and classes of taxes, except as expressly prohibited by the Constitution of the State of Louisiana.
The City argues correctly Constitutional scrutiny favors the ordinance. Statutes are presumed to be valid, and the constitutionality should be upheld whenever possible. State v. Griffin, 495 So.2d 1306 (La.1986). Accordingly, judicial self-restraint is appropriate when statutes are under constitutional attack. Sherman v. Cabildo Construction Company, 490 So.2d 1386 (La.1986). The presumption of validity accorded acts of the legislature applies with equal force to a municipal ordinance. City of Lake Charles v. Henning, 414 So.2d 331 (La.1982). It is clear the Earnings Tax should be accorded a presumption of validity with the burden resting upon those challenging the ordinance to prove it unconstitutional. State v. Griffin, supra.
* * * * * *
Our task is to interpret the meaning of "income tax" within the factual context presented. The words and terms expressed in the Constitution are to be interpreted by the courts with an understanding of the definitions which would have been given to those words or terms by the people when they adopted the Constitution. Chehardy v. Democratic Executive Committee, 249 So.2d 196 (La.1971).
Constitutional provisions are to be construed and interpreted by the same rules as are other laws. Aguillard v. Treen, 440 So.2d 704 (La.1983). Constitutional provisions which are plain and unambiguous must be given effect. Aguillard, supra. Provisions of the Constitution, no less than other laws, must be construed to give effect to the purpose indicated by a fair interpretation of the language used. State Ex Rel. Guste v. Board of Commissioners
of the Orleans Levee District, 456 So.2d 605 (La.1984).
Classification of a tax must be determined by its operational effect rather than by the descriptive language used in drafting the enactment. The realities of the tax must be examined; its substance, not its form. Trainer v. U.S., 800 F.2d 1086 (Fed. Cir.1986). To ascertain a precise definition of an income tax would prove to be a near impossible task. Such a definition must necessarily vary to conform to the various systems of income taxation.4
Our state income tax is generally "a tax upon the net income of residents, and non-residents, estates, trusts, and corporations...." La.R.S. 47:31.
According to Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed., the term "income tax" may be defined as "A tax on a person's income, wages, salaries, commissions...."
Under 4 U.S.C. §§ 105-110, known as the Buck Act, it was clarified that state and other taxing authorities could collect income tax from employees of the federal government working in federal areas. For purposes of this act "income tax" was defined as "any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, net income, gross income, or gross receipts." 4 U.S.C. § 110.
Fortunately, our task is not to define "income tax," but merely to determine if the Earnings Tax should be classified as a prohibited form of "income tax" under our Constitution. Clearly we believe it must be so classified.
Income tax, as demonstrated, may be understood both technically and in more general terms. In interpreting the words of our Constitution, there is a presumption in favor of the natural and popular meanings in which words are usually understood by the people who adopt them. Chehardy, supra.5 Evidence in this record establishes the income of a vast majority of the people in this state consist only of wages, salaries, and commissions. It would indeed be difficult to think these people, in adopting the Constitution, understood a tax on such earnings is not an income tax.
Both proponents and opponents of the Earnings Tax rely on the record of the debates at the constitutional convention in support of their position. We acknowledge proceedings of the constitutional convention which drafted the instrument should be given some weight in determining the purpose, intent and consequent meaning of provisions when found to be doubtful. New Orleans Firefighters Association v. Civil Service Commission of the City of New Orleans, 422 So.2d 402 (La.1982). Where, however, constitutional intent is evident and explicit language used, the court may not consider the history of a constitutional prohibition to arrive at a determination or construction which is inconsistant with the obvious purpose and meaning of the constitutional provision. Barnett v. Develle, 289 So.2d 129 (La.1974).
We do not find the meaning of "income tax" in Article VII, Section 4(C) to be doubtful. An income tax in most generally understood terms is a tax on income. The ordinance in question defines earnings to mean "the total wages, commissions, earnings, tips and/or salaries of an employee...." Section 62-51 (J)(1) (No. 11, 416 M.C.S.). For the vast majority of taxpayers, the Earnings Tax would be imposed on their major, if not only, source of income. Were we to interpret this provision of the Constitution so narrowly as to allow New Orleans to levy this tax, we would defeat the obvious constitutional purpose to prohibit local income taxes.
The New Orleans Earnings Tax was modeled apparently after similar municipal
income taxes now in place in other states. These taxes have been found to have five basic characteristics. A municipal income tax generally is (1) a flat rate, non-progressive tax; (2) levied on the earned income of all persons working within a taxing district; (3) without deduction, other than an initial exclusion of a fixed amount; (4) collected by the employers; (5) at a rate of one-half or one percent. Weekes v. City of Oakland, 579 P.2d 449 (Cal.1978), 7 Harv.J. Legis. 271 at 272. We conclude the Earnings Tax at issue in this case is a form of municipal income tax.
The City and others have argued the imposition of the Earnings Tax is necessary to alleviate the current fiscal crisis with which the City of New Orleans is faced. We, however, are constrained to note the fiscal needs of the City are irrelevant as regards the legal principles which mandate our decision. It is not our role to consider the policy or wisdom of the city fathers in adopting the ordinance. It is our province to determine only the applicability, legality and constitutionality of the ordinance. Such is our jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 248 La. 639, 181 So.2d 377 (1965); Mouledoux v. Maestrie, 197 La. 525, 2 So.2d 11 (1941).
We conclude the Earnings Tax operates for a vast majority of the people as a tax upon their only source of income, their earnings. The consequence is to deprive them of a part of their income. In determining if the tax is a prohibited "income tax" it is this operational and consequential effect which must be given paramount consideration. We have determined the constitution affords no definitional guidance, nor is there relevant statutory material lending clarification to the term "income tax." We do not believe the people, in adopting the constitution, understood the term in a technical sense. In its usual signification, giving attention to the general and popular use of the words, there is no ambiguity. The intent of the redactors is, therefore, not a proper consideration in deciding the issue. Ultimately, it is not what the tax is called that is important. The decisive element is how the tax operates. Nor does the fact the State imposes its income tax on net income from various sources mitigate against the constitutional prohibition preventing cities from imposing a tax on a particular source or type of income, or on its gross amount as distinguished from its net amount.
Accordingly, we hold the New Orleans Earnings Tax (No. 11, 416 M.S.C.) violates Article VII, Section 4(C) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 with respect to the prohibition against levy of an income tax by a political subdivision of the state. Its unconstitutionality renders it a nullity. Having so found, other issues raised by this appeal are pretermitted.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES

1. This ordinance was adopted by the Council on October 2, 1986, and approved by the Mayor on October 10, 1986. It purports to amend Chapter 62 of Ordinance No. 828 M.C.S., known as the Code of the City of New Orleans, by adding a new Article, designated as Article VII.
2. Exempted from the tax are "... any individual performing any service performed by a duly ordained, commissioned or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such religious order." Exempted from "earnings" are various categories of revenue or "income," including "... income from governmental programs for assistance to or support of the unemployed, the elderly, the disabled or the indigent."
3. Article VII, Section 4(C) provides: A political subdivision of the state shall not levy a severance tax, income tax, or tax on motor fuel. (Emphasis added.)
4. The City maintains "there is a clear definition of `income tax' in the Constitution, as amplified in Title 47...." It understands Article VII, Section 4(A) to define "income tax" as a tax based on net income, limited by the rate schedules set forth in Title 47, Section 32 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes on January 1, 1974. We read the provision to furnish no definition, only requirements, method and the part of income (net) subject to the tax.
5. We are instructed by Article 14 of the Civil Code that words are generally to be understood in their most usual signification, with great attention to be given to the general and popular use of the words of our language.

 

[Red Green]

It appears the Constitution Party has bought into the tax protester mythology.



False. The only direct taxes contemplated by the Framers were capitations and taxes on land . Neither the income tax nor the Fair Tax is a direct tax.

I think they are taking 'direct' in the literal sense of the word, rather than the obscure meaning taking in by an interpretation of the US Constitution. I went round and round with some other guy on a thread about this.

If you try to restrict the term 'direct' in such a manner, you only end up looking silly. If you are arguing a case before the Supreme Court, then that definition, in that very restrictive scope, might be illustrative. On these forums, it's just nonsense.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Slowly coming around? They just called it Socialism.

The Fair Tax is socialistic in nature. This allows for the continuation and expansion of big government and high taxes, ignoring the intent of the framers of our U.S. Constitution

http://www.constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/FairTax/tabid/145/Default.aspx​

Theft, socialism ..... same thing isn't it?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I think they are taking 'direct' in the literal sense of the word, rather than the obscure meaning taking in by an interpretation of the US Constitution. I went round and round with some other guy on a thread about this.

If you try to restrict the term 'direct' in such a manner, you only end up looking silly. If you are arguing a case before the Supreme Court, then that definition, in that very restrictive scope, might be illustrative. On these forums, it's just nonsense.

It would be quite ironic for a political party named after the Constitution to not use the term "direct tax" in its constitutional sense, wouldn't it? It might just indicate that it followers didn't know squat about constitutional law.

As far as the Scramuzza case is concerned, it's a state court decision interpreting a state constitution's ban on local income taxes. It has zero relevance to the federal income tax.

 

[Red Green]

It would be quite ironic for a political party named after the Constitution to not use the term "direct tax" in its constitutional sense, wouldn't it? It might just indicate that it followers didn't know squat about constitutional law.

No, unless they want to engage in literary silliness designed to make their arguments obscure and less understandable. If you are arguing a legal case, then legal definitions are indeed relevant. The problem with armchair tax legal eagles on internet forums is they derail reasonable debate by trying to attach obscure references to words and demand that they be used exclusively. A 'direct tax' is a tax that is levied on an individual directly by the taxing authority, at least in most common economic conversations. An 'indirect tax' would be a tax that is not levied directly on the individual, but that the individual ultimately ends up paying. There is no reason to inject obscure legal meanings to this for the purposes of honest discussion.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

There is no reason to inject obscure legal meanings to this for the purposes of honest discussion.

When the Constitution Party claims that the Fair Tax is an unapportioned direct tax not authorized by the Constitution or when it claims that the Supreme Court has defined "income" as gain from corporate activity or privilege (as it did in the material at the OP's link), it is attempting to make a legal point (which is hopelessly wrong). I thought that material was the topic of this thread, but perhaps others have derailed it into a "taxation is theft" or "taxation is socialism" screed.

 

[Red Green]

When the Constitution Party claims that the Fair Tax is an unapportioned direct tax not authorized by the Constitution or when it claims that the Supreme Court has defined "income" as gain from corporate activity or privilege (as it did in the material at the OP's link), it is attempting to make a legal point (which is hopelessly wrong). I thought that material was the topic of this thread, but perhaps others have derailed it into a "taxation is theft" or "taxation is socialism" screed.

Again, this gets down to what 'direct' means.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

I think that the FF were using the literal definition of 'direct' as your legal definition came about by judges making distinctions. Going with the rather obscure reasoning that the courts have used to get around apportionment in the discussion of policy is less than useful. Much of what has been deemed 'legal' these days by federal courts I would argue is in fact illegal and very much against the intent of the FF. Witness the abuse of the interstate commerce clause. IMHO the FF were referring specifically to and only about actual interstate commerce (IE commercial goods crossing state lines) rather than anything that could possibly effect the interstate market, as courts have adopted in the past 100 or so years. So regardless of what courts have interpreted 'interstate commerce' to be, to me it still means and only means the act of engaging in commerce that spans state borders.

So that being said, I think the definition of a "direct tax" is the literal one, even when discussing the US Constitution as I do not believe Madison was trying to be too clever by half, like some lawyers, politicians and judges are.

 

[jmdrake]

It appears the Constitution Party has bought into the tax protester mythology.

Hmmm...have you seen this? http://howyoubecomeliable.com/

Totally different argument than what you may be used to.

False. The only direct taxes contemplated by the Framers were capitations and taxes on land . Neither the income tax nor the Fair Tax is a direct tax.

Reference?

False. The Court has never defined income in this manner.

Agreed.

Yes, the intent was to tax investment income, but wages were taxable well before the 16th Amendment.

I'm not sure all wages were. See http://howyoubecomeliable.com/

So we would go back to the requisition method that was such a colossal failure under the Articles of Confederation. Brilliant.

I'd say where are now, approaching absolute bankruptcy, is a bigger failure. And the "fair tax" doesn't fix anything.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I think that the FF were using the literal definition of 'direct' as your legal definition came about by judges making distinctions. Going with the rather obscure reasoning that the courts have used to get around apportionment in the discussion of policy is less than useful. Much of what has been deemed 'legal' these days by federal courts I would argue is in fact illegal and very much against the intent of the FF. Witness the abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

I have no argument with you about the IC clause -- it's been stretched way beyond what the Framers envisioned. The Direct Tax Clause, however, has been limited from its inception. In the first tax case the Supreme Court decided (and also the first case challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute), Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a tax on carriages against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax. Three of the four Justices who decided the case had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and the other had been a member of a state convention that adopted the Constitution. Three of them opined that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were capitations and taxes on land. It is true that Madison thought the tax was a direct tax, but his view wasn't adopted; the view of Hamilton, who argued the case in support of the statute, prevailed, and it was consistent with the limited view of direct taxes that he had expressed in Federalist Nos. 21 and 36.

This view was affirmed in 1881, when the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War income tax against the claim that it was a direct tax.

The only enlargement of the Direct Tax Clause beyond capitations and land taxes came in 1895, when the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that a tax on investment income was a direct tax on the underlying property (real or personal) that produced the income. This result was overturned by the 16th Amendment. More recently, I had hoped that the Court would have viewed the Individual Mandate under Obamacare as a direct tax, but Roberts's opinion (way too superficial on this point, IMHO) reaffirmed the narrow scope of the Direct Tax Clause.

The point is that for over 200 years direct taxes have been extremely limited, with only one brief expansion that was quickly overruled. For the Constitution Party to claim that an unapportioned Fair Tax is unconstitutional simply displays ignorance.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Absolutely! Both income and sales taxes are wrong! I'm proud to live in the only state without local or state general income or sales taxes! Heck, you cannot even win the Democratic Party nomination for governor here without opposing both general sales and income taxes. That's how it should be in all 50 states, not just this 1 state.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Hmmm...have you seen this? http://howyoubecomeliable.com/

Totally different argument than what you may be used to.

Yeah, I've seen it. The answers to Questions 1-5 are OK, but after that it is simply more tax protester nonsense from Pete Hendrickson, a two-time loser whose tax theories are garbage. His claim that only federally-connected income is taxable has been uniformly rejected every time some idiot has raised it in court (including in Hendrickson's own trials). If you think there is any merit to his arguments, please explain why income from illegal activities is taxable. Where is the federal privilege in extortion or embezzlement?

 

[Red Green]

I have no argument with you about the IC clause -- it's been stretched way beyond what the Framers envisioned. The Direct Tax Clause, however, has been limited from its inception. In the first tax case the Supreme Court decided (and also the first case challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute), Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a tax on carriages against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax. Three of the four Justices who decided the case had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and the other had been a member of a state convention that adopted the Constitution. Three of them opined that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were capitations and taxes on land. It is true that Madison thought the tax was a direct tax, but his view wasn't adopted; the view of Hamilton, who argued the case in support of the statute, prevailed, and it was consistent with the limited view of direct taxes that he had expressed in Federalist Nos. 21 and 36.

Exactly, Madison wrote an understood meaning of the term "direct" to which was later corrupted by the courts, as has been many provisions of the US constitution. I have to wonder why you would be anxious to adopt a corrupted meaning of the term "direct". Courts can twist words however they want, but the meaning of 'direct tax' should not be misconstrued to suit those who have monied interest in such a term.

This view was affirmed in 1881, when the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War income tax against the claim that it was a direct tax.

Great, they might has well have held that a slave was 3/5 a man, not that that changes anything.

The only enlargement of the Direct Tax Clause beyond capitations and land taxes came in 1895, when the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that a tax on investment income was a direct tax on the underlying property (real or personal) that produced the income. This result was overturned by the 16th Amendment. More recently, I had hoped that the Court would have viewed the Individual Mandate under Obamacare as a direct tax, but Roberts's opinion (way too superficial on this point, IMHO) reaffirmed the narrow scope of the Direct Tax Clause.

The point is that for over 200 years direct taxes have been extremely limited, with only one brief expansion that was quickly overruled. For the Constitution Party to claim that an unapportioned Fair Tax is unconstitutional simply displays ignorance.

No, it displays a difference with stupid court decisions. The minute you let lawyers and judges start to define what the meaning of the term 'direct' is, you are lost. They did so for financial reason rather than any economic or sensible rational.

To display how far this crap can go, there was a court case in Canada where a lawyer who was filing claims under Section 13 of the Human Rights Act claimed that he was slandered for being accused of censorship and against "free speech". The basis of his claim was that the Human Rights Act defined "free speech" as non-hate speech so to crusade against what was claimed to be hate speech was in fact defending free speech, as defined by law of course.

You can continue your wonkish pursuit of obscure legal definitions, but seriously, it adds nothing to the debate unless you are in a court of law. You should save it unless someone goes to file a lawsuit or are in a court of law because that is the only place such a definition is actually worth two shits.

 

[Red Green]

Absolutely! Both income and sales taxes are wrong! I'm proud to live in the only state without local or state general income or sales taxes! Heck, you cannot even win the Democratic Party nomination for governor here without opposing both general sales and income taxes. That's how it should be in all 50 states, not just this 1 state.

Income taxes are the worst in terms of economic disruption and a VAT is probably the least, but whatever the tax system is, should there be an actual tax system, it should collect so few taxes that the damage done is negligible.

 

[Danke]

Yeah, I've seen it. The answers to Questions 1-5 are OK, but after that it is simply more tax protester nonsense from Pete Hendrickson, a two-time loser whose tax theories are garbage. His claim that only federally-connected income is taxable has been uniformly rejected every time some idiot has raised it in court (including in Hendrickson's own trials). If you think there is any merit to his arguments, please explain why income from illegal activities is taxable. Where is the federal privilege in extortion or embezzlement?

Those court cases, if you read them, have nothing to do with the constitutionality of a tax on the private sector receipts.

They won't touch that subject.

If the questions on that referred to website are nonsense, then debunk them, here. Or better yet, where the tax scholars hang out: http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/index.php Come on over, or will you feign that you will be censored there? You are preaching to the uninformed here and scaring them back into the fraud, but your days are numbered.

The federal jurisdiction is limited. No one can dispute that.

Why is a Chinese person paid by someone in the US with Federal Reserve Notes not taxed? Open your eyes.