Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. A wealth tax, which was in practice under the Articles of Confederation, was not permitted under our existing constitution and would violate the rule requiring any direct tax to be apportioned.
No. A wealth tax, which was in practice under the Articles of Confederation, was not permitted under our existing constitution and would violate the rule requiring any direct tax to be apportioned.
JWK
From Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
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 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.
It should be noted I separated the above into 2 paragraphs, the original does not. Representatives and direct Taxes are combined which makes it slightly confusing. The tax part means a state's tax burden is determined by the size of their population, as is the part about the number of each state’s representatives.
From Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
In 1794, George Washington decided to raise money for the federal government by taxing the rich by putting a tax on horse-drawn carriages. It can be considered the first federal wealth tax of the United States & caused a huge fight over the power to tax as interpreted by the Constitution.
Quote:
The Supreme Court at that time upheld the carriage tax. The justices called the apportionment rule "absurd" and "radically wrong." One justice said the rule should only be adopted in cases where "it can reasonably apply," and if it results in wildly unequal tax rates between the states, it's not reasonable.
Another justice said that this provision in the Constitution was entirely about appeasing the South, which wanted to make it hard to tax the pillars of its slave-based economy. That's why he said the direct tax rule only clearly applied to taxes on land and slaves, and it "ought not to be extended" beyond this.
Will the nonsensical idea that people could be considered as property, & property is considered as people always ‘haunt’ the United States?
From Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company:
Quote:
Facts of the case
The Constitution gave the states the power to impose direct taxation. The federal government could impose direct taxes as well, but only if those taxes were apportioned among the states in proportion to their representation in Congress. In this case, the Court examined the Income Tax Act of 1894.
Question
Was the income tax a direct tax in violation of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9)?
Conclusion
The Court held that the Act violated the Constitution since it imposed taxes on personal income derived from real estate investments and personal property such as stocks and bonds; this was a direct taxation scheme, not apportioned properly among the states.
The decision was negated by the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.
Justices John Marshall Harlan, Howell Edmunds Jackson, Edward Douglass White, and Henry Billings Brown dissented from the majority opinion. Justice White argued: “this court should consider itself compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory of the constitution, by which the government is deprived of an inherent attribute of being – a necessary power of taxation.” Justice Brown wrote: “The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class.”
Text of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Supreme Court, in each Era, interprets the United States Constitution, the present day is the Neoliberal Era.
The wealthiest folks often do not pay their fair share of taxes. The reason why is that they can afford not to.
From Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
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 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.
It should be noted I separated the above into 2 paragraphs, the original does not. Representatives and direct Taxes are combined which makes it slightly confusing. The tax part means a state's tax burden is determined by the size of their population, as is the part about the number of each state’s representatives.
From Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
In 1794, George Washington decided to raise money for the federal government by taxing the rich by putting a tax on horse-drawn carriages. It can be considered the first federal wealth tax of the United States & caused a huge fight over the power to tax as interpreted by the Constitution.
Text of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Supreme Court, in each Era, interprets the United States Constitution, the present day is the Neoliberal Era.
The wealthiest folks often do not pay their fair share of taxes. The reason why is that they can afford not to.
Now, what on earth does all that have to do with my post?
A wealth tax, which was in practice under the Articles of Confederation, was not permitted under our existing constitution and would violate the rule requiring any direct tax to be apportioned.
No. A wealth tax, which was in practice under the Articles of Confederation, was not permitted under our existing constitution and would violate the rule requiring any direct tax to be apportioned.
JWK
It would be helpful to discuss the reasons why the United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in the context of the questions posed in the OP.
It would be helpful to discuss the reasons why the United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in the context of the questions posed in the OP.
What would be helpful is to discuss whether or not a wealth tax, as proposed, is unconstitutional in that it would be a direct tax and not apportioned.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
What would be helpful is to discuss whether or not a wealth tax, as proposed, is unconstitutional in that it would be a direct tax and not apportioned.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
JWK
That was discussed in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, & again before the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified.
Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska declared that the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of the Constitution and proposed the explicit language permitting an income tax that was incorporated into the Sixteenth Amendment. He said it was imperative that Congress “give the court a Constitution that cannot be interpreted in two ways.”
That was discussed in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, & again before the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified.
Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska declared that the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of the Constitution and proposed the explicit language permitting an income tax that was incorporated into the Sixteenth Amendment. He said it was imperative that Congress “give the court a Constitution that cannot be interpreted in two ways.”
You seem to intentionally want to avoid discussing whether or not a wealth tax, as proposed, is unconstitutional in that it would be a direct tax and not apportioned.
You seem to intentionally want to avoid discussing whether or not a wealth tax, as proposed, is unconstitutional in that it would be a direct tax and not apportioned.
JWK
That poster just wants to steal people's money thinking the Government will spend it productively, despite 75 years of data that it has not.
You seem to intentionally want to avoid discussing whether or not a wealth tax, as proposed, is unconstitutional in that it would be a direct tax and not apportioned.
JWK
You sort of answered your own question here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1
No. A wealth tax, which was in practice under the Articles of Confederation, was not permitted under our existing constitution and would violate the rule requiring any direct tax to be apportioned.
JWK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
It would be helpful to discuss the reasons why the United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in the context of the questions posed in the OP.
To clarify: the United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.
From The Articles of Confederation VIII.
All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.
You are avoiding why the Articles of Confederation were replaced.
How Failed Tax Policy Led to the Constitutional Convention
It is worth noting the world is not like a blank slate on which each of us gets the opportunity to paint our own picture of what we want the world to be. This applies to our history.
Is the Biden proposed wealth tax a direct tax requiring apportionment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
To clarify: the United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.
Well, I am encouraged to learn you realize the Constitution of the United States supersedes the Article of Confederation.
Having come to that conclusion, do you agree that a wealth tax, as proposed, is unconstitutional in that it would be a direct tax and not apportioned?
JWK
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is the Biden proposed wealth tax a direct tax requiring apportionment?
