You missed a few things here…
Illegals don’t directly vote, though libs are doing everything they can think of to bring that about. Illegals indirectly influence our system by an increased number of congressman that is caused by illegals being counted in the census. Also, by the cost of providing services to them. You also ignored the part about how fast the Dems try and grant them amnesty and citizenship. If it weren’t for the fact that illegals benefit Dems politically, the border would have been protected decades ago.
Every time Ocasio-Castro-Chavez opens her piehole Cenk Uygur and the “Young Turks” pleasure themselves.
1 Like
Mechanized Infantry!
Hoah!
Illegal entrants increase the Electoral College vote and number of House members of communist states like California and New York, but these states are not paying an apportioned share of federal taxes equal to their increased voting strength as intended by the rule of apportionment.
JWK
It’s not a “Deep State”. It’s a subversive socialist/communist “Shadow Government” which began to entrench itself during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Its mission being, to advance GLOBALIST and socialist policies, and obstruct attempts to roll back such policies.
Ya knows there’s a finite amount of congressmen
I disagree with Justice Fuller’s interpretation.
True direct taxes take one of two forms.
-
A Capitation Tax (sometimes referred to a Poll Tax) is a fixed amount levied on every adult person. Other than brief attempts in some municipalities, that have been no Capitation Taxes levied in the United States or any State since the use of them for voter suppression was stopped by Constitutional Amendment.
-
A Property Tax is just that, a tax on property. The Federal Government has not levied taxes on property since the mid 1800’s. Obviously used by States, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
An individual income tax is NOT a Direct Tax, Justice Fuller’s interpretation not withstanding. It is a transactional tax and thus an Indirect Tax.
Payroll taxes and corporate income taxes are Indirect Taxes. Excises are Indirect Taxes. Tariffs and tonnages are Indirect Taxes.
There are NO Direct Taxes levied by the United States Federal Government and there haven’t been any for a good 160 years.
There being no Direct Taxes levied, it is thus needless to speak about apportioning such taxes.
Direct taxes vs indirect taxes … their identifying characteristics
I appreciate your opinion asserting: “There are NO Direct Taxes levied by the United States Federal Government and there haven’t been any for a good 160 years.” The problem with your opinion is, you have not offered the characteristics which separate indirect taxes from those which are direct as understood by our forefathers.
Keep in mind our Constitution commands that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” That wording confirms there are other “direct taxes” in addition to a Capitation tax. So, what are the distinguishing characteristics which identify a direct tax, from those which are “indirect taxes”?
During the framing of our Constitution the question was asked, what is the meaning of direct taxes. Unfortunately, no one answered.
Contrary to your disagreement with what Justice Fuller stated, his comment is spot on!
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.
Simply because you state “[t]here are NO Direct Taxes levied by the United States Federal Government and there haven’t been any for a good 160 years” does not make it so, and especially not when you have neglected to identify the distinguishing characteristics which separate direct taxes from those which are indirect.
Having taken the time to actually research the distinguishing characteristics which identify and separate direct taxes from those which are indirect, as understood by our founders, there is no question in my mind that Congress, to this very day, has indeed been laying un-apportioned direct taxes.
As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that:
“In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts [an indirect type of tax], which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467 Wilson
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.
As to direct taxation, Oliver Elsworth, also a delegate to the Convention from Connecticut provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.
”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 …” ___ Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 92
When one actually reviews historical documents to determine the distinguishing characteristics which separate direct taxes from those which are indirect, there is a consistency among our forefathers comments showing that direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive and not avoidable, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.
The Temporary Victory Tax of 1943, adopted by the socialist FDR Administration, as an example, and which began the current tax on earned wages, when considering historical documentation and characteristics identifying direct taxes as distinguished from those which are indirect, clearly falls into the category of a direct tax and thus requires an apportionment among the States.
JWK
“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
And what did one of our forefathers say with regard to this notoriously evil system of direct taxation?
See Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes, January 18th, 1797
“History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not.”
JWK
California is definitely not a"communist state". Not, for that matter, is New York.
You might want to acquire an accurate dictionary, one that wasn’t authored by a Bircher loon.
Thank you for your opinion but your wrong. Communists are control in California and New York.
Getting back to what you quoted from me, the fact is, Illegal entrants increase the Electoral College vote and number of House members in California, but California is not paying an apportioned share of federal taxes equal to their increased voting strength as intended by the rule of apportionment. And, Trump’s Census Bureau swamp creatures at the Census Bureau site, make no mention that one of the very purposes for having a census is to determine each State’s share of any direct tax laid by Congress.
JWK
They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with notoriously evil communists and socialists who delude, lure and addict our nations needy with free government cheese.
The number is based on population.
If we had the number of representatives the constitution calls for based on population there would be a couple thousand or something.
You are correct! Additionally, the more illegal entrants California encourages to settle in their state, will add to their number of representatives in Congress. But California will not be required to pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden proportionally equal to their representation in Congress.
Part of our Constitution’s great compromise was both representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the various states.
“. . . it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their 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.” …Federalist 54
JWK
If this and if that. 
The number of representatives has been fixed by Congress at 435.
JWK
Our Founders intended ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary. The AR-15-semi is a civilian version of the United States military’s M16 and ought to be kept by ordinary citizens to defend against a tyrannical government.
Is it not an irrefutable fact that one of the reasons for requiring a census in our Constitution is to determine each state’s apportioned share of any direct tax laid by Congress?
Why does the Census Bureau refuse to state this fact at their site and indicate the importance of the census is to determine how much government cheese each state is entitled to?
JWK
I ain’t the one with my hair on fire that California will get more representation!
But there is a fixed total number.
That is why states like California and New York are actually significantly underrepresented in Congress.
As the Congresswoman from Wyoming, Liz Cheney represents 577,737 people.
On the other hand, each member of the California Congressional delegation represents on average 745,513 people.
Safiel,
In THIS POST, you made a number of comments stated as fact, and you disagreed with Justice Fuller. You wrote:
“I disagree with Justice Fuller’s interpretation.
True direct taxes take one of two forms.
A Capitation Tax (sometimes referred to a Poll Tax) is a fixed amount levied on every adult person. Other than brief attempts in some municipalities, that have been no Capitation Taxes levied in the United States or any State since the use of them for voter suppression was stopped by Constitutional Amendment.
A Property Tax is just that, a tax on property. The Federal Government has not levied taxes on property since the mid 1800’s. Obviously used by States, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
An individual income tax is NOT a Direct Tax, Justice Fuller’s interpretation not withstanding. It is a transactional tax and thus an Indirect Tax.
Payroll taxes and corporate income taxes are Indirect Taxes. Excises are Indirect Taxes. Tariffs and tonnages are Indirect Taxes.
There are NO Direct Taxes levied by the United States Federal Government and there haven’t been any for a good 160 years.
There being no Direct Taxes levied, it is thus needless to speak about apportioning such taxes.”
Your disagreement with Justice Fuller seems to have been sparked by a quote I provided:
“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) JUSTICE FULLER
What troubles me about your disagreement with Justice Fuller’s comment is, if the rule requiring direct taxes is ignored, then the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, which made the adoption of our Constitution possible ___ a compromise setting a rule that, if or when our federal government decides to enter the states and tax the State and/or people therein directly, as opposed to indirect taxes which are taxes imposed on things which people are free to avoid and are voluntarily paid ___ the protection intended that every state and its internal population could never be commanded to contribute a federal tax which is not proportionately equal to its allotted number of representatives in the House would be annihilated, and allow the most productive States, and people therein to be enslaved and forced to contribute a share of federal taxes far greater than their representation in Congress, and thus defeats the Founders intention requiring an equal per capita tax if our federal government ever decides to tax the people directly ___ a requirement, which to this very day is commanded by Article 1, Section 9,Clause 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
Your disagreement with Justice Fullers comment seems to me to really be a disagreement with what separates and distinguishes a direct tax, from one which is indirect, and this indeed deserves to be pursued and resolved. What separates and distinguishes a direct tax from one which is indirect as understood by our forefathers and those who framed and helped to ratify our Constitution? To this I wrote the following which you may have missed.
Direct taxes vs indirect taxes … their identifying characteristics
Having taken the time to actually research the distinguishing characteristics which identify and separate direct taxes from those which are indirect, as understood by our founders, there is no question in my mind that Congress, to this very day, has indeed been laying un-apportioned direct taxes.
As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that:
“In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts [an indirect type of tax], which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467 Wilson
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.
As to direct taxation, Oliver Elsworth, also a delegate to the Convention from Connecticut provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.
”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 …” ___ Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 92
When one actually reviews historical documents to determine the distinguishing characteristics which separate direct taxes from those which are indirect, there is a consistency among our forefathers comments showing that direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive and not avoidable, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.
The Temporary Victory Tax of 1943, adopted by the socialist FDR Administration, as an example, and which began the current tax on earned wages, when considering historical documentation and characteristics identifying direct taxes as distinguished from those which are indirect, clearly falls into the category of a direct tax and thus requires an apportionment among the States.
So, Safiel, what are the characteristics which separates and distinguishes a direct tax from one which is indirect as understood by our forefathers and those who framed and helped to ratify our Constitution? Should this question not be answered and put to rest once and for all? Should we not support our “opinions” with our forefathers thinking on the matter? Should we not follow the most fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction in answering this question, the primary rule being stated as follows:
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers .”— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from the framing and ratification debates, which give context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
