AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

JUDGES' DISAGREEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS ABOUT PROGRESSIVE TAXES ON INHERITANCES OR PARTS OF INHERITANCES.

HOWEVER, NOTHING IS SAID IN THESE TWO CASES ABOUT WHETHER A PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE TAXING OF STATES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE WEALTH OF THE STATES OR ON THE WEALTH OF THEIR POPULATIONS.

Parados: "First progressive taxation ... uniform" in 1898."

Quote:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=170&invol=283
...
Can there be a doubt that such inequality of legislation would vitiate it? But, whatever may be the power of the legislature, Illinois had regulated the matter of descents and distributions, and had granted the right of testamentary disposition. And now, by this statute, upon property passing in accordance with its statutes a tax is imposed; a tax unequal because not proportioned to the amount of the estate; unequal because based upon a classification purely arbitrary, to wit, that of wealth; a tax directly and intentionally made unequal. I think the constitution of the United States forbids such inequality.

Parados: "Secondly, your definition of "uniform" rejected by the courts in 1900"

Quote:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=178&page=41
It follows from the foregoing opinion that the court below erred in denying all relief, and that it should have held the plaintiff entitled to recover so much of the tax as resulted from taxing legacies not exceeding $ 10,000, and from increasing the tax rate with reference to the whole amount of the personal estate of the deceased from which the legacies or distributive shares were derived. For these reasons the judgment below must be reversed, and the case be remanded, with instructions that further proceedings be had according to law and in conformity with this opinion, and it is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Brewer dissents from so much of the opinion as holds that a progressive rate of tax can be validly imposed. In other respects he concurs.

Mr. Justice Peckham took no part in the decision.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting:

While I concur in the construction placed by the court upon the clause of the Constitution declaring that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be 'uniform throughout the United States,' I dissent from that part of the opinion construing the 29th and 30th sections of the revenue act. In my judgment, the question whether the tax presented by Congress shall or shall not be imposed is to be determined with reference to the whole amount of the personal property out of which legacies and distributive shares arise. If the value of the whole personal property held in charge or trust by an administrator, executor, or trustee exceeds $10,000, then every part of it constituting a legacy or distributive share, except the share of [178 U.S. 41, 111] a husband or wife, is taxed at the progressive rate stated in the act of Congress. I do not think the act can be otherwise interpreted without defeating the intent of Congress.

Construed as I have indicated, the act is not liable to any constitutional objection.

Mr. Justice McKena concurs in this dissent.

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados: RE: UNIFORM
"lack of variation throughout the United States
lack of change in form throughout the United States
Consistent throughout the United States."

lack of variation AMONG CITIZENS throughout the United States
lack of change in form AMONG CITIZENS throughout the United States
Consistent AMONG CITIZENS throughout the United States.

lack of variation AMONG DOLLARS OF INCOME throughout the United States
lack of change in form AMONG DOLLARS OF INCOME throughout the United States
Consistent AMONG DOLLARS OF INCOME throughout the United States.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

By the way, my argument about the meaning of "uniform" in the Constitution applies only to what the USA Constitution permits the Congress to do and not what the individual state constitutions permit their respective legislatures to do.

Quote:

Article I.Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican wrote:

Parados: RE: UNIFORM
"lack of variation throughout the United States
lack of change in form throughout the United States
Consistent throughout the United States."

Yep, that is what the constitution says.

Quote:

lack of variation AMONG CITIZENS throughout the United States
lack of change in form AMONG CITIZENS throughout the United States
Consistent AMONG CITIZENS throughout the United States.

Nope, Constitution doesn't say that. You can't show anywhere it says that. You made it up or were misinformed.

Quote:

lack of variation AMONG DOLLARS OF INCOME throughout the United States
lack of change in form AMONG DOLLARS OF INCOME throughout the United States
Consistent AMONG DOLLARS OF INCOME throughout the United States.

Nope, constitution doesn't say that either. You can't show anywhere it says that. Again, you made it up or were misinformed.

You might want to read ALL of Knowlton.. or at least the first paragraph...

Quote:

The act of Congress of June, 1898, which is usually spoken of as the war revenue act (30 Stat. at L. 448, chap. 448), imposes various stamp duties and other taxes. Sections 29 and 30 of the statute, which are therein prefaced by the heading 'Legacies and Distributive Shares of Personal Property,' provide for the assessment and collection of the particular taxes which are described in the sections in question

Not the states... but a FEDERAL law passed by CONGRESS.

that plus what you quoted proves you wrong.

Quote:

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
....

Mr. Justice Brewer dissents from so much of the opinion as holds that a progressive rate of tax can be validly imposed. In other respects he concurs.

Mr. Justice Peckham took no part in the decision.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting:

....

Mr. Justice McKena concurs in this dissent.

So.. we have 2 dissenting judges, One that took no part and one that dissented from " so much of the opinion as holds that a progressive rate of tax can be validly imposed" That would be 4 total that dissented in part or didn't take part vs those that supported the opinion of the court. What is 9-4? 5 What is 5 judges if not a majority of the court?

That would mean that the court held that CONGRESS can impose a progressive tax rate. Read what Brewer dissented from. Now read it again, then again and again until it sinks into your brain.

The opinion holds that a progressive rate of tax can be validly imposed by Congress. Even one dissenting judge thinks the opinion says that. I'll take his word over yours any day.

1 Reply

@parados,

What I wrote proves some federal judge tax decisions wrong and some of the congressional tax legislation illegal. Here's what I originally wrote plus some additional evidence from the Constitution to prove that:
(1) the federal judge tax decisions you cited are wrong;
(2)the congressional tax legislation that you cited are illegal.

CONSTITUTION OF THE USA
Article I. Section 2. … Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers [of free persons]… (i.e., apportioned uniformly, not progressively, per free person)

Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; … (i.e., uniform, not progressive, per person)
definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

Article I. Section 9. … No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (i.e., uniformly in proportion, not progressively in proportion, per person)

Article VI. … This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Amendment XVI (1913). 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 of enumeration. (i.e., because this amendment did not amend the prior Constitutional meaning of uniform, taxes on dollars of income must also be uniform and not progressive.)

2 Replies

@parados,

Agreed, but far fewer retailers than individuals. And a few of the largest retailers in the country, Walmart being one example, I am going to guess you could find 50 of the largest retailers in the country, or maybe a 100, not a great number to watch closely, and you are going to capture a very high percentage of the money being spent in this country. Certainly the number of retailers may be in the millions, but as I said, watch closely a hundred of the largest, watch pretty well several hundred or a few thousand, and check the rest, and you are going to have a pretty good handle on things.

Also, it doesn't have to be the feds that watch all of this, we already have the states and local governments keeping an eye on things. There could be cooperative assistance between the fed, state, and local governments to bring a very high degree of compliance. And the possibility of very stiff penalties for large companies or businesses should keep them on the straight and narrow.

I am falling into a pattern here of defending the national sales tax. To back up a bit, I think I am in favor of it, but only if the income tax is eliminated completely, as I do not want to have both taxes. Also, I admit to not being 100% sure if I would vote for the tax, if I was in Congress, but what I am in favor of is a full fledged national debate, with all the best experts to come forth and provide the pros and cons. I want to hear what rates would be projected, tax revenue projections, how recessions affect it, what exemptions would be logical, etc.

I can see both positive and negatives with it, but I think it is time to look at something better than the income tax, that has gotten so complex, so cumbersome, and so abused, and so burdensome to the economy and our ability to compete in the world on a level playing field. Also from a philosophical point of view, I think taxing spending makes more sense than taxing productivity.

2 Replies

@okie,

We're currently stuck with the 16th Amendment empowering Congress to tax income. If we were to also impose a tax on personal spending or on the price of certain goods and services, we would still be stuck with the current income tax. Either we repeal the 16th Amendment, or we forget the tax on spending or on certain goods and services, and get Congress to make implementation of the 16th Amendment conform to the Constitution by imposing a uniform tax rate on each dollar of income. I sure as hell do not want us stuck with both.

Okie, which path do you think more likely to be successful?

I think getting at least two-thirds of Congress to propose repeal of the 16th amendment less likely than getting more than half of Congress to make implementation of the 16th Amendment conform to the Constitution by imposing a uniform tax rate on each dollar of income.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

The only thing you are proving is you don't know anything about the constitution. Who decides the meaning of the constitution according to the constitution? The US supreme court does. You can't ignore their rulings simply by claiming they are wrong. The constitution states it is THEIR decision that matters. They decide the facts of the law.

Quote:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution

Once you accept that the judicial power is what decides the law in any case then you only need to accept stare decisis.

If you can't accept the simple fact that the Supreme court decides the meaning of law then you don't have much standing on your interpretation of the constitution.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The Constitution does not call for a 'uniform rate of taxation' on every dollar of income; only a uniform rate between all states.

Though I know you don't care about silly things like facts, I think you will find the phrase 'dollar of income' does not exist in the Constitution, and therefore should admit that your interpretation is merely that - not some sort of confirmed fact.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Perhaps you would capture a large percentage okie but a 20% sales tax is going to be a large incentive to find a source where you avoid the tax.

Today, people that buy on the internet from out of state are supposed to declare and pay their state sales tax. I bet less than 50% do. I wonder if even 10% make the declarations. A 15-20% discount is a large incentive to try to get around the tax.

It could be a nightmare to try to administer a national sales tax. What about a garage sale? At what point is it just a garage sale vs a business that should be collecting sales tax. I think the real problem in a sales tax comes in service businesses. Many services are exempt from sales tax in some states. Suddenly you are adding bureaucracy. You have the same issues you have with income. You need to keep complete books and income statements so that sales tax can be charged. Then, sales tax is presently charged only for the end user. That means it has to be determined who that is. If I buy something and later sell it at my garage sale. Should I have to pay sales tax on it or is the person buying it at my garage sale responsible for the sales tax?

Easier to administer might be a value added tax. Every time money changes hands for a good or a service a tax is collected. Of course this can add a lot to the cost of an item if it passes through several hands before getting to the final user.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; … (i.e., uniform, not progressive, per person)
definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

No "per dollar of income" anywhere in the constitution,
No "per dollar of income" in the definition of imposts
No "per dollar of income" in the definition of uniform"

Your argument is as valid as if you were trying to argue that the tax must all be of a "uniform" temperature.

Unless you can show the words you are adding are contained in any of your sources, you are just adding words that aren't there.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Perhaps you would capture a large percentage okie but a 20% sales tax is going to be a large incentive to find a source where you avoid the tax.

Yes, that is worrisome, but there are very large incentives for income to be sheltered now, so we shift the problem from one point in the economic cycle to another. I think there are reasons to believe retail sales can be monitored at least as well and better than income.

Quote:

Today, people that buy on the internet from out of state are supposed to declare and pay their state sales tax. I bet less than 50% do. I wonder if even 10% make the declarations. A 15-20% discount is a large incentive to try to get around the tax.

I thought the retailers were supposed to collect the tax?

Quote:

It could be a nightmare to try to administer a national sales tax. What about a garage sale? At what point is it just a garage sale vs a business that should be collecting sales tax. I think the real problem in a sales tax comes in service businesses. Many services are exempt from sales tax in some states. Suddenly you are adding bureaucracy. You have the same issues you have with income. You need to keep complete books and income statements so that sales tax can be charged. Then, sales tax is presently charged only for the end user. That means it has to be determined who that is. If I buy something and later sell it at my garage sale. Should I have to pay sales tax on it or is the person buying it at my garage sale responsible for the sales tax?

Services or labor is generally not taxed, Parados, only merchandise or parts, and each business would deal with this as they already do with state and local sales tax. There could be adjustments of practice, such as charging wholesale prices for parts, rather than trying to make a profit on pricing of parts , and higher prices for labor, to minimize sales tax, but I don't see this as being all that problematic.

One thing being overlooked here, that I have not mentioned, is the fact that merchandise prices will be reduced by the fact that the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, all will not be paying income tax, thus the merchandise can reach the retail buyer at a reduced cost. So although the sales tax may be 20%, the actual price of the product after tax will not be 20% more. I don't know how much more, maybe 10%, maybe less, maybe 5% more is all.

Garage sales, I don't think taxes should generally apply to used stuff or junk sold by anyone on a very limited basis without a tax number or tax license. Many municipalities require that people can only have garage sales once in a while, and if anyone set up a permanent garage sale, to sell new merchandise, a tax license would be required.

Quote:

Easier to administer might be a value added tax. Every time money changes hands for a good or a service a tax is collected. Of course this can add a lot to the cost of an item if it passes through several hands before getting to the final user.

That would be a nightmare, and would be very unworkable, again you knock out the advantage given to business by making the middle men pay taxes upon taxes. I would instead prefer to keep the income tax. The value added tax does not have the same advantages as the national sales tax at the retaile level only.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

We're currently stuck with the 16th Amendment empowering Congress to tax income. If we were to also impose a tax on personal spending or on the price of certain goods and services, we would still be stuck with the current income tax. Either we repeal the 16th Amendment, or we forget the tax on spending or on certain goods and services, and get Congress to make implementation of the 16th Amendment conform to the Constitution by imposing a uniform tax rate on each dollar of income. I sure as hell do not want us stuck with both.

Okie, which path do you think more likely to be successful?

I don't give either one much hope, ican, so I admit this is a philosophical debate, probably not much more. I give your hope of an absolute flat tax no hope whatsoever, none, zero, none. I would give the national sales tax somewhat more possibility, but probably still practically nil, maybe one chance in 20. There have been a few politicians that have seriously pushed the idea, but with little success, but possibly if the economy / political climate changed, and we had a very good leader to emerge, it could happen a few years down the road.

1 Reply

@parados,

The US Supreme Court is not empowered by the USA Constitution to be a dictatorial branch of the federal government. It has a USA Constitution imposed requirement to interpret the USA Constitution as written and not as made to conform to other opinions, laws and judicial decisions.

Quote:

Article VI. … This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Constitution does not call for a 'uniform rate of taxation' on every dollar of income; only a uniform rate between all states.

Though I know you don't care about silly things like facts, I think you will find the phrase 'dollar of income' does not exist in the Constitution, and therefore should admit that your interpretation is merely that - not some sort of confirmed fact.

The Constitution DOES CALL EXPLICITLY for a 'uniform rate of taxation' on "the number of free persons"--"excluding Indians not taxed"--within each state, as modified by the 13th Amendment adopted in 1865.

Quote:

Article I. Section 2. … 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.

But all "those bound to service for a term of years" and "three fifths of all other Persons" (e.g., slaves) no longer legally existed after the 13th Amendment was adopted more than 48 years before the adoption of the 16th Amendment.

Quote:

Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Not only that, the Constitution also states:

Quote:

Article I. Section 9. … No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Consequently, prior to the 16th Amendment "uniform" meant that taxes on each state were uniformly determined based on the "the whole number of free persons" in each state and NOT ON THE WEALTH OF THOSE PERSONS OR THE WEALTH OF THE STATES.

Nothing in the 16th Amendment changed the meaning of "uniform" to mean tax rates could be variable depending on the dollars of income received by "free persons."

Quote:

Amendment XVI (1913)
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 of enumeration.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I give your hope of an absolute flat tax no hope whatsoever, none, zero, none.

I think that's tantamount to deciding there is no hope for rescuing the decline and eventual distruction of the USA's economy and its free enterprise capitalism.

circa 1778: Lord Woodhouselee wrote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

Unless, we STOP Congress's current efforts to provide a majority of the voters money from the public treasury paid for by a minority of the voters, the USA'S DEVOLUTION AWAY FROM "LIBERTY" INTO A SYSTEM OF "BONDAGE" is assured. We have no alternative than trying to do what seems now impossible. We must find a way to convince the American people and the Congress it eventually chooses to elect, that it is not only possible; it is probably essential to move to a totally flat tax.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Yep. I've said it before. He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. I think at such time as we have more Pauls than Peters, the democratic republic of free people governing themselves as envisioned by the Founders will be kaput. And we will be in bondage to a government that can do whatever it wants to anybody.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

OK! Foxfyre, we agree! It's time for us to figure out how we shall make the alleged impossible, probable. To fail at that is intolerable.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Unless the political climate changes drastically, there will be no true flat tax, ican. A true flat tax, the kind you are talking about, has not existed in my lifetime, I'm not sure how far back you would have to go to find one, if it ever existed? Even Foxfyre's "flat tax" is not a flat tax. She talked about minimums not taxed, plus a couple of deductions and so forth, so already her tax is far from flat. You will not get more than 5 or 10% of the population to agree with a true flat tax, and we all know something with that little support will never have a snowballs chance.

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie, you said, "Unless the political climate changes drastically, there will be no true flat tax."

Please do not conclude that we cannot ourselves change the political climate sufficiently to obtain a true flat tax.

I recommend you read Edgar Guest's poem, Can't.

Remember my friend, prior to reaching the moon, humans never reached the moon.

Prior to learning to fly a jet airplane at age 65, I never flew a jet airplane. Subsequently, I convinced the FAA to grant me the privilege of flying that beautiful thing as part of our business's charter service.

I am not unique. There are lots more people in this world than me, who when they decide they want something hard to get, they go after it anyway, and they get it.

By the way, one of the extra benefits of an absolutely flat/uniform tax that will help sell it, is the slimplicity of administering and enforcing it relatively free of corruption.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know