Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due

[Famspear]

Now, y'all leave Steve alone! He's my buddy now.

What a maroon. The constitution doesn't just allow it, it REQUIRES it. That's what apportionment of a tax on property based on census population would have to do. Or a capitation tax that has to be apportioned among the states based on census data rather than current population.

Actually, in fairness to Steve, I think he was referring to the constitutionality vel non of charging different income tax rates based on the state of residence, etc.

Y'all just don't understand Steve the way I do.

(I think I'm scarin' myself, here).

Webhick, do me a favor. If I start claiming to be able to channel the thoughts of Dave Champion, just shoot me.

[webhick]

Webhick, do me a favor. If I start claiming to be able to channel the thoughts of Dave Champion, just shoot me.

Oh, I'll do a whole lot worse than that. I'll finally get to use that audio torture set that came as a free gift with my last order from "Illuminati Discount and Supply." They managed to get Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, and Whitney Houston to team up into one amazing train-wreck of an album! According to the liner notes, all their vocals had to be recorded separately because there wasn't room for more than one colossal ego at a time in the stadium.

Of course, when I bore of watching your ears bleed from that, I'll pop in "American Idol Favorites" and you can listen to last season's contestants slaughter your absolute favorite songs until you gouge your eyes out. There's bonus material too! You will also get to hear stellar interviews from the dumbest contestants! Marvel as they are unable to identify the greatest bands in the world! Be surprised by their inability to know what any of the lyrics mean!

There's just so many possibilities in this little box. I wonder how long you'll last.

[Famspear]

Webhick, do me a favor. If I start claiming to be able to channel the thoughts of Dave Champion, just shoot me.

Oh, I'll do a whole lot worse than that. I'll finally get to use that audio torture set that came as a free gift with my last order from "Illuminati Discount and Supply." They managed to get Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, and Whitney Houston to team up into one amazing train-wreck of an album! According to the liner notes, all their vocals had to be recorded separately because there wasn't room for more than one colossal ego at a time in the stadium.

Of course, when I bore of watching your ears bleed from that, I'll pop in "American Idol Favorites" and you can listen to last season's contestants slaughter your absolute favorite songs until you gouge your eyes out. There's bonus material too! You will also get to hear stellar interviews from the dumbest contestants! Marvel as they are unable to identify the greatest bands in the world! Be surprised by their inability to know what any of the lyrics mean!

There's just so many possibilities in this little box. I wonder how long you'll last.

As a general proposition, none of that will work as torture for me, webhick. Years ago, I used to be a top forty radio disc jockey. During years of playing the same crappy songs over and over, a gazillion time an hour, 6 days a week, I became innoculated -- essentially impervious to conventional audio torture techniques.

Except for Porter Wagoner (rest in peace!). Don't get that stuff around me.

[Demosthenes]

As a general proposition, none of that will work as torture for me, webhick. Years ago, I used to be a top forty radio disc jockey. During years of playing the same crappy songs over and over, a gazillion time an hour, 6 days a week, I became innoculated -- essentially impervious to conventional audio torture techniques.

Famous last words. Challenging the top Illuminati torturer is never a good idea.

[Famspear]

Famous last words. Challenging the top Illuminati torturer is never a good idea.

I have to admit, the idea of having to listen to the American Idol stuff does make me feel a little queasy.

[Cpt Banjo]

Except for Porter Wagoner (rest in peace!). Don't get that stuff around me.

I have this strange vision of Famspear's head exploding as Porter and all the Wagonmasters tear into a tune -- kinda like the Slim Whitman effect in Mars Attacks.

[grixit]

"::hic:: I love you man! ::hic:: I want you to ::hic:: know that rrreally ::hic:: app ree shee ate ::hic:: your op-onyuns ::hic::"

SteveSy/Famspear, coming to a fansite near you.

[Nikki]

24 straight hours of Tiny Tim covers of Barry Manilowe songs

[Paul]

Actually, in fairness to Steve, I think he was referring to the constitutionality vel non of charging different income tax rates based on the state of residence, etc.

Actually, that is exactly how I understood him, and my post is the correct response. IF the income tax is direct, it must be apportioned according to population, which means that the tax rate on a low-per-capita-income state must be imposed at a higher rate in order to have the same per capita tax as a higher income state.

[SteveSy]

Actually, in fairness to Steve, I think he was referring to the constitutionality vel non of charging different income tax rates based on the state of residence, etc.

Actually, that is exactly how I understood him, and my post is the correct response. IF the income tax is direct, it must be apportioned according to population, which means that the tax rate on a low-per-capita-income state must be imposed at a higher rate in order to have the same per capita tax as a higher income state.

I meant the government could do it without apportionment. The government doesn't get to pick and choose where the tax will be higher under the apportionment rule, its based on the census. If it is direct but does not require apportionment then they could lay the tax however they wished because uniformity doesn't apply to direct taxes either. I thought I made myself clear, guess not. If they wanted they could lay a 60% tax on only NY residents, or simply make only Warren Buffet and Bill Gates pay and it would be perfectly constitutional. It would give the government the power to destroy anyone or thing.

[LPC]

Actually, in fairness to Steve, I think he was referring to the constitutionality vel non of charging different income tax rates based on the state of residence, etc.

Actually, that is exactly how I understood him, and my post is the correct response. IF the income tax is direct, it must be apportioned according to population, which means that the tax rate on a low-per-capita-income state must be imposed at a higher rate in order to have the same per capita tax as a higher income state.

I meant the government could do it without apportionment. The government doesn't get to pick and choose where the tax will be higher under the apportionment rule, its based on the census. If it is direct but does not require apportionment then they could lay the tax however they wished because uniformity doesn't apply to direct taxes either. I thought I made myself clear, guess not.

Gibberish.

Not that it matters much but I think your analysis is wrong. The government selects a figure and apportions it according to population. A place like Idaho would probably have the same rate per person as CA.

For the sake of argument if the government needed to raise $110,000 and there are only two states it could be laid like the following:

State A has 100,000 residents
State B has 10,000 residents

State A would tax its citizens at $1 per person and so would State B even though State A's total apportioned amount is 10X State B's . Of course in reality either State could most likely collect the money however they wished as long as they met the apportioned amount.

If the tax were a capitation, and neither State A nor State B had any slaves, then Sybil's figures are correct.

But if the tax that is apportioned is an income tax, then everything changes. If the residents of State A earned $100 each, while the residents of State B earned $50 each, then the residents of State A would have to be taxed at 1% of their incomes in order to raise the $100,000 needed from State A, while the residents of State B would have to be taxed at 2% in order to raise the $10,000 needed from State B. So the tax rate on State B would be twice the tax rate on State A.

Such is apportionment.

Because apportionment and uniformity are conflicting goals. An income tax that is uniform would result in the same rate in every state, while an income tax that is apportioned would NOT result in the same rate in every state.

[LPC]

For the sake of argument if the government needed to raise $110,000 and there are only two states it could be laid like the following:

State A has 100,000 residents
State B has 10,000 residents

State A would tax its citizens at $1 per person and so would State B even though State A's total apportioned amount is 10X State B's . Of course in reality either State could most likely collect the money however they wished as long as they met the apportioned amount.

If the tax were a capitation, and neither State A nor State B had any slaves, then Sybil's figures are correct.

Allow me to point out that, for capitations, apportionment is largely meaningless unless there are slaves.

If you apportion the amount to be raised among the states in proportion to their populations, and then calculate the tax per person in each state, it will always be the same per person in each state as long as each person is counted as one person. Only if the apportionment formula counts some persons as three-fifths of a person will the tax per person change. (I'm ignoring the differentials that might occur due to changes in population between the decentenial censuses, because those differentials are clearly incidental to the purposes of the apportionment process.)

I therefore have some sympathy for those scholars who believe that the apportionment process is archaic and irrelevant following the abolition of slavery.

Which makes me wonder if those who insist on apportionment are not racist, in the same way that those who carry on about "14th Amendment Citizenship" are racist. Because what is the purpose of apportionment if there are no three-fifths persons?

[LPC]

I meant the government could do it [impose an income tax] without apportionment.

WTF?

[SteveSy]

I meant the government could do it without apportionment. The government doesn't get to pick and choose where the tax will be higher under the apportionment rule, its based on the census. If it is direct but does not require apportionment then they could lay the tax however they wished because uniformity doesn't apply to direct taxes either. I thought I made myself clear, guess not.

Gibberish.

What's gibberish Dan?

If in fact the 16th allows for a direct tax without apportionment then congress could lay a tax without apportionment and without uniformity. This means they could lay a tax just on you and it would be perfectly constitutional. Its not rocket science, I'm sure you'll try and make it look like it is.

[.]

gibberish

Only Sybil's usual gibberish, no matter the thread. He's about to be beaten to his usual pulp, legal or otherwise and doesn't even realize it. As he never does and never will, as is typical of all TP-type personalities.

Go, Sybil! We rely on you for amusement as Van Pelt (sadly) and various other miscreants are banned.

[SteveSy]

gibberish

Only Sybil's usual gibberish, no matter the thread. He's about to be beaten to his usual pulp, legal or otherwise and doesn't even realize it. As he never does and never will, as is typical of all TP-type personalities.

Go, Sybil! We rely on you for amusement as Van Pelt (sadly) and various other miscreants are banned.

Nice troll post, go "."! The irony is they say the same thing about one of you guys on the TP boards anytime one of you post on there. See we have the kooky TP's and we have the kooky TA's each on the extreme and both thinking their verbal gymnastics are superior. lol

[Famspear]

If in fact the 16th allows for a direct tax without apportionment then congress could lay a tax without apportionment and without uniformity. This means they could lay a tax just on you and it would be perfectly constitutional. Its not rocket science, I'm sure you'll try and make it look like it is.

I thought we had finished this discussion. This is part of the reason that I think the Brushaber opinion is so convoluted.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and posit that if Congress were to pass an income tax that lacked uniformity, someone would challenge the constitutionality thereof.

Assume this scenario:

1. The DOJ argues that the tax in question is a "direct" tax and is therefore not required to be "uniform".

2. The DOJ argues in the same breath argue that the Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that an income tax be apportioned, even to the extent that the tax is deemed to be a "direct" tax.

3. The DOJ argues that therefore the income tax is required to be neither apportioned nor uniform.

4. The DOJ argues that, therefore, the unapportioned, non-uniform income tax is constitutional.

Result? The court will rule that all income taxes are indirect taxes (rejecting the line of cases that interpret the 16th Amendment as having authorized a "direct tax without apportionment," and embracing the line of cases that say that the Amendment simply "put all income taxes back into the indirect category"), and that the income tax in question, lacking uniformity, is unconstitutional.

Problem solved.

Steve, I know that the inconsistent, contradictory interpretations of the Brushaber decision can be frustrating, especially for a mind that seeks to reconcile all inconsistencies. Sometimes, reconciling all inconsistencies is not possible. Sometimes courts say things that are not "logically" consistent. As I believe I said before, at least two contradictory sets of interpretations have followed the Brushaber decision. Each line of interpretations gets us to the same result: No federal income taxes are required to be apportioned. And your concern -- that under one of the interpretations, Congress would or could enact an income tax that the courts would uphold even though neither apportioned nor uniform -- is not one that keeps me up at night worrying.

Again, the Brushaber opinion can be a bear. This is, in part, why we have the rule of stare decisis. A case is important primarily for WHAT the court decides, and less important for HOW and WHY the court came to that decision.

[SteveSy]

If in fact the 16th allows for a direct tax without apportionment then congress could lay a tax without apportionment and without uniformity. This means they could lay a tax just on you and it would be perfectly constitutional. Its not rocket science, I'm sure you'll try and make it look like it is.

I thought we had finished this discussion. This is part of the reason that I think the Brushaber opinion is so convoluted.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and posit that if Congress were to pass an income tax that lacked uniformity, someone would challenge the constitutionality thereof.

Assume this scenario:

1. The DOJ argues that the tax in question is a "direct" tax and is therefore not required to be "uniform".

2. The DOJ argues in the same breath argue that the Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that an income tax be apportioned, even to the extent that the tax is deemed to be a "direct" tax.

3. The DOJ argues that therefore the income tax is required to be neither apportioned nor uniform.

4. The DOJ argues that, therefore, the unapportioned, non-uniform income tax is constitutional.

Result? The court will rule that all income taxes are indirect taxes (rejecting the line of cases that interpret the 16th Amendment as having authorized a "direct tax without apportionment," and embracing the line of cases that say that the Amendment simply "put all income taxes back into the indirect category"), and that the income tax in question, lacking uniformity, is unconstitutional.

Problem solved.

They would find it constitutional some way....Congress does this already to some degree. Alaskan oil comes to mind, there was a clear violation of the uniformity rule in that case. The court would just reason it in such a way as to make uniformity meaningless. Probably something like "The tax on NY residents doesn't violate the uniformity rule. NY residents are taxed the same in all States and therefore it doesn't violate the geographic rule. The Uniformity Clause requires that an excise tax apply, at the same rate, in all portions of the United States where the subject of the tax is found."

[.]

Nice troll post

Not at all. Just an observation. Many here can attest to the same.

[Famspear]

Steve is talking about this case involving the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax, from the United States Supreme Court:

The Uniformity Clause conditions Congress' power to impose indirect taxes. 9 It provides that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Art. I, §8, cl. 1. The debates in the Constitutional Convention provide little evidence of the Framers' intent, 10 but the concerns giving rise to the Clause identify its purpose more clearly. The Committee of Detail proposed as a remedy for interstate trade barriers that the power to regulate commerce among the States be vested in the national government, and the Convention agreed. See 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 308 (rev. ed. 1937); C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 567-570 (1928). Some States, however, remained apprehensive that the regionalism that had marked the Confederation would persist. Id., at 586-588. There was concern that the national government would use its power over commerce to the disadvantage of particular States. The Uniformity Clause was proposed as one of several measures designed to limit the exercise of that power. See 2 M. Farrand, supra, at 417-418; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 103-106 (1900). As Justice Story explained:

"[The purpose of the Clause] was to cut off all undue preferences of one State over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different States, might exist. The agriculture, commerce, or manufactures of one State might be built upon the ruins of those of another; and a combination of a few States in Congress might secure a monopoly of certain branches of trade and business to themselves, to the injury, if not to the destruction, of their less favored neighbors." 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §957 (T. Cooley ed. 1873).

See also 3 Annals of Cong. 378-379 (1792) (remarks of Hugh Williamson); Address of Luther Martin to the Maryland Legislature (Nov. 29, 1787), reprinted in 3 M. Farrand, supra, at 205.

This general purpose, however, does not define the precise scope of the Clause. The one issue that has been raised repeatedly is whether the requirement of uniformity encompasses some notion of equality. It was settled fairly early that the Clause does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580 (1884), a "tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found." Id., at 594.

Nor does the Clause prevent Congress from defining the subject of a tax by drawing distinctions between similar classes. In the Head Money Cases, supra, the Court recognized that in imposing a head tax on persons coming into this country, Congress could choose to tax those persons who immigrated through the ports, but not those who immigrated at inland cities. As the Court explained, "the evil to be remedied by this legislation has no existence on our inland borders, and immigration in that quarter needed no such regulation." Id., at 595. The tax applied to all ports alike, and the Court concluded that "there is substantial uniformity within the meaning and purpose of the Constitution." Ibid. Subsequent cases have confirmed that the Framers did not intend to restrict Congress' ability to define the class of objects to be taxed. They intended only that the tax apply wherever the classification is found. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 106 (1900); 11 Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521-522 (1899).

--from United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74, 103 S. Ct. 2239, 83-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9386 (1983) (bolding added).

The Court ruled that the tax did not violate the Uniformity Clause. The CCH commentary on this case is as follows (in part):

Although the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act exempts from taxation oil produced from certain wells in Alaska, the exclusion of a geographically defined class of oil from taxation does not violate the Uniformity Clause of the U. S. Constitution. That clause provides only that a tax apply uniformly wherever the classification subject to the tax is found. Congress did not seek to benefit the state of Alaska (which bears a heavy windfall profit tax burden) by granting it an undue preference; rather, the separate treatment was justified by the disproportionate cost and difficulties associated with extracting oil from the exempt region.

(bolding added).

So, what's your problem, Steve? Is it that the courts seem to bend over backwards to uphold the constitutionality of a tax statute?