Lost Horizontal claims Quatloos can not rebut Cryer motion

[Quixote]

I've challenged you and everyone else on this board to produce a single quote from anyone during or shortly after the ratification of the constitution that said such a thing.

And then, as is your wont, ignored all the responses.

[notorial dissent]

Steve, I love the way you contradict yourself in the same sentence.

.they did not. They had the power to tax certain incomes.

That is exactly what I said, they already had the power to tax incomes and who knows how a court at the early days would have construed that power. Pollock only said they couldn’t tax certain types of incomes the way they were at the time, not that they couldn’t tax them at all.

...based on an erroneous belief that income taxes are absolutely necessary ...

and this has what to do with anything?? I merely stated that if they followed your reading, they would be far worse than they now are, and that is a true statement. Your response is irrelevant to the matter at hand. You still haven’t answered as to what your particular fetish for apportionment is??? Do you actually know is another question??? Enquiring minds want to know.

I am not going to get into a discourse with about the growth of government, as that is not the issue at hand. The issue is that the income tax is valid and legal and whether you like how it is applied is as irrelevant as you yourself are. Nice try at a hijack, but no cookie.

[natty]

I quoted from the federalist papers. As it stated some things are better left alone if it’s inconvenient or the use of it is inequitable. That’s why the direct tax clause is there. It’s difficult, inconvenient and it directly gets to a taxpayer’s pocket book and most importantly it taxes equal to representation.

Hamilton also said in No. 21, "The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country are considered as having a near relation with each other." So he is recognizing a fact of the time that wealth was tied to the land. At the time, 99% of the country was rural. And slaves were counted as three-fifths a person.

Which leads to the insurmountable conclusion that apportionment makes absolutely no sense outside the issue of slavery.

[SteveSy]

I quoted from the federalist papers. As it stated some things are better left alone if it’s inconvenient or the use of it is inequitable. That’s why the direct tax clause is there. It’s difficult, inconvenient and it directly gets to a taxpayer’s pocket book and most importantly it taxes equal to representation.

Hamilton also said in No. 21, "The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country are considered as having a near relation with each other." So he is recognizing a fact of the time that wealth was tied to the land. At the time, 99% of the country was rural. And slaves were counted as three-fifths a person.

Which leads to the insurmountable conclusion that apportionment makes absolutely no sense outside the issue of slavery.

Using your understanding of what an indirect tax is and how it can operatate Natty, exactly what security did the direct tax clause offer? None as far as I can tell. This is where I find your theory deficient.

Let's assume for the sake of argument you're right, the direct tax clause was only for slavery. Let's examine what merit that has in light of your understanding of indirect taxes. I think you'll inconveniently find that either the founders were totally ignorant and failed to see the gaping holes in their worthless security or two you can’t be right on indirect taxes. I’ll refrain from being arrogant or taking personal jabs if you’ll do the same. I’m really interested in seeing this through. I think there is a good chance we can find common ground at least on this subject.

Assuming you're correct;

Scenario 1:
The government can not tax property with an indirect tax so that leaves taxing slaves out. However they can tax income so they tax the income of the land owner. Obviously a man with a 100 slaves working his property is going to have more personal income than say a man in the North who pays for his help. Slave owners are disproportionally taxed. Thus the "security" is worthless.


I have many more but let's start with this one.

[Paul]

Stevesy is once again arguing that Brushaber was wrong.

[LPC]

Stevesy is once again arguing that Brushaber was wrong.

Just Brushaber? In another thread, Sybil is explaining why Springer was wrong, and he doesn't seem to agree with the decisions in Hylton. He does seem to agree with Pollock, but that's only because he doesn't understand it.

When I read Sybil's comments, I am reminded of the dictum by King Alfonso "the Wise" that "Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe." Similarly, if Sybil had been present at the creation of the Constitution, I am sure that he could have given the founding fathers some useful hints for what it was that they actually intended, which seems to have been so different from what they actually did.

[natty]

Let's assume for the sake of argument you're right, the direct tax clause was only for slavery. Let's examine what merit that has in light of your understanding of indirect taxes. I think you'll inconveniently find that either the founders were totally ignorant and failed to see the gaping holes in their worthless security or two you can’t be right on indirect taxes.

Stop right there.
First, this argument is about apportionment. So the direct vs. indirect argument is a rabbit trail.
Second, wherever did you get the idea that the three rules of taxation- apportionment, uniformity, and prohibition on taxing exports- was about "security"? Those rules are all about fairness.

The intent of the Constitution was to give Congress full plenary power of taxation. I am saying that if it weren't for slavery, the Constitution could have read, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, except on articles exported from any State, and all Taxes shall be uniform throughout the United States."
(There is an ancillary argument for apportionment based on physiocratic beliefs, but the primary drive of apportionment was slavery.)

[.]

Careful, you're gonna cause Sybil to blow a gasket.

[Paul]

Just Brushaber?

Sorry, I was just bringing up an old, oft-repeated argument with stevesy. Brushaber held that the 16th Amendment did not grant congress the authority to impose a direct, unapportioned tax. Stevesy (and a lot of tps) try to use this to prove that the 16th Amendment doesn't authorize a tax on their incomes (wages, sovereign citizens, or whatever) because that would be a direct tax. Howver, Brushaber rested its conclusion on the premise that taxes on income are by nature excises. So, when stevesy argues that a tax on any particular type of income is not an excise, he's actually undermining the premise of Brushaber. If the premise is gone, the conclusion no longer holds, and we're back to the plain language of the 16th Amendment that does not limit the types of incomes that can be taxed without apportionment.[/quote]

[SteveSy]

The intent of the Constitution was to give Congress full plenary power of taxation. I am saying that if it weren't for slavery, the Constitution could have read, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, except on articles exported from any State, and all Taxes shall be uniform throughout the United States."
(There is an ancillary argument for apportionment based on physiocratic beliefs, but the primary drive of apportionment was slavery.)

I know you're wrong about apportionment and slavery. Sure slavery was very important but it was not the only reason for it. You need to read the anti-federalist papers to see what opposition existed against the constitution. People had a inherit fear of government and taxes. After all we just had a revolution over it. People had little trust in a new government, they certainly would have granted the government unlimited taxing authority under the rule of uniformity alone. Especially the way the courts have interpreted uniformity these days...it might as well not even exist because it offers no protection whatsoever.

[SteveSy]

Just Brushaber?

Sorry, I was just bringing up an old, oft-repeated argument with stevesy. Brushaber held that the 16th Amendment did not grant congress the authority to impose a direct, unapportioned tax. Stevesy (and a lot of tps) try to use this to prove that the 16th Amendment doesn't authorize a tax on their incomes (wages, sovereign citizens, or whatever) because that would be a direct tax. Howver, Brushaber rested its conclusion on the premise that taxes on income are by nature excises. So, when stevesy argues that a tax on any particular type of income is not an excise, he's actually undermining the premise of Brushaber. If the premise is gone, the conclusion no longer holds, and we're back to the plain language of the 16th Amendment that does not limit the types of incomes that can be taxed without apportionment.

[/quote]

There is another way to look at it. Brushaber never claimed all taxes on any income is an excise. They said income taxes are in their nature an excise. You need to understand what "in its nature" means. It means to act like or carries the qualities and characteristics of something. Income taxes are in their nature excise taxes because they act like excises. Now go look up excise in the dictionary or find where the SC has defined an excise. It doesn’t include taxing the average person’s wage.
Brushaber's not wrong, your understanding of it is. You just need to learn what simple phrases like "in its nature" means. When someone says X is in its nature Y someone is not adding X to Y they are saying X acts like Y. To see how X acts you look up Y and not assume Y now includes X.

[Cpt Banjo]

Now go look up excise in the dictionary or find where the SC has defined an excise. It doesn’t include taxing the average person’s wage.

Guess again. Here's the most current definition of an excise:

...this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned...

Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property.

Fernandez v. Weiner, 326 U.S. 340 (1945)

Accordingly, the current definition is certainly sufficient to support the income tax as an excise, since after all it taxes the receipt of income.

[natty]

I know you're wrong about apportionment and slavery. Sure slavery was very important but it was not the only reason for it. You need to read the anti-federalist papers to see what opposition existed against the constitution. People had a inherit fear of government and taxes. After all we just had a revolution over it. People had little trust in a new government, they certainly would have granted the government unlimited taxing authority under the rule of uniformity alone. Especially the way the courts have interpreted uniformity these days...it might as well not even exist because it offers no protection whatsoever.

What do you mean by "protection"?
Yes, people had a fear of govt, but they recognized it as a "necessary evil". You seem to believe they wanted govt abolished.
That's your problem, stevie. I can read the Anti-Federalist for understanding. You read it as if they won the argument. The Anti-Federalists LOST.
It is clear from the Federalist Papers that Congress' power to lay and collect taxes was limited by only politics and reason.

[natty]

There is another way to look at it. Brushaber never claimed all taxes on any income is an excise. They said income taxes are in their nature an excise. You need to understand what "in its nature" means. It means to act like or carries the qualities and characteristics of something. Income taxes are in their nature excise taxes because they act like excises. Now go look up excise in the dictionary or find where the SC has defined an excise. It doesn’t include taxing the average person’s wage.
Brushaber's not wrong, your understanding of it is. You just need to learn what simple phrases like "in its nature" means. When someone says X is in its nature Y someone is not adding X to Y they are saying X acts like Y. To see how X acts you look up Y and not assume Y now includes X.

stevie, this is not an insult, but you seriously lack an understanding of simple logical principles. You have it backwards.

"Taxation on income is in its nature an excise."
Logic says: This is income, therefore it is an excise.
Illogical rhetoric says: This is an excise, therefore it is an income tax.

Logic seeks truth- Rhetoric seeks to win an argument.

[Paul]

Stevesy, if the Brushaber court meant "in its nature" to mean what you say, then it's conclusion that the 16th Amendment did not allow a direct, unapportioned tax does not follow. It reached that conclusion only because it believed that ALL taxes on incomes are excises. If there were any instance where a tax on income would be direct, the court would have had to explain why the 16th Amendment did not apply in that instance in order to conclude that it did not allow an unapportioned direct tax. So which instance did it discuss where a tax on incomes would be direct, and the 16th Amendment did not apply?

[Quixote]

There is another way to look at it. Brushaber never claimed all taxes on any income is an excise. They said income taxes are in their nature an excise. You need to understand what "in its nature" means. It means to act like or carries the qualities and characteristics of something. Income taxes are in their nature excise taxes because they act like excises. Now go look up excise in the dictionary or find where the SC has defined an excise. It doesn’t include taxing the average person’s wage.

Have it your way, the income tax is not an excise; it only has the characteristics of an excise. One of those characteristics is that it is not a direct tax. So a tax on income is not a direct tax and apportionment is irrelevant.

You keep forgetting that Congress has always had the power to tax the average person’s wages, the transfer of those wages from the employer to the employee, and the income resuting from that transfer. The only question the Brushaber Court was considering was if the lattermost tax was direct or indirect. According to you, they held it to be essentially indirect, an excise-lite, and therefore did not need to be apportioned.