Flawed Logic

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I already see some of you trying desperately to try and claim Pollock sustained income taxes on the average employee.

Yes, there is some desperation here, Steve, but the rest of us see clearly who is feeling the desperation. It's you.

You are desperately trying to cling to your position that a passing reference to a tax on occupations or employments as that term is used in Pollock somehow cannot be shorthand for, and cannot mean, a tax on INCOME from occupations or employments.

That's pretty desperate, Steve.

Before we continue with that, though, let's split some legal hairs: You would be correct to say that an income tax on the the income of the average employee was not specifically at issue in Pollock, so the Court didn't specifically "rule" on an income tax on the income of an average employee. The Pollock Court's statements on taxes on income from employments, etc., were arguably dicta. Unfortunately for your delusion, that does not help you.

The Pollock Court did indeed reiterate the point that the tax on income from employments, etc., is an indirect tax. How do we know this?

In part, by reading what the Court later wrote about what it had said in Pollock.

In Brushaber,the Supreme Court reiterated its own understand about what the Court had said in the Pollock case:

[ . . . ] the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise [ . . . ] Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations', its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. [ . . . ] The whole law [i.e., the whole 1894 tax law] was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.

(bolding added)

--from Brushaber.

Despite the fact that SteveSy struggles mightily to pretend that a tax on occupations or employments cannot be an "income tax," the Supreme Court itself, in 1916, views its own opinion in the Pollock case not the way Steve views Pollock, but instead the way the Quatloos regulars view Pollock. The Brushaber Court, in referring to its opinion in Pollock, equated "income from professions, trades, employments, or vocations" and "a tax on occupations and labor", and did this all in the same paragraph, essentially using the latter phrase as shorthand for the former phrase.

I guess that in SteveSy's mind, the 1916 Court was just "desperate." People who do not accept SteveSy's view of the universe are "desperate". And federal judges -- whose rulings uniformly contradict Steve's view -- are just corrupt people appointed by other people trying to "usurp" the Constitution -- or, at least, that's what SteveSy CLAIMS he believes.

Steve, I think you stated a while back that you do pay your federal income taxes. If so, I'm glad. I think you would have a hard time convincing most juries about your Cheek defense. You do not suffer from a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. You suffer from having studied the law on your own and having made your own incorrect, idiosyncratic conclusion that the law is what you say it is.

Yes, Steve, if I were you I would definitely report all my income, get my return prepared properly, and pay those taxes on time. You don't want to have to fall back on the kind of pseudo-logic you post here in Quatloos.

[Famspear]

And I suppose that in the year 2008, SteveSy really, really believes, deep down in his heart, that he has a better understanding of what the Court meant in Pollock in 1895, some 113 years ago, than the understanding held by the Justices of the Supreme Court itelf in the year 1916, some 92 years ago.

This is another interesting aspect of the delusion from which protesters suffer. On the one hand, they argue that the reason all the court rulings go against them is that the judges are corrupt, etc., but on the other hand they cling tenaciously to their own idiosyncratic interpretations of various words in the opinions of the same court cases, and argue that although the courts ruled ONE way, the "real" law is what the protesters believe the law to be. The protesters have tried to convince themselves that although the courts somehow always reach the "wrong" conclusions, the courts still somehow manage to put "words" into the published opinions which, if everyone would just interpret the way the protesters want those words interpreted, would support the thing the protesters so desperately want: a win.

It must be so hard -- you know, being a loser all the time.

[SteveSy]

[ . . . ] the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise [ . . . ] Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations', its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. [ . . . ] The whole law [i.e., the whole 1894 tax law] was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.

(bolding added)

--from Brushaber.

Let's fill in the "..." part

entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

[Famspear]

It's no use, Steve.

[SteveSy]

And I suppose that in the year 2008, SteveSy really, really believes, deep down in his heart, that he has a better understanding of what the Court meant in Pollock in 1895, some 113 years ago, than the understanding held by the Justices of the Supreme Court itelf in the year 1916, some 92 years ago.

This is another interesting aspect of the delusion from which protesters suffer. On the one hand, they argue that the reason all the court rulings go against them is that the judges are corrupt, etc., but on the other hand they cling tenaciously to their own idiosyncratic interpretations of various words in the opinions of the same court cases, and argue that although the courts ruled ONE way, the "real" law is what the protesters believe the law to be. The protesters have tried to convince themselves that although the courts somehow always reach the "wrong" conclusions, the courts still somehow manage to put "words" into the published opinions which, if everyone would just interpret the way the protesters want those words interpreted, would support the thing the protesters so desperately want: a win.

It must be so hard -- you know, being a loser all the time.

The delusion is all yours....

Anyone researching the matter and seeing how things were back during the ratification of the constitution would know, by common sense, there's no way the citizens would have fought so hard for the direct tax clause and taxes in general. They did this just so that they could be protected against a trivial one time flat capitation tax but let the federal government have the ability to seize an unlimited percentage of their earnings on a perpetual basis without apportionment via representation. Its just plain delusional to think such a thing.

Read the anti-federalist papers sometime....there's no way in hell they would have accepted such a power in the hands of the federal government. They tared, feathered and burned down the houses of tax collectors for a trivial tax 1% tax on printed materials just prior to revolution.

[Famspear]

And I suppose that in the year 2008, SteveSy really, really believes, deep down in his heart, that he has a better understanding of what the Court meant in Pollock in 1895, some 113 years ago, than the understanding held by the Justices of the Supreme Court itelf in the year 1916, some 92 years ago.

This is another interesting aspect of the delusion from which protesters suffer. On the one hand, they argue that the reason all the court rulings go against them is that the judges are corrupt, etc., but on the other hand they cling tenaciously to their own idiosyncratic interpretations of various words in the opinions of the same court cases, and argue that although the courts ruled ONE way, the "real" law is what the protesters believe the law to be. The protesters have tried to convince themselves that although the courts somehow always reach the "wrong" conclusions, the courts still somehow manage to put "words" into the published opinions which, if everyone would just interpret the way the protesters want those words interpreted, would support the thing the protesters so desperately want: a win.

It must be so hard -- you know, being a loser all the time.

The delusion is all yours....

Anyone researching the matter and seeing how things were back during the ratification of the constitution would know, by common sense, there's no way the citizens would have fought so hard for the direct tax clause and taxes in general. They did this just so that they could be protected against a trivial one time flat capitation tax but let the federal government have the ability to seize an unlimited percentage of their earnings on a perpetual basis without apportionment via representation. Its just plain delusional to think such a thing.

Read the anti-federalist papers sometime....there's no way in hell they would have accepted such a power in the hands of the federal government.

It's no use, Steve.

[SteveSy]

It's no use, Steve.

You're right about one thing, I would lose...

United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 02/06/1980)
Francisco's challenge is premised upon two theories: (1) the income tax is an indirect tax; and (2) income received in exchange for labor or services is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a direct tax, thus refuting the argument based upon his first theory. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 19, 36 S. Ct. 236, 242, 60 L. Ed. 493 (1916) (the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to take the income tax "out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes").

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 11/27/1990)
Dickstein's argument that the sixteenth amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens similarly is devoid of any arguable basis in law. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit recently noted "the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition." In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989). For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves, see Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916);

United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153 (4th Cir. 05/22/1996)
While courts may have offered differing views of the income tax over time, the United States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the federal income tax for 80 years. Since 1916, the Court has construed the tax as an indirect tax authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 11, 16-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236
(1916).

The courts clearly don't know what they're talking about either. All they care about is making you pay. Notice how the Collins court describes the Melton court's position as "patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition" And you want me or anyone else to use them as an authority on the subject? Pfft...they can't even agree on what Brushaber said and they're one level below the Supreme Court. I would be better off having Larry, Moe and Curly deciding my fate.

[SteveSy]

That KER-FLOOP sound was SteveSy falling into a classic logic trap. He is applying 20/20 hindsight and modern mores and knowledge to the mindset of people of the late 1700s. He is using an industrial/post industrial, technology driven, urban mindset to people who were pre-industrial, labor intensive, rural people. In turn, this leads SteveSy to some wrong and occassionally ridiculous conclusions.

Also, I wonder how many of the anti-federalists were southern slave owners protecting their "peculiar institution"? If you were a slave owner and an anti-federalist, your opinion becomes highly suspect.

It doesn't matter who the anti-federalists were. They had great leverage concerning the constitution. After all the Federalist papers would have never been written had it not been that way. The constitution was to protect our rights and freedoms, it was the cornerstone for the formation of the Federal government. Without the constitution there would be no federal government. The laws laid down were fundamental and the constitution was created with the ability to amend for changing times. Whatever the constitution intended to protect back then is intended to protect against now. Whatever was a direct tax then is a direct tax now...time doesn't change that. The 19th amendment would have never been needed if in fact the constitution changes simply because a change in time has.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

The courts clearly don't know what they're talking about either. All the care about is making you pay. Notice how the Collins court describes the Melton court's position as "patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition" And you want me or anyone else to use them as an authority on the subject? Pfft...they can't even agree on what Brushaber said and they're one level below the Supreme Court. I would be better off having Larry, Moe and Curly deciding my fate.

I understand your frustration. I think you are pointing out that there are logical inconsistencies and logical disagreements from one court case to another as to HOW and WHY the courts arrive at their decisions. Under your view, if the courts "knew what they were talking about" then each and every court would use the same rationale to describe the federal income tax as "direct" or "indirect". The courts would agree on what Brushaber said, etc., etc. The courts would be consistent about HOW and WHY a particular result is reached.

Two problems in your analysis: First, you are ignoring the point that the HOLDINGS of the cases, the actual RULINGS of the cases, are completely consistent. The results are always the same: The gross amounts of compensation for personal services of individuals, real, living human beings (whether called wages, salaries, or anything else), are includible in gross income and are therefore taxed. Not one single exception in any court case ever, since the founding of the Republic.

Second: You are making the same mistake that some other non-lawyers make when reading court opinions: You are confusing holdings and dicta. You are becoming frustrated by inconsistent rationales and obiter dicta. You are making the mistake of concentrating on HOW a particular court reached its conclusion -- to the exclusion of accepting the conclusion itself. You can't tell precedent (the concept of stare decisis) from the concept of obiter dicta. You are too focused on "why" and "how" the court slowly ambled its way toward a result, and you are not focused enough on WHAT the court decided -- the RESULT ITSELF.

It's not that the "whys" and the "hows" of court cases are not important. Legal scholars know how to study the "whys" and the "hows" -- in part because scholars study literally thousands of actual court cases, over years and years. And not just tax cases, and not just federal cases. Contracts, property, constitutional law, criminal law, employment law, trusts, estates, business organizations, etc., etc. And scholars study legal history -- but not in the way you, Steve, study it. No disrespect intended, but the training and experience of lawyers in the law compares to your study of the law as the training and experience of a brain surgeon compares to my knowledge of how to treat a small skin cut with a band-aid.

Stare decisis, Steve. Concentrate on the holding, the ruling, the precedent, the result. Since you're having so much trouble with this, and you're feeling so frustrated, you should consider leaving the analysis of the "hows", the "whys", and the obiter dicta to the legal scholars.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et non quieta movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

--United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996) (bolding added).

[The Observer]

It doesn't matter who the anti-federalists were.

It doesn't matter who the federalists were either. As you have admitted earlier, the 16th amendment has settled the question on whether an income tax is legal. So why do you keep beating on the dead horse of whether our forefathers intended income to be taxed? I could understand if you were trying to persuade the general population of the US to support a repeal of the 16th, or at the very least a new amendment banning the taxing of income, but so far you had shown no inclination to expend energy, time and your money in that endeavor.

Your argument keeps going in the same circle it has gone from the day you started posting here. When are you going to learn from the experience you have gained here to do something positive about your position and advancing it rather than to keep flailing away at the impossible?

[Famspear]

SteveSy, by the way, I would note that this statement you quoted:

For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation

And this statement you quoted:

Since 1916, the Court has construed the tax as an indirect tax authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment

--are consistent with each other, despite the use of the word "direct" in the first quote and "indirect" in the second.

The Amendment does indeed “authorize” a DIRECT non-apportioned tax, etc., on incomes (regardless of whether or not there really is such a thing as an income tax that is “direct”). And the Court has indeed construed THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX as being an INDIRECT tax, etc. The whole point of the Sixteenth Amendment is that after February of 1913, it NO LONGER REALLY MATTERS whether a particular income tax is “direct” or “indirect”. The SOURCE of the income (rents, dividends and interest, versus compensation for personal services, versus capital gains, versus lottery winnings, versus anything else) is legally irrelevant to the requirement, if any, that the particular income tax in question be apportioned – for the simple reason that if it’s an income tax, it’s not required to be apportioned, period.

The mere fact that the Amendment “authorizes” a direct income tax does not necessarily mean that the income tax IS a direct tax.

So much time has been wasted by tax protesters on the frivolous argument that a “direct” income tax (if any) imposed after 1913 could be somehow unconstitutional on the grounds that the tax is “direct”, etc.

[grixit]

It doesn't matter who the anti-federalists were.

It doesn't matter who the federalists were either. As you have admitted earlier, the 16th amendment has settled the question on whether an income tax is legal. So why do you keep beating on the dead horse of whether our forefathers intended income to be taxed? I could understand if you were trying to persuade the general population of the US to support a repeal of the 16th, or at the very least a new amendment banning the taxing of income, but so far you had shown no inclination to expend energy, time and your money in that endeavor.

Your argument keeps going in the same circle it has gone from the day you started posting here. When are you going to learn from the experience you have gained here to do something positive about your position and advancing it rather than to keep flailing away at the impossible?

Well, the day he came in here, he nailed his foot to the floor, so what did you expect?

[Colonel_Buck]

As has already been pointed out, a capitation is a head tax. Ten dollars per head, for example. A head tax is not an income tax.

If congress passed a yearly tax that taxed people based on how tall they were, say $100/inch per year, would that be considered a direct tax or an indirect tax? Apportioned or Uniform?

[rachel]

And I suppose that in the year 2008, SteveSy really, really believes, deep down in his heart, that he has a better understanding of what the Court meant in Pollock in 1895, some 113 years ago, than the understanding held by the Justices of the Supreme Court itelf in the year 1916, some 92 years ago.

This is another interesting aspect of the delusion from which protesters suffer. On the one hand, they argue that the reason all the court rulings go against them is that the judges are corrupt, etc., but on the other hand they cling tenaciously to their own idiosyncratic interpretations of various words in the opinions of the same court cases, and argue that although the courts ruled ONE way, the "real" law is what the protesters believe the law to be. The protesters have tried to convince themselves that although the courts somehow always reach the "wrong" conclusions, the courts still somehow manage to put "words" into the published opinions which, if everyone would just interpret the way the protesters want those words interpreted, would support the thing the protesters so desperately want: a win.

It must be so hard -- you know, being a loser all the time.

The delusion is all yours....

Anyone researching the matter and seeing how things were back during the ratification of the constitution would know, by common sense, there's no way the citizens would have fought so hard for the direct tax clause and taxes in general. They did this just so that they could be protected against a trivial one time flat capitation tax but let the federal government have the ability to seize an unlimited percentage of their earnings on a perpetual basis without apportionment via representation. Its just plain delusional to think such a thing.

Read the anti-federalist papers sometime....there's no way in hell they would have accepted such a power in the hands of the federal government. They tared, feathered and burned down the houses of tax collectors for a trivial tax 1% tax on printed materials just prior to revolution.

Stevesy,
Dont you get it,
Their only taxing the federal citizen (U.S. citizen) not the People.
Its about which political capacity you want to be recognized in.
Not everyone has to be a 26CFR1.1-1(c) "U.S. citizen" birthed from an 1866 congressional act to give the then freed negroe citizenship that the union states didnt except as an equal to whites.

[jg]

Stevesy, Dont you get it,
Their only taxing the federal citizen (U.S. citizen) not the People.
Its about which political capacity you want to be recognized in.
Not everyone has to be a 26CFR1.1-1(c) "U.S. citizen" birthed from an 1866 congressional act to give the then freed negroe citizenship that the union states didnt except as an equal to whites.

Sorry, it does not matter whether you are a citizen or a resident of the United States; since the income tax is imposed on both in the same manner.

TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE

CHAPTER I--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

PART 1_INCOME TAXES--Table of Contents

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual. ...
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual
who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable
year is, except as provided in section 933 with respect to Puerto Rican
source income, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident
alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see
sections 871 and 877.

See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/ ... r1.1-1.htm for full text of the regulation.

[SteveSy]

I equate the socialist mentality with that of a zoo.

I could be an animal caged up and told when and where I will go and how I will act. I can have free health care and be insured of my safety at all times. I will be fed if I'm hungry and my keepers will make sure my meal will be healthy. I will be free to roam around my little area as long as I comply with my keepers desires. I will be a contributing member to the system by doing my part.

OR, I could be free, truly free...at a price though, I will have to fend for myself. I will have to feed myself and do my best to take advantage of the situation offered me. I will have to face dangerous animals and defend myself when needed. When I get old I will have to accept that I am old. I will have to count on my own family to be there for me. I won't have a keeper to save me when I am hurt but I will be free, truly free.

You prefer and defend the controlled zoo life....personally I prefer to be free.

The federal government doesn't need the income tax...people don't need it. Only a few want it, the rest just deal with it because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't comply. Most people are like those animals captured and placed in a zoo. They've been there and controlled so long they're mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. Its not that they couldn't do it if given the chance. We don't need the federal government being our nanny...they just want us to believe we need them when we don't. We could be free. At most we need a protected area, the U.S. and the protectors don't do anything but make sure nothing comes in to destroy our area. Outside influence is controlled but not what happens within between the inhabitants. In my opinion, that's what was designed from the beginning.

[fortinbras]

I have made an effort to find a court case that says outright that the income tax is an indirect tax, and I have found none.

But I found several cases that said that, either, the income tax is not within the category of direct taxes forbidden by Art. I, sec. 9, clause 4, or else that the 16th Amendment carved out an exception for the income tax from among other direct taxes that are still forbidden. The distinction between these two positions is so slight as to be vaporous.

In other words, the income tax is a direct tax, but it can be distinguished from other direct taxes, so that the federal govt can impose a tax on income even while other direct taxes are forbidden to it. An example of a direct tax still forbidden by Art.I, sec.9, would be a property assessment, a poll tax, or (as was tried, I think, under Henry VIII) a window tax (assessed according to the number of windows in one's home). Those forbidden taxes would be on something fairly static and would be repeated year after year despite a lack of change by any measurement, while the income tax is based on a measurement of change in revenue.

[Cpt Banjo]

I have made an effort to find a court case that says outright that the income tax is an indirect tax, and I have found none.

Here's just the first case that did so:

Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains [the income tax of 1864] is within the category of an excise or duty.
Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881)*

* Thanks to Famspear for the date correction.

[webhick]

Steve,

I don't know what caused the loss of feeling in my right foot two months ago, or the subsequent joint pain in my hip and knee and random muscle spasms throughout, but whatever it is, it's probably not good. I can't afford to get it looked at, much less corrected. And I can't expect the hospital to cover the costs since that would be taking advantage of a "socialist" system.

Freedom dictates that my life is worth nothing. That my value as a human being is so low that I'm not worth saving. I hope you feel better knowing that a worthless human being is probably going to die young from a medical condition that could be treatable or curable - all in the name of freedom.

I'm putting you on ignore now. You make me feel like I don't deserve to exist.

[Quixote]

An example of a direct tax still forbidden by Art.I, sec.9, would be a property assessment, a poll tax, or (as was tried, I think, under Henry VIII) a window tax (assessed according to the number of windows in one's home). Those forbidden taxes would be on something fairly static and would be repeated year after year despite a lack of change by any measurement, while the income tax is based on a measurement of change in revenue.

Not that it's relevant to this thread, but direct taxes are not forbidden by Art. I, Sec. 9, only unapportioned direct taxes. Congress imposed a direct tax on real estate in, iirc, 1799. The Treasury Department wanted funding to maintain a list of all real property in the US to make subsequent impositions more cost effective than the initial one, but I don't think they got it.