notorial dissent wrote:I guess the thing I don’t understand about Stevie’s constant whining, or should I say this particular whine, is what is his particular fascination is with apportionment, other than that he obviously doesn’t understand what it really means.
I know what it means and I certainly know more historically than you could hope to know, thank you very much.
Congress already had the power to tax income to begin with so a lot of his rant is just his usual hot air, the bit about apportionment confuses me though, as it would in fact be far and away more unfair than the income level based tax we now have, as the people from his state would end up paying considerably more than those from my or many other states, and then I would bet we would really hear him whine about how unfair and awful it would be. Apportionment is to my way of thinking one of the least fair methods of taxing there could be.
You say congress already had the power...they did not. They had the power to tax certain incomes. Obviously if they had a blanket power Pollock would have dismissed the case.
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. I have multiple quotes saying the exact opposite from people who were there and in positions of authority. You have, well, nothing but assumption.
As far as apportionment and the direct tax clause, you need to understand it before you opine on it. You’ve come to the conclusion based on an erroneous belief that income taxes are absolutely necessary, they are not. They aren’t any more necessary than perpetual poll taxes. Nor is it necessary that our government is so uconstitutionally bloated that it needs so much revenue it must tax everyone's paycheck. An income tax is simply a method, one that it utterly and totally unfair if laid by excise. People are treated unequally and some people pay more for doing nothing more than working harder or doing something better than someone else. The idea of a perpetual graduated tax funding a perpetually growing government is incompatible with freedom and liberty, it punishes ambition and ingenuity.
In a republic each pays their own way, you don’t pay more just because someone else pays less. Like I said you don’t get a car cheaper because you make less nor do you get a free country for less because you’re poor. If we both dig ditches and I make 500 a week because I dig faster I shouldn’t be subsidizing your contribution to government because you’re a lazy ass and dig less.
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. It was not intended to be a tax used on a perpetual basis. It was an emergency measure allowing for assured revenue during times of war and the like.
