If Trump funds Medicaid, it must be done by the rule of apportionment

[johnwk]

One of the most important checks and balances agreed to by our Founders is the rule of apportioning both Representatives and “direct taxes”. And the rule was also intended to apply to any money returned to the States by the federal government! This rule prevents the Democrat Party’s “free cheese” crap we now suffer under since it requires each State’s share of Medicaid money received from the federal government to be proportionately equal to it Representation in Congress and/or its share of any direct tax laid by Congress.


In any event, in support of my above claim [the rule of apportionment must apply to federal funding of Medicaid] see Act of Congress in June of 1836 in which all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.


Perhaps someday in the near future one of our nationally syndicated media personalities will discuss the merits and wisdom of our Constitution’s rule of apportionment.

BTW, I know federal funding of Medicaid is unconstitutional. And, the 16th Amendment did not repeal or alter the requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

JWK

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41 __ PENDLETON

[Sonny Tufts]

Perhaps someday in the near future one of our nationally syndicated media personalities will discuss the merits and wisdom of our Constitution’s rule of apportionment.

While they're at it, they might point out how apportionment can lead to unfair results in the form of different tax rates on the same tax base. Paraphrasing Justice Chase's objection in Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796), suppose Congress imposes a tax on widgets and that the revenue share apportioned to each of two states having the same population is $8 million. There are 10,000 widgets in State A and 100,000 widgets in State B. The tax rate in State A is $800 per widget but only $80 per widget in State B.

And, the 16th Amendment did not repeal or alter the requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

It altered it to the extent that if a tax on in investment income is deemed to be a direct tax (the holding of the Pollock case) it doesn't have to be apportioned. For that matter, no kind of income tax need be apportioned, whether it's direct or not.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Perhaps someday in the near future one of our nationally syndicated media personalities will discuss the merits and wisdom of our Constitution’s rule of apportionment.

While they're at it, they might point out how apportionment can lead to unfair results in the form of different tax rates on the same tax base. Paraphrasing Justice Chase's objection in Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796), suppose Congress imposes a tax on widgets and that the revenue share apportioned to each of two states having the same population is $8 million. There are 10,000 widgets in State A and 100,000 widgets in State B. The tax rate in State A is $800 per widget but only $80 per widget in State B.

An excise tax imposed upon a specifically selected article of consumption is required by our Constitution to be "uniform throughout the United States."

And, the 16th Amendment did not repeal or alter the requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

It altered it to the extent that if a tax on in investment income is deemed to be a direct tax (the holding of the Pollock case) it doesn't have to be apportioned. For that matter, no kind of income tax need be apportioned, whether it's direct or not.

The name of the tax is irrelevant. If the tax takes the form of a "direct tax" it is still, to this day, required to be apportioned.

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an "excise" tax. but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called "The shared responsibility payment":

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The fact is it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a "direct tax", it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

[Sonny Tufts]

An excise tax imposed upon a specifically selected article of consumption is required by our Constitution to be "uniform throughout the United States."

A tax on the mere ownership of property is a direct tax, not an excise. Examples include a real property tax and my hypothetical widget tax. Neither is required to be uniform. I could have used a real property tax in my hypothetical instead of a widget tax and differing land values in the two States instead of differing widget numbers -- the difference in tax rates would still exist.

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment.

That's because the stock dividend wasn't considered to be income.

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)...

Interesting you should cite that case, since it gave an extremely broad definition of an excise in the course of upholding the gift tax: "Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601, 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, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class." Under this definition it's obvious that a tax on income, regardless of the kind of income involved, is an excise that needn't be apportioned, as it's a tax on the exercise of a power over property -- i.e., its receipt. As the Court said in a later case, "If the gift of property may be taxed we cannot say that there is any want of constitutional power to tax the receipt of it, whether as the result of inheritance [citation omitted], or otherwise, whatever name may be given to the tax... 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. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 353 (1945).

Given the Bromley definition of an excise, could Congress impose an excise on a stock dividend? Sure, although it wouldn't be an income tax.

It's also interesting that you cite the Obamacare case, in which the majority emphasized that the category of direct taxes is restricted to capitations and property taxes, and that was the reason it held that the individual mandate wasn't a direct tax.

As an aside, in my opinion the majority's analysis of the direct tax issue was sorely lacking. Given that the mandate was the first time in history that inactivity was the subject of a "tax" the Court should have decided whether this constituted a new type of direct tax it had not previously considered. Instead, Roberts assumed (in accordance with dicta from previous cases) that since the only direct taxes were capitations and property taxes, the mandate was neither of these. He also tried to reinforce his conclusion by noting that two things were required to trigger the mandate: failure to have insurance and having income above a threshold amount. But the latter factor is merely an exemption and does not change the mandate into a type of income tax.

In any event, it's pretty clear that under current law the only "form" of a direct tax is either a capitation (a tax on mere existence) or a property tax (i.e., one that taxes the mere ownership of property as opposed to its receipt). An income tax is neither and therefore doesn't have to be apportioned.

[johnwk]

A tax on the mere ownership .

The bottom line is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and any tax which is direct is required to be apportioned.





JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

[Sonny Tufts]

The bottom line is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and any tax which is direct is required to be apportioned.

It's unnecessary to repeal a provision if a later amendment is inconsistent with it. For example, the third clause of Article II, Section 1 (which says that the candidate receiving the second-most electoral votes becomes the Vice President) was never repealed, but would you seriously maintain that Hillary Clinton is the current Vice President despite the 12th Amendment? The same can be said for the 13th and 17th Amendments, which superseded the never-repealed Fugitive Slave Clause and I.3.1.

The 16th Amendment's language is crystal clear: an income tax doesn't need to be apportioned, whether or not it's a direct tax. Although there is dictum in the Brushaber decision that suggests that Pollock's holding that a tax on investment income is a direct tax is no longer the law, this portion of Pollock hasn't been explicitly overruled by the Court -- nor has it ever needed to be, since the effect of the 16th Amendment was to overturn the result in Pollock that relied on that holding. Only if Congress were to attempt to make a tax on investment income geographically nonuniform could the issue arise, but that isn't going to happen. Personally, I think the Pollock majority blew it and that SCOTUS would never again view any kind of income tax as a direct tax.

[johnwk]

The bottom line is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and any tax which is direct is required to be apportioned.

It's unnecessary to repeal a provision if a later amendment is inconsistent with it. .

When you make such extraordinary assertions, at least provide a supportive link.



The fact is “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect” Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803)



Also see

” … a cardinal rule of constitutional construction is that all parts of the document are to be construed as a whole and any interpretation which would render any part of it void or inoperative should be scrupulously avoided. As stated by the Supreme Court of Florida, "[It is] in accord with well-settled principles of construction that, where a constitutional provision will bear two constructions, one of which is consistent with, and the other inconsistent with, an intention clearly expressed in another section, the former construction should be adopted so that 'both provisions may stand and have effect.'" Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 96 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1957). See also State ex rel. Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. McIntosh, 340 So.2d 904 (Fla. 1976); Smathers v. Smith, 338 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1976); Askew v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., 336 So.2d 556 (Fla. 1976); Burnsed v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 290 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1974); Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1961); and see 6 Fla. Jur. Constitutional Law s. 20, and cases cited therein.”___ LINK


Additionally, the name given to a tax is irrelevant. If a tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must, to this day, be apportioned to be within the four corners of our Constitution.


Also note the Constitution does not mention an "income tax". It merely states "taxes on incomes" may be laid without apportionment, which was known prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment! See Flint vs Stone Tracy in which the tax was held to be indirect and not requiring apportionment.


I appreciate your assertions but the fact is, as repeatedly pointed out by our Supreme Court, "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

When you make such extraordinary assertions, at least provide a supportive link.

There's nothing extraordinary about it. It's patently obvious that an amendment to the Constitution is intended to change it in some way, either to add something that wasn't there before or to change something that's already there. The 17th Amendment changed the method of selecting Senators that was originally in the Constitution and no repealing language was necessary. In fact the only repealing language in an amendment is in the 21st, which repealed the 18th. All other amendments are operable without having to repeal any conflicting language in the rest of the Constitution. But if you really need to see some authority, chew on this:

It is a fundamental rule of construction that, if possible, amendments to the Constitution should be construed so as to harmonize with other constitutional provisions, but if this cannot be done, the amendment being the last expression of the will of the people will prevail. An amendment to the Constitution, duly adopted, is the last expression of the will and intent of the law-making power and prior provisions inconsistent therewith or repugnant to the amendment are modified or superseded to the extent of inconsistency or repugnancy. State v. Division of Bond Finance of Department of General Services, 278 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1973).

Also note the Constitution does not mention an "income tax". It merely states "taxes on incomes" may be laid without apportionment, which was known prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment! See Flint vs Stone Tracy in which the tax was held to be indirect and not requiring apportionment.

Well, the tax involved in Flint wasn't an income tax; it was an excise on the privilege of doing business as a corporation (SCOTUS citations available by request). But you're correct in that per the 1880 Springer case income taxes were considered as excises or duties until Pollock carved out an exception for taxes on investment income. "Income tax" and "taxes on incomes" differ only in that one is singular and one is plural; they both refer to the same kind of tax.

[johnwk]

There's nothing extraordinary about it. .

The bottom line is, "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned as repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. The only question is, what is and what is not considered to be a direct as understood by our forefathers.


From the historical research I have done it appears that direct taxes, within the meaning of our Constitution, are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. As to the Shared Responsibility Payment, it is, without question, a direct tax.


JWK

[johnwk]

But if you really need to see some authority, chew on this:

Does your quote not confirm that It is a fundamental rule of construction that, if possible, amendments to the Constitution should be construed so as to harmonize with other constitutional provisions?

So, the question is, how may a tax upon income be laid without it being a direct tax? Flint answers that question by calculating the excise tax from income realized under a government granted privilege.



Any tax upon income is calculated from income. Although the tax in Flint was and excise tax, it was still considered to be a tax upon income.

JWK

[johnwk]

When Roberts wrote that “The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States”, he totally ignored the historical characteristics which identify a direct tax as understood by our forefathers. In fact, the shared responsibility payment is characteristic of a direct tax! A review of Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, a contemporary writing of the time which our Founders were familiar with, we find the following reference regarding a capitation tax as being a direct tax:

“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.

The shared responsibility payment is in fact to be levied directly upon the wage earner and computed from annual wages earned, and thus takes the form of a direct tax as understood by our founders!

The fact is, there is a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

Is it not a fact that the shared responsibly payment is proposed to be assessed from a working person’s annually earned wage which is his/her property?


JWK


”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, [the Obamacare tax] the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN &TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]

[johnwk]

See Congressional Seats and Federal Outlays

”Most Americans know that their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is based on proportional representation as determined by the decennial Census. And, many Americans are aware that the Census takers try to count everybody residing in the country. But, most Americans do not make the connection that illegal immigrants and other foreigners who are not legal permanent residents are part of the calculation for the apportionment of Congressional representatives. If the population of illegal aliens and other long-term foreign residents were inconsequential, this would not be an important issue. However, with 22.5 million non-U.S. citizen foreign residents counted in the 2010 Census, this is a valid major concern.

Because illegal aliens should not even be in the country, and other nonimmigrants such as foreign students and guest workers are here only temporarily, it makes no sense to distribute Congressional seats as if these foreign nationals deserved representation the same as American citizens.

The U.S. population that logically should be enumerated includes U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (immigrants). As only the former may vote in federal elections, the apportionment of seats in Congress should be done on the basis of the number of U.S. citizens in each state.1 Similarly, apportionment of federal funds should be based on the number of citizens and legal residents of each state.”

According to Pew Research, California has the largest number of illegal aliens in the United States and they are counted during the census which gives California its apportioned but overwhelming Congressional Representation. But when it comes to paying an apportioned share of federal taxes, its share is far below that which is demanded by the rule of apportionment. In order to make America great again, it’s time to demand that the socialist loving state of California pay its apportioned share of federal taxes equal to its big fat mouth in Congress when spending federal revenue. If the rule of apportionment as applied to federal taxation were enforced as intended by our Founders, California and its Socialist loving Congressional Delegation would quickly learn there is no federal “free cheese wagon”.

JWK

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

[johnwk]

CLICK HERE

The same statistics can be found at various other locations.

BTW, According to the following, California paid far less than Texas per capita!

SEE: Per capita federal taxes and spending -- California vs. Texas

BOTTOM LINE:**"California paid LESS to the feds per capita than Texas.* California got MORE back per capita from the feds than Texas".


In addition, California got 53 Representatives while Texas only got 36 Representatives even though it pays more per capita in federal taxes.

Whatever happened to “representation with a proportional financial obligation’?

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”___ no longer in print.

[Sonny Tufts]

So, the question is, how may a tax upon income be laid without it being a direct tax? Flint answers that question by calculating the excise tax from income realized under a government granted privilege.

Any tax upon income is calculated from income. Although the tax in Flint was and excise tax, it was still considered to be a tax upon income.

While an income tax is calculated from income, it doesn't follow that all taxes calculated from income are income taxes. The tax in Flint was never considered to be an income tax:

As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the corporation tax law of 1909 ... imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense a tax upon property or upon income merely as income. U.S. v. Whitridge, 231 U.S. 144, 147 (1913)

As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. Stratton’s Independence Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414 (1913)

As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court in previous cases [citations omitted] the act of 1909 was not in any proper sense an income tax law, nor intended as such, but was an excise upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, the tax being measured by reference to the income in a manner prescribed by the act itself. Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway Co., 239 U.S. 69, (1915)

You seem to say that an income tax is a direct tax and therefore has to be apportioned. But such a contention is contradicted by the 16th Amendment. If, as you suggest, income taxes are direct taxes then the 16th accomplished nothing and is a nullity, thereby violating your oft-cited rule of constitutional interpretation. It's abundantly clear from the historical record that the sole purpose of the 16th was to overturn the result in Pollock and to allow Congress to impose an unapportioned tax on investment income. And that's just what it did.

Nor is the income tax based upon the notion of privilege. For example, it's clear that income earned from illegal activities is taxable (see James v. U.S., 366 U.S. 213 (1961)), and an illegal activity is the antithesis of a government-granted privilege.

In fact, the shared responsibility payment is characteristic of a direct tax! A review of Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, a contemporary writing of the time which our Founders were familiar with, we find the following reference regarding a capitation tax as being a direct tax:

“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.

The shared responsibility payment is in fact to be levied directly upon the wage earner and computed from annual wages earned, and thus takes the form of a direct tax as understood by our founders!

I agree that the individual mandate, if it's a tax at all, is a direct tax but not for your reasons. We've been through the Adam Smith quote before:

Smith's definition of a capitation was one that is payable from whatever revenue the payor might have -- "The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities. These must be paid indifferently from whatever revenue the contributors may possess; from the rent of their land, from the profits of their stock, or from the wages of their labour." (Part II, Article IV) In other words, a capitation, unlike an income tax, isn't aimed at any particular fund. When he says that capitations levied on the lower ranks are effectively a tax on their wages, all he means is that wages are the only fund out of which the lower ranks can pay.

But this doesn't mean that a tax on wages is a capitation under the Constitution. If it were, it would only be a capitation as to the lower ranks, while a tax on the higher ups would not be a capitation because they wouldn't necessarily have to pay it out of wages.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...th#post5418282

The fact is, there is a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

Exactly, which is why the Springer court (which cited this portion of Hamilton's brief) upheld the Civil War income tax against a claim that it was a direct tax. An income tax is neither a capitation nor a general assessment on a person's estate.

The tax here in question [the Civil War income tax] falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. Springer v. U S, 102 U.S. 586, 598 (1880)

[johnwk]

You seem to say that an income tax is a direct tax .

I have never, even remotely said, an income tax is a direct tax. The name of a tax is irrelevant. If any tax takes the form of a direct tax, it is required to be apportioned. The 16th amendment does not declare Congress has power to lay and collect a "direct" tax on incomes. As a matter of fact it was proposed to allow Congress to lay a "direct" tax on incomes, but the word "direct" was rejected while in committee.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

I have never, even remotely said, an income tax is a direct tax. The name of a tax is irrelevant. If any tax takes the form of a direct tax, it is required to be apportioned. The 16th amendment does not declare Congress has power to lay and collect a "direct" tax on incomes. As a matter of fact it was proposed to allow Congress to lay a "direct" tax on incomes, but the word "direct" was rejected while in committee.

That is true, since such a proposal implicitly endorsed Pollock's erroneous view that a tax on investment income is a direct tax. But given that the only recognized direct taxes (in the constitutional sense) are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property, what else could possibly be the "form" of a direct tax?

I would have argued that any tax (such as the individual mandate) that wasn't based on some kind of activity or event is a direct tax, but the Obamacare case didn't adopt that analysis. Nor has SCOTUS ever adopted an avoidability or shiftability test, since it upheld the gift and estate taxes with the result that a tax on the transfer of property (either voluntarily during one's lifetime or automatically at one's death) cannot be avoided.

[johnwk]

That is true, since such a proposal implicitly endorsed Pollock's erroneous view that a tax on investment income is a direct tax. But given that the only recognized direct taxes (in the constitutional sense) are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property....

In order to say with any certainty what "direct taxes" are as understood during the time period our constitution was framed and ratified, one would have to have researched historical documentation, which would include contemporary writings of the time on the subject such as legal writings, state judicial opinions, news papers articles, and especially state legislative debates surrounding the impositions of state taxes. From the research I have thus conducted ___ which I might add is an ongoing project ___ direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. It is also interesting to note that the colonist considered external duties on imports and trade as being indirect taxes, while internal taxes levied by the British Crown were considered direct. The Stamp Act of 1765, which sparked the Revolutionary War, was considered to be a direct tax.

I have also stumbled across the following summation: "A direct tax is when the government collects the money from the victim. An indirect tax is when the government gets somebody else to do their dirty work for them." – Tyler Durden [Tyler Durden is a reference to the lead character in Fight Club. It's the pseudonym for Zero Hedge's key author(s) used to hide their identities. ]


JWK