"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, ... without apportionment among the several States"

What does that mean?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/4/2023 3:52 PM, RichD wrote:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, ... without apportionment among the several States"

What does that mean?

--
Rich

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes be apportioned among the states by population. The Founders defined “direct tax” broadly, usually using the term as a synonym for “internal tax” and encompassing all taxes except for customs duties. The Founders expected Congress to use direct taxes.

The 16th amendment says

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Thus income taxes cannot be apportioned and which state you live in does
not affect your federal income tax

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On April 4, Roy wrote:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, ... without apportionment among the several States"
What does that mean?

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes be apportioned among the states by population.

The question is, what is the meaning of 'apportion', here?

The Founders defined “direct
tax” broadly, usually using the term as a synonym for “internal tax” and
encompassing all taxes except for customs duties. The Founders expected Congress to use direct taxes.

The 16th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Thus income taxes cannot be apportioned

same question

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

On April 4, Roy wrote:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, ... without apportionment among the several States"
What does that mean?

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that direct
taxes be apportioned among the states by population.

The question is, what is the meaning of 'apportion', here?

The Founders defined “direct
tax” broadly, usually using the term as a synonym for
“internal tax” and encompassing all taxes except for customs
duties. The Founders expected Congress to use direct taxes.

The 16th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
among the several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration." Thus income taxes cannot be apportioned

same question

It means divided among them. Originally it was thought most fair to
make every state pay income tax in the same average amount per
resident in the state. But that's really difficult if not impossible
to do in practice.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:497f55b4-d37d-45bd-b87b-acb6d71823den@googlegroups.com...

On April 4, Roy wrote:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, ... without apportionment among the several States"
What does that mean?

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes be
apportioned among the states by population.

The question is, what is the meaning of 'apportion', here?

The Founders defined “direct
tax” broadly, usually using the term as a synonym for “internal
tax” and
encompassing all taxes except for customs duties. The Founders expected
Congress to use direct taxes.

The 16th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Thus income taxes cannot be apportioned

same question

--
Rich

I think it means you are taxed without regard for what state you live in.
In other words, two people with identical incomes in different states pay
the same amount in federal tax. Under apportionment, you pay a different amount depending on what state you live in. Larger states pay
collectively more tax in proportion to their populations and vice versa.
That could mean, for example, that if you live in a smaller state with a
lower income base, you could pay more taxes than someone in a larger state
with higher incomes.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/5/2023 12:59 PM, RichD wrote:

On April 4, Roy wrote:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, ... without apportionment among the several States"
What does that mean?

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes be
apportioned among the states by population.

The question is, what is the meaning of 'apportion', here?

The Founders defined “direct
tax” broadly, usually using the term as a synonym for “internal tax” and
encompassing all taxes except for customs duties. The Founders expected
Congress to use direct taxes.

The 16th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Thus income taxes cannot be apportioned

same question

--
Rich

Did you try google "apportionment"?

One result: the determination of the proportional number of members
each US state sends to the House of Representatives, based on population figures.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/7/2023 12:51 PM, RichD wrote:

So the 16th permits taxes at the individual level. Total state
payment is disregarded.

What if they slap an excise tax on Kentucky bourbon? Then Kentucky
will pay more than anyone. Is that unconstitutional?

--
Rich

Found this after a quick google search. Also includes references to
various Supreme Court rulings on the subject


https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/757#:~:text=The%20fourth%20clause%20of%20Article,any%20%E2%80%9Cdirect%E2%80%9D%20tax%20imposed%20by

Excerpt:

Despite this essay’s title, the Constitution permits three classes of taxation:

1. Direct taxes, which must be apportioned among the states in
proportion to their populations;
2. “Indirect taxes,” specifically duties, imposts, and excises, which
must be uniform throughout the country; and
3. Income taxes on humans (as opposed to businesses or other entities),
which may apply to income derived from a source.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On April 5, Rick wrote:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, ... without apportionment among the several States"
What does that mean?

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes be
apportioned among the states by population.

The question is, what is the meaning of 'apportion', here?

The Founders defined direct tax broadly, usually using the term as a synonym
for internal tax and
encompassing all taxes except for customs duties. The Founders expected
Congress to use direct taxes.
The 16th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from >>> whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, >>> and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Thus income taxes cannot be apportioned

I think it means you are taxed without regard for what state you live in.
In other words, two people with identical incomes in different states pay
the same amount in federal tax. Under apportionment, you pay a different amount depending on what state you live in. Larger states pay
collectively more tax in proportion to their populations and vice versa.

So the 16th permits taxes at the individual level. Total state
payment is disregarded.

What if they slap an excise tax on Kentucky bourbon? Then Kentucky
will pay more than anyone. Is that unconstitutional?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It appears that RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> said:

On April 4, Roy wrote:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, ... without apportionment among the several States"
What does that mean?

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes be
apportioned among the states by population.

The question is, what is the meaning of 'apportion', here?

It has the usual English meaning.

The idea was that if a state had 1/17 of the population of the
country, it paid 1/17 of the taxes. As a resident of New York, where
people are richer than the national average, I think that is a swell
plan, but if you lived in Alabama, which is poorer than average, you
might not agree. The 16th Amendment permits an income tax that taxes
you based on your income, unrelated to where you live.

We now have a politically perverse situation where the Federal
government redistributes money from rich liberal states to poor
conservative states, and there is a nearly perfect correlation
between how much money a state gets from the Feds and how much
its people complain about the Feds intefering with them.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On April 7, Roy wrote:

So the 16th permits taxes at the individual level. Total state
payment is disregarded.
What if they slap an excise tax on Kentucky bourbon? Then Kentucky
will pay more than anyone. Is that unconstitutional?

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/757#:~:text=The%20fourth%20clause%20of%20Article,any%20%E2%80%9Cdirect%E2%80%9D%20tax%20imposed%20by

Excerpt:
Despite this essay’s title, the Constitution permits three classes of taxation:
1. Direct taxes, which must be apportioned among the states in
proportion to their populations;
2. “Indirect taxes,” specifically duties, imposts, and excises, which must be uniform throughout the country; and
3. Income taxes on humans (as opposed to businesses or other entities),
which may apply to income derived from a source.

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
"In 1895, the Supreme Court held a general income tax unconstitutional as an
unapportioned direct tax, distinguishing it from a tax on ... employment income,
which the Court described as a permissible excise (an indirect tax)."

By what tortured reasoning is a tax on employment income an excise tax?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)