Have you ever tried to read the U.S. Constitution, straight up? I bet your eyes glazed over as soon as you got to Article 1, section 2, clause 3 (which is pretty early in):
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Reinforcing the same idea is Article 1, section 9, clause 4:
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
What the heck does that mean? I’m re-reading a book which happens to explain it. For historical interest only, I shall explain to you.
A “direct tax” is money that you, the citizen, pay to the government directly. Contrast to an “indirect tax” which is a tax on some product (like alcohol) being manufactured, bought, shipped etc. You pay the tax in the end; but indirectly – because some other party is there as an intermediary: they collect from you, and then the government collects from them.
“Apportioned” means that Congress had to do two things, when it came to the direct tax.
- Declare the exact amount of money that it wanted to raise (say, $20 million).
- Declare the amount to come from each State, based on certain rules.
The rules were the “apportionment” part. The amount of money would be apportioned by State population, which would be calculated as: the number of free persons, plus 3/5 the number of slaves (if any).
What was the point of the 3/5 requirement? To make the slave states pay more. Here is a fictitious example. Trigger warning: Maths! and slavery!
Suppose the U.S. had exactly 2 States, Free and Slave. And it needed to raise $180 for the next budget cycle. First, Congress would declare “We need to raise exactly $180. And whiskey taxes aren’t good enough; we want to do a direct tax.”
Now suppose that Free state had 60 citizens (all free of course), and Slave state had 30. So, Free had twice as many. At first blush, Free would have a tax on its citizens where they cough up 2/3 of the money for the feds (which is $120), while Slave state would cough up 1/3 (which is $60).
But let’s say Slave state didn’t only have 30 free citizens; it also had 50 slaves. The 3/5 rule said that Slave state should cough up more.
Applying the 3/5 rule, Slave state had 30 + (3/5 * 50) = (30 + 30) = 60 people for apportionment purposes. So both States had 60 people, for apportionment purposes. So the tax would be apportioned half-and-half. Free state would be designated to cough up $90, and Slave state also $90.
Both states would probably tax their free citizens. So, Slave state would have a higher tax *rate* on its 30 free citizens, to get them coughing up $90. Free state would have a lower rate on its 60 citizens, to get them coughing up $90.
Weird and antiquated, but now you know!
There’s a secondary role for those 3/5ths Persons, ILC. When drafting the document, the slave states were actually pushing for counting slaves as a whole person. This wasn’t because they wanted to pay higher taxes, but rather so that they could inflate their census numbers with a captive voting bloc and be apportioned a greater share of the budget and resources. You know, kind of like what the Democrat party uses illegal aliens for.
Good point. Counting slaves as 5/5 of a person would have meant the slave states paying even more of any direct (apportioned) taxes….but….it would have also given the slave states more representatives and Electoral College votes. (Probably enough to prevent direct taxes.)
Initially during the Constitutional Convention, the Northern States wanted to count each slave as 1 for purposes of taxation, but as 0 for purposes of representation; whereas, the Southern States wanted to count each slave as 0 for purposes of taxation, but as 1 for purposes of representation.
The 3/5 rule was the compromise, and it had (intentionally) the effect described above.
Even only paying 1/2 as much as the slave states, the govt wouldn’t have gotten away with much taxing, while revolting from England over a 2% tax on a drink was in living memory. I doubt 1/2 of Americans could do the math in this story in their head, and anyone learning by common core would have no chance.
It is striking, how anti-tax (appropriately) our predecessors were. They were so careful about being taxed that Congress had to declare up front, “This tax is to raise $17 million” or whatever – and not go beyond it.
They would not recognize their descendants. They would expect us to rebel against the oppressive behemoth that our government has become.
“They would not recognize their descendants. They would expect us to rebel against the oppressive behemoth that our government has become.”
And then Washington would call the Army and kill the tax revolvers – like he did over the Whiskey tax.
“It is striking, how anti-tax (appropriately) our predecessors were. ”
Before welfare and the 1965 immigration change the US was where nails that stick up fled to. Pretty much every society has hammered down the nails that stick up with imperial china/japan killing off any that questioned the narrative. It has been nails that stick up that are responsible for inventions & advances.
It’s one thing I liked about Ichabod in Sleepy Hollow. He, at least intially, was rallying agianst all the restrictions and taxes. I’m sure it was played for laughs… But it really struck home on how much we’ve squandered.
Well except for Mikey of course.
And then like Washington, they’d actually have facts.
“Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. Most distillers in nearby Kentucky were found to be all but impossible to tax; in the next six years, over 175 distillers from Kentucky were convicted of violating the tax law.”
Looks like a great way to avoid raising the debt limit. Just figure out how much is needed and send each state a bill for their “fair share” of all the great things the Federal Government does for us.
Different states might try different ways to come up with the cash (income tax or sales tax or property tax or the ever popular borrowing). If any state got too heavy handed, people could “vote with their feet” and move to a more friendly state.
Um…Livewire if you are going to cut and paste from Wikipedia I suggest you read more about it first. I suggest you read about how a group of “takers” rose up against the 1% in arms in Pittsburg and how the tax was written by the Founding Fathers to support the land owning elite. Or how how Bobby Lees father was just fine in riding into other states and putting down those rebels. Or read about Americas First Ruby Ridge – when the US army attacked a fortified home as part of crushing the tax revolters.
As, what’s wrong. Mickey? You wroteAnd then Washington would call the Army and kill the tax revolvers – like he did over the Whiskey tax.”
Having been proven a liar, or more charitably, ignorant. You move the goal posts again.
mike, your examples prove my point at #5 and thanks for the unexpected support, even if some of your facts are shaky.
Isn’t it funny to watch mikey go on about taxes when he so obediently supports the party of tax dodgers?
Tell us, mikey; why do Democrats like yourself who scream that higher taxes are necessary go to such lengths to not pay them yourselves?
One would think that if you were consistent, mikey, you would demand that your Obama Party and Obama supporters pay the taxes they want imposed on others. But you aren’t. So what you make obvious is that you are using taxes as a means of punishing political dissent rather than for benefiting society. Quite perverse and repulsive.
Livewire – your grasp of History is terrible. Washington indeed lead an army in the field (the only sitting prez to do it I think) and indeed they killed tax prostestors. Thats is historical fact…spin it anyway you want
ILC- Indeed the citizenry always doesn’t like taxes (yet they still want the services…go figure) however in the past like today the government has always exerted its authority to tax. In the case the founding fathers crushed it with violence
I would ask mikey to cite something, but hey… it’s mikey.
My god, this is basic American History…