From: msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio)
Subject: Taxation without Representation (Was: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution)
Summary: The 16th Amendment is unfair to the States, and the 5th is ignored.
Organization: TeleSciences CO Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:10:00 GMT

In article <1dbb4lINN59n@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.002719.4221@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Oct25.024349.28577@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>>>   16th Amendment
>>>      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.
>>
>>Summary: Taxation without representation isn't so bad after all.
>
>Have you read the rest of the constitution?  You have representatives in
>congress.
>
>In my public school social studies classes, we would have failed for merely
>asserting something like that.  As in math classes, we were penalized for
>not showing the work we had done to reach our results.

Okay; if this is a test, then here's my work:
Picture all of the rich people who live in the country moving to Rhode Island,
while all of the poor and unemployed move to Texas.  The rest of the country
is made up of the apathetic middle class, who wouldn't mind soaking it to the
rich, and who think that providing more services to the poor sounds like a
good idea.

Congress then decides to provide free health care to the poor, to guarantee a
minimum yearly salary to the poor, to guarantee housing to the poor, to
guarantee free plumbing, television repair, and lawn service to the poor, to
guarantee free college education to the poor, and to provide paid family leave
to the poor.  To pay for all these admittedly good services, Congress raises
taxes on the rich to 95% of personal income.

This tax will essentially be a tax on Rhode Island, with all of its 3 Senators
and Representatives.  And Texas, with ten times the Senators and
Representatives, will receive all of the services.  You can be sure that
Rhode Island will continue to receive the short end of the stick even after
the next census is taken, unless you believe that wealth (and hence the
population of Rhode Island) will somehow increase in a socialistic nation.

The 16th Amendment explicitly gives the government the right to tax the
citizens of the States without regard for the amount of representation that
each State is given.  By analogy, this is as tyrannical as a kingdom taxing
a certain colony without regard for the amount of representation that the
colony is given.  This is why I consider the 16th Amendment to be a slap in
the face of the ideals that gave rise to the independence of our country.
I don't think Patrick Henry would have failed me if he were my teacher.

>>Has the 16th Amendment completely superseded the 5th?  The two aren't
>>incompatible, really.  An income tax would be more bearable if I
>>received something in return of equal value, but I don't.
>
>The 5th Amendment has always been read as "exclusive of taxes".  I believe
>the intent has been determined to mean confiscation of particular properties,
>as opposed to taxation of an entire class.  Thus, "just compensation" does
>not apply to taxes.  [...]

I don't understand the distinction between "confiscation of particular
properties" and "taxation of an entire class".  What is the taxation of an
entire class (especially through a graduated income tax) but the confiscation
of particular properties multiplied a few million times?

>[...]                There may even be a legal presumption that services
>of the government are the just compensation for taxation, though that is
>speculation on my part.

This sounds like a reasonable presumption if you omit the word "just".
Nobody can argue that the services that I, a single, middle-class working
stiff, receive are just compensation for the taxes I pay.  I receive a
few necessary, Constitutionally mandated services from the government,
plus a few jimmies on the cake that I never asked for.  But the bulk of my
taxes pay for the education of other people's kids, for other people's
retirement, for other people's employment, for other people's unemployment,
for silly programs like "Woodsy Owl", for other people's bad investments,
and soon for other people's abortions and for other people's health care,
even though I haven't been to a doctor myself in nine years.  This is not
to mention at least $1000 per year to pay for the irresponsibility of the
government for failing to spend less than it takes in.  How can this be
considered "just compensation"?

>I also think that "just compensation" has been found to be whatever is
>legislated by your representatives (subject to judicial review), rather than
>what the owner thinks is just.

I'm sure it is, but this pretty much renders the 5th Amendment meaningless.
Suppose they define "just compensation" to mean "The guarantee of a stable
society brought about through a contented Legislature, the members of
which shall receive an exponential salary increase as a reward for their
services in governing a free people"?  They could remove all services
altogether, tax 100% of our salaries, and still feel that they have
satisfied the requirements of the 5th Amendment.

--
                      The above opinions are mine alone and cannot be
  _____               held by anyone else without prior written consent.
 /o\   \________________________________________________________________
 8 8    ===o=xoo=x=o=xo=ox=== Michael Savastio (m.savastio@telesci.uucp)
 \_/___/   *******^*******^   Don't blame me: I voted for the bozo who lost