> In the 1796 Hylton case the Supreme Court accepted Hamilton's view that > the only direct taxes are the poll tax (a tax on heads, not on voting), and taxes on real property and slaves constituted direct taxes. Taxes on other items were indirect. (They didn't use the current distinction that economists often use of direct taxes refering to taxes which the taxpayer pays directly to the government.) > David Levensam
Hamilton was incorrect, as was the Supreme Court. There is no logical reason why if a tax on a slave is direct, a tax on a horse is not also direct. If a tax on a house is direct, why not on a carriage? It seems to me that the Supreme Court reasoned illogically that since the 1790s tax on carriages was not proportioned by population, it was thus indirect. I can see the 18th century argument that only a tax on land is direct, as all other taxes ultimately get shifted to rent (cf. John Locke on taxation). But once a tax on slaves and on buildings is designed as direct, then so too must be taxes on a horse and carriage or any other property. Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED]
