I haven’t figured out why capitation is the same as a head tax. Other than the etymological connection, they seem completely different.
Correct me if I’m wrong: a head tax (aka a “poll tax” before everyone started thinking the latter had something to do with voting rights) is simply a tax that is levied upon, and equal for, every man, woman, and child.
On the other hand, per the US Constitution,
*No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
… direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers …*
This sounds a heck of a lot like the capitation is levied on state governments, and that the latter can come up with the funds however they want (except for tariffs). During the early Republic I assume this may have been head taxes, but it also could have been land taxes, licensing fees, excises, etc.
So which is it? Is there some principle I’m missing where Federal capitation is necessarily a head tax?
When was the last time (or any time) the Federal government levied a direct tax other than income/payroll taxes anyway?
I think it’s decapitation that’s a head tax.
Sorry, couldn’t resist, carry on…
Well, let’s parse the section closely.
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
In other words, Congress can’t levy a direct tax without taking the Census (i…e., the federal government actually counting the number of people in the U.S.) into account.
… direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers …
The taxes must be divided equally among the states according to population. In other words, if Congress passes a direct tax, it has to be the same for the people of New York as it is for the people of New Jersey. Congress can only direct New York to pay more taxes than New Jersey in the proportion of people in New York, relative to New Jersey.
So the clause you’re quoting has to do more with defining/limiting the federal government’s ability to tax the states than it does with taxing individuals.
ETA – Consider how this would have affected a large, but relatively sparsely populated state like Virginia vs. a small but densely populated state like Connecticut.