That is, outside of the exception for income tax carved out by the Sixteenth Amendment. In particular I’m unclear how the apportionment part would work. If the federal government were to actually pass a head tax for example, since such a “capitation” would by definition be directly related to the population size, where does opportionment based on the most recent census come into play? Is that saying that the tax could not be collected by the federal government directly but that the state governments would be expected to pony up a payment based on their population size?
It is apportioned based on the last census. Let’s say the Feds want to raise $1T in direct property tax. It would assign to each state/DC/territories?&c. its percentage of the total population as their share of the $1T. If 1861 is any indication, it would set up collections points in each state and collect the tax directly.
So who is giving the fed the money? Individuals? County tax commissioners? The state tax board?
Let’s say the most recent census counted 300 million people, 20 million of which were counted in Florida. Congress passes a federal head tax to raise $6 billion dollars. Each person in Florida now has an individual tax liability of $20. Actual revenue raised may not match $6 billion exactly, as some people move and default on taxes. IIRC we’ve never apportioned a capitation tax.
For another historic example of an apportioned direct tax, in 1798 Congress passed a $2 million property tax (i.e. on real property and slaves). You can read the act itself here and a useful writeup here.
The basic idea was that Congress itself did the apportionment among the states, based on the most recent census, that is, the first census, taken in 1790. Or rather, the Congress asked the Treasury Department to run the numbers, then copied the figures into the law. You can read Secretary Wolcott’s 5/25/1798 report here if you like. For example, New York was collectively liable for $181,688.707 (note the precision goes to one-tenth of a cent, a “mill”). The calculation was: 2,000,000 * 331,604.6 / 3,650,250 which, rounded up to the next mill, equals 181,688.707. The 3,650,250 is the weighted population of the U.S. while 331,604.6 is evidently the weighted population of New York (weighted meaning slaves count as 3/5 a person). Then the federal government would calculate how much each taxpayer owed, and collect the taxes itself.
The way the tax was rolled out involved federal tax assessors going to each county and assessing the value of the property there (houses, land, number of slaves), because different types of property were taxed at different rates. The assessments were subject to public scrutiny in town halls before being sent off to a federal revenue department, which would collect all the assessments and calculate the liability for each individual taxpayer. They did this by tallying up the houses and slaves, respectively taxed at progressive and flat rates provided by law, and dividing up the remaining statewide tax liability for the land. This information was sent back to the tax assessors who would collect the taxes from the individuals.
It was called the window pane tax because apparently some tax assessors started counting the number of window panes, or at least people thought they were. Highly unpopular, the tax was the principal cause of Fries’s Rebellion which you may remember from high school history class; the tax would be repealed during Thomas Jefferson’s administration.
If you are interested in some of the Congressional debates over this particular tax, select page xcvii from the dropdown on this page to see the relevant indices in the Annals of Congress, and here is the corresponding volume from that publication.
~Max
Okay, so federal tax agents knocked on your door and told you to pony up so much money. I gather that the apportionment provision was primarily so that the amount of money owed the fed would be fixed and in the public record, and so that no state’s inhabitants might be over- or under-taxed due to favoritism, corruption, etc.
The apportionment provision was primarily added so that states like Delaware, with 60,000 people did not have to shoulder the same tax burden as Virginia with 750,000 people (>10x). Seeing as Virginia had 10 votes in the House, and Delaware had only one, and only the House could propose taxes…
ETA: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0203
Federalist 54 (James Madison or Alexander Hamilton)
It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the apportionment of taxes, will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal connection. In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least exceptionable among the practicable rules; and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the Convention
~Max