In a message dated 1/15/03 7:35:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << > It's been a while since I read Pollock, but I don't recall > anything like what you're describing. > David Levenstam
See: http://www.geocities.com/antitaxprotestor/harvard.html >From Pollock v. Farmers': "All the acts passed levying direct taxes confined them practically to a direct levy on land. True, in some of these acts a tax on slaves was included, but this inclusion, as has been said by this court, was probably based upon the theory that these were in some respects taxable along with the land,..." Fred Foldvary >> Yes, Pollock is a long decision, and I focused on the pass-through theory since that seems to be what the Court focused on itself in rendering its decision. Given that the earlier direct taxes included (whether "incidentally" or not) slaves as well as land, it's not surprising that many of the Founding Fathers should include a tax on slaves in their own definition. Thank you for the url. I did contain one error--it omitted the fact that the Supreme Court in Hylton accepted a tax on slaves as a direct tax--but contained some information on the Lockean view which I don't recall. It seems that you have an abiding interest in the history of income taxations, Fred. As I'd planned to do my history dissertation on it, obviously I do too. :) David Levenstam
