apportionment the founding fathers fucked up. big time. the problem is the apportionment clause. under the articles of confederation the government could requisition taxes from the states. by population. which seemed reasonably fair. so under the then new constitution, they kept that idea with respect to direct taxes. and by that they pretty much meant every kind of tax that wasn't an import or export tax. so now you're asking, what's the problem? yeah, it's not obvious. no wonder the founding fathers missed it. according to their intent, income tax would be a direct tax. which means it would have to be apportioned to the states by population. mississippi and connecticut for example both have about 3 million people. so the states would have to pay the same dollar value in income taxes. but incomes in connecticut are nearly twice incomes in mississippi. so the people in mississippi would have to pay an income tax rate twice as high as the people in connecticut. which is complete bullshit. and it runs afoul of the constitution that says congress can't levy a tax that favors one state over another. it didn't take long for the issue to wind up in the supreme court. which was composed probably not surprisingly mostly of founding fathers. the right thing to do would be to ratify an amendment. but instead direct-tax was interpreted narrowly. at the time, federal taxes were practically insignificant. so no one cared. and apportionment really handcuffed the government's ability to grow into the bloated pig it is today. so maybe the founding fathers didn't fuck up after all. the politicians who passed the 16th amendment fucked up. now congress can tax income without apportioning it. and grow unchecked. but only income. and not consumption or wealth. which would be more fair. for which income is a poor proxy.  ¶ 8:00 AM