|
words, so many dollars for so many chil-
dren, therefore, in that sense nobody loses
anything, but if a county through exemp-
tions or some other purpose, say, is under-
estimated by, say, ten thousand dollars,
that ten thousand dollars in the overall has
to be made up by the rest of the State.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grum-
bacher.
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: That was
just my machine gunning off.
DELEGATE CASE: I hope it was not
aimed at me.
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: Would
the equalization clause in here not straight-
en out some of these problems?
DELEGATE CASE: That is the inten-
tion of it. That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Delegate
Case, I am interested in the interplays be-
tween 8. 01 (a) and (b), and I am aware
of the fact that a number of questions
have been directed to you concerning1 this,
but may I ask you whether or not a
political subdivision can be delegated the
taxing power provided it meets the two
criteria set out in 8.01 (a)? That is to say,
that it is elected and that it possesses
legislative powers?
DELEGATE CASE: I am sorry, Dele-
gate Hardwicke, I did not get the thrust
of your question.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: If a politi-
cal subdivision meets the points of section
8.01 (a), if it is elected and possesses taxing power —
DELEGATE CASE: If the governing
agency is elected, and if the governing agency possesses legislative powers, then,
but only then, can it be granted the taxing power.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: In your
comment on 8. 01 (a), you say that this
paragraph is intended to express the prin-
ciple, no taxation without representation.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: As I
understand that principle historically, the
idea is that the people who imposed the
tax must be the people whom the taxed
persons have elected?
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
|
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: So if that
is true, then, would it be possible for a
governmental unit to be given the power
to tax persons who did not actually vote
for them?
DELEGATE CASE: No, sir.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: It would
not be possible?
DELEGATE CASE: It would not in my
opinion, no, sir.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Would it
then not be possible, then, for a govern-
mental unit to impose a payroll tax which
would cover persons who did not have the
power to vote for them, but who for some
reason or another came within the juris-
diction of that governmental unit?
DELEGATE CASE: Of course, as you
know, Delegate Hardwicke, the question of
the constitutionality of payroll taxes has
been before a great number of states, par-
ticularly in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and the
argument has always been made that peo-
ple whose residence or domicile was in a
non-taxing jurisdiction were improperly
hit with the tax of the taxing jurisdiction
and the cases have almost uniformly held
that this is -not true because generally the
theory is that the taxpayer did not have to
work in that particular area and did so by
choice and, therefore, subjected himself to
the tax.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE CASE: This is a neat con-
stitutional question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Then I
would like for the record of this Conven-
tion to be clarified with respect to one of
the criteria that you set out in 8.01 (a),
namely, that these elected representatives
of the people can impose this tax on people
who had no right or power to vote for
them. I am particularly anxious that that
clarification be made, especially in view
of your great emphasis, both in your com-
ments here and also in the written com-
mentary, that you were intending to per-
petuate the principle of no taxation with-
out representation. In other words, I would
like to see the point clarified so that in
later case law, in arguments before the
Court of Appeals, you do not give greater
impetus to this argument of taxation with-
out representation and this possible per-
version or subversion of it.
DELEGATE CASE: I think that is a
salutory clarification. It is accepted.
|
