Posted on 10/07/2011 6:47:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So much has been made of wealthier citizens paying their "fair share." Much of the argument against this sort of rhetoric has focused on why we shouldn't raise taxes on the highest tax bracket, or why we shouldn't create another tax bracket. But one argument that is missing is whether or not such a system of taxation is legal at all.
I don't intend to go into a history of progressive taxation (the colonial Puritans used one, too) or of the income tax and the 16th Amendment. These are irrelevant to the question: Is it just for the government to protect a greater proportion of property of one class than that of another?
Under our current system, one man may earn $1 from manufacturing a product and be taxed 25 cents of that profit, while another man may make a similar product of better quality, earn $2 from his industry and genius, and be taxed $1 from the profit. Does the latter person receive equal protection of the laws?
The 14th Amendment states that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Fair enough so far. Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and to maintain this government, the citizen-body consents to grant a portion of their property in return for their security. This grant, by itself, may be flat or progressive. But the clause that follows elaborates: "nor [shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Firstly, what is protection of the laws? All legislation must be compatible with the fundamental law of the United States, the Constitution. Therefore, all protective laws must comply with rights guaranteed in that document.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Constituition?!?! What the heck is that?
a progressive tax is discriminatory. the rate is determined by profiling the individual to discriminate those who have more.
No share is not a fair share
The poor need to get with the program, get off their lazy asses and pay taxes
Equal protection? is a relative term.
Some are more equal than others.
Does the two senators per state provide equal protection?
Does the process of gerrymandering override equal protection?
Does the electoral college provide equal protection?
the Constitution states that taxes are to be levied on a state by state basis. the amount a state owed was linked to its population in relation to the overall population of the country. richer states, like VA and NY at the time, were not expected to pay more simply due to the fact the state was wealthier. every state was allowed to determine its own method of tax collection.
the 16th amendment was ‘passed’ (illegally) and turned the original intent completely on its head. it allowed the fedgov to go directly to the individual and demand however much the fedgov deemed it deserves. there is no limit or guidelines on how the amounts are set.
pure corruption and sets the stage for a similar revolt as the original revolution.
read through the Declaration of Independence again... and compare it to today. it’s pretty scary.
This is why the brackets are drawn the way they are. Every tax payer pays the same rate within each bracket regardless of which bracket they end up in. Someone earning $1 million pays the same rate on the first $25,000 of income as someone earning $25,000.
As long as we are represented by an UNFAIR number of lawyers (as to a percentage in our population) we will continue to be exposed to government imposed inequities.
If we had a FAIR SHARE of lawyers, clerks, auto mechanics, engineers, doctors... in government maybe everyone would SHARE in the funding of only those things required/mandated by the Constitution upon the Federal government.
As the self imposed poor (certainly better off than the poor in other countries) receive benefits from the government like police, fire, they certainly should pay their FAIR SHARE instead of taking what they did not earn. Of course I am not speaking of the poor who are poor because of some physical/mental issue but we know who and what the others are.
I have long thought the same thing,
any time the FedGov targets some subset of all citizens.
“a progressive tax is discriminatory. the rate is determined by profiling the individual to discriminate those who have more”
SCOTUS: Legitimate state interest, blahblahblah, general objective, blahblahblah, rational-basis review, blahblahblah, strict scrutiny, blahblahblah, plausible inference, blahblahblah.
Me: Basically, it’s oaky for the government to discriminate on the basis of income and not on, for instance, the basis of race because...the government says so. It says so mostly because otherwise it’d harder to rake in the cash.
Free public education is another.
“Does the two senators per state provide equal protection?
Does the process of gerrymandering override equal protection?
Does the electoral college provide equal protection?”
Since the clause in question (”nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) applies to state actions, I should ignore the 1st and 2nd questions, but, actually, the answer is yes. The answer to the middle question is no.
Equal Protections should mean Equal Percentage.
A flat tax either sales or income with NO loopholes is the only sort of tax that is closest to being within the spirit of the constitution.
Fortunately it does violate the Pennsylvania State Constitution which is why we have a 3.07% flat tax. A major advantage over our neighbors like New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
The interesting thing about a truly flat tax — no exemptions, no loopholes, no deduction or credits — is that it is actually a tax on the money and not the person.
Therefor it cannot be discrimination against any race or group.
Income taxes that are progressive or exempt certain sources of income or allow deductions for children or mortgage — these are all discrimination against one group or another.
Same with sales taxes that exclude services, rents, or groceries. Once you start picking and choosing WHAT to tax, you are automatically choosing WHO to favor and WHO to punish, which is the definition discrimination.
RE: The interesting thing about a truly flat tax — no exemptions, no loopholes, no deduction or credits — is that it is actually a tax on the money and not the person.
Therefor it cannot be discrimination against any race or group.
_________________________________________________________________________
It’s a tough sell ( e.g. Herman Cain’ proposal ) for the following reasons:
1) Almost half of filers pay NO TAXES today. They will resist any changes to the tax code that will now require them to pay something.
2) Corporations that can exploit tax loopholes ( like GE, which paid no taxes last year ) will resist as well.
To make a long story short, we are no longer the nation we once were at the turn of last century.
The irony is that a nation which has become so militantly PC about discrimination against any identifiable group of people when it involves employment, housing or voting has no trouble rationalizing discrimination in taxation.
There is an argument to be made that if everyone had to write a check to pay their own income taxes rather than having them automatically withheld, there would be an outcry to lower taxes. As you say, though, when such a small minority of people actually pays the bulk of the taxes, the outcry would still go unheard.
We might avoid the entire issue of “who” is being taxed and reframe it as “what” is being taxed. Think in terms of a payroll tax that is “paid” entirely by the employer and a sales tax. Both create the illusion that the individual isn’t being taxed, but the “business” or “product” is being taxed.
One nit I have with Herman’s “Business Flat Tax” is that it still punishes successful businesses while rewarding failures. Any tax on “profits” does that. A payroll tax, on the other hand, rewards successful businesses who get the most productivity out of their workers.
My second nit is that his sales tax is only on retail products and excludes services. It could be 4% if it included services rather than the 9% required with services excluded. At 9%, the combined sales tax in CA would be 18% on a car, tv, or restaurant meal ... but nothing on a haircut, doctor visit, rent, etc. That makes no sense when 70% of the economy is now services. I’d rather have the 4% and get CA to conform to also taxing services and cutting its rate to 4% for a combined rate of 8%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.