[Hostage]

Sorry for the repost in post #35.

The legal argument for uniformity is flawed. Within each income tax bracket, the tax rate is indeed uniform. Since the income tax is confined to ‘income’ however defined, the federal government has had a free hand to draw income brackets however it wishes, and as just said, the tax rate is applied uniformly with each tax bracket.

The law is vague and allows for a backdoor progressive income tax.

The FairTax code http://www.fairtax.org has the NRST that is uniformly applied as a nondirect excise tax on RETAIL consumption. It abolishes the Income tax code in toto. It does not repeal the 16th amendment and sunsets in 7 years if the 16th Amendment is not repealed. In short, after 7 years if the American people want to go back to the Income tax after 7 years of the FairTax, it will happen automatically. But if they want to keep the FairTax, then the 16th must be repealed.

The sunset provision of the FairTax code was put in recently to guard against the possibility that the federal government would have both the Income tax and the FairTax to levy on the American people.

[sourcery]

Yes, they can define income however they like, but once defined, that definition must be applied uniformly—as must the tax rate. That's what's required for the tax to satisfy the constraint not only of uniformity, but of self-consistency and non-violation of the Law Of Non-Contradiction (violation of the latter results in being able to prove that true = false, and hence renders logic and truth meaningless.)