What I have never understood about the income tax is how applying it unequaly is constitutional.
It seems the equal protection clause would prevent the government from taxing different people a different rate.
The rules are the same for everyone. They suck, but they are applied equally (in theory, excluding Congress and Administration officials). If you make $10,000 a year, your marginal rate is X. If you make $100,000 a year, your marginal rate is Y. If I make $10,000 a year, my marginal rate is X. If I make $100,000 a year, my marginal rate is Y. We are treated the same. This is equality of opportunity.
Claiming that a person who makes $100,000 is treated differently than one who makes $10,000 is arguing for equality of outcome.
IMO.
It seems so, yes. But SCOTUS applies the magic “legitimate state interest” formula. What is the state’s interest? Raising money, I kid you not. Because they have an interest in rais/ng money they are allowed to tax unequally. Whatever.
Not that I don’t think states should br able to discriminate on various bases, such as age and sex, wherein a sort of seoerate but equal applies. But different levels of income don’t make you different kinds of people to my mind, and therefore equal protection should apply.