Guest1

Do you think current federal taxation code complies with this article of the constitution?

Stinger

Mostly yes, does that mean we don't need to scrap it and go to a simpler fairer system? No.

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

JeffMerriman

There was some level of ambiguity here relating to what "uniformity" actually is. Obviously there is no broad uniformity per se, but with regard to things like corporate taxes and personal income tax brackets I think there is some level of uniformity. Basically it's open to interpretation.

I think we need a fair, straight tax.

__________________
On a mission....always on a mission.~Kommando Z

==+];-{>

Guest1

I'm not sure how graduated tax rates present any level of uniformity, but it doesn't explicitly say that taxes shall be uniform, just that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform.
But, I agree with you and Stinger, we need a fairer tax.

RightinNYC

Of course. What do you think is inconsistent?

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

JeffMerriman

I'm getting at uniformed in how it's applied to individual businesses and citizens. Meaning that if you are in this tax bracket everyone pays this amount, different tax cuts are universally allowed, etc. Equal taxation under the law. It's indiscriminate in how it's applied.

Guest1

Personally, I don't think that the amount of money one makes should determine the percentage of tax one pays. To me, uniform would be if everybody paid the same rate(percentage) regardless of income level.

JeffMerriman

I absolutely agree with you. I think a flat tax would be fair. I have always thought that there should be a flat sales tax across the board, and I'm not entirely sure how I would deal with corporate taxes. I'm thinking that there should be some form of taxation on corporate earnings.

Goldenboy219

It figures you have no comprehension on what part of the constitution allows for an income tax. Imagine that, a person employed to enforce the law doesnt even have moderate knowledge of the constitution...

Guess what Jeff, article 1 section 8 isnt it. That just allows for things such as a sales tax, excise, tariffs, etc. Ever wonder why there wasnt a true federally sponsered income tax until 1913???
================================================== ========

The 16th amendment is IMHO illegal only due to the fact it was ratified in an unlawful manner. This notion is constantly bounced back between congress and the Supreme Court to no avail.

Some interesting precedents: "Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad", "Redfield v Fisher", and "Jack Cole v Commissioner"...

__________________
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for" Thomas Jefferson

RightinNYC

Unfortunately, he's right and you're wrong.

Wrong. Federal income taxes did exist before the ratification of the 16th amendment - they were just subject to more stringent regulation in that they were considered excise taxes and were treated differently based on how the income was earned. The 16th amendment simply removed those restrictions and allowed the government more leeway in shaping tax policy. See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan for a discussion of how the federal income tax was handled pre-1895.

This is also completely false. It's a conspiracy theory spouted by tax protesters who don't know what they're talking about and has no basis in reality.

If by "bounced back between Congress and SCOTUS" you mean completely ignored by the court system and unaddressed by the legislature, then yea.

Uh, Brushaber completely validated the 16th amendment and confirmed the constitutionality of the income tax.

Redfield was a minor case occurring nearly 80 years ago that in no way indicated anything beyond its limited holding. Furthermore, see Department of Revenue v. Clark for an instance where the Court specifically declines to extend Redfield beyond its original reach.

It's actually Jack Cole v. MacFarland. And if you'd done your research, you'd know

a) This case only distinguished the way legislatures could classify taxes, not the ability to levy taxes in general
b) It doesn't matter either way, because Cole was overturned anyways.

For someone who was so eager to mock others for supposedly not knowing what they were talking about, you don't seem to have much of an idea of how this works.