US Income Tax - Unconstitutional

Mindi · #1 April 2nd, 2007, 10:10 PM

Nope, because the cities don't want to lose the tax, so they won't even work together to fix it. So we get taxed 2% for where Richard's full time job is (which is an hour commute each way btw) and 1.75% for where we live. Lancaster (where we live) does give you a credit for tax paid to other cities (even though they don't ever see that money as there is no cooperative agreement) but they only allow you to have a credit for a maximum of 1%. So we pay a total of 2.75% in local city taxes.

On top of which we now pay starting this year 1.5% school tax as the school system cooerced a tax that BARELY passed (and there is speculation about whether or not it really did pass, but I digress) by cutting off bussing to high schoolers and making the tax only on earned income, so anyone living on a pension, fixed income, investors, etc doesn't have to pay it. However that leaves those like Richard and I (no children, working hard and having to work outside of Lancaster as there are no IT jobs in little Lancaster, Ohio) paying the equivalent of 4.25% in LOCAL taxes and getting very little benefit as even if we had kids, I wouldn't send them to school here and the roads are always in need of repair. RIDICULOUS!

Okay that's my rant for the day, I just got done doing our taxes last week, so the wound is fresh! lol

Frankly, I am a big lover of a flat tax. It would get all that hidden under the table income and you can control how much you are paying in taxes. The more you spend the more you pay, it's that simple.

Atrocities · #2 April 2nd, 2007, 10:18 PM

The constitution has a section in it that discusses taxes and that they have to equal and not punitive. I forget what it was called, but it meant that everyone pays the same. A flat tax.

Phoenix-D · #3 April 2nd, 2007, 10:51 PM

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

All that says is the tax law can't vary from state to state.

Atrocities · #4 April 2nd, 2007, 11:49 PM

Thank you.

It has been some time since I read it, as I mentioned. Uniform is an interesting word though.

Quote:

1. identical or consistent, as from example to example, place to place, or moment to moment: uniform spelling; a uniform building code.
2. without variations in detail: uniform output; a uniform surface.
3. constant; unvarying; undeviating: uniform kindness; uniform velocity.
4. constituting part of a uniform: to be issued uniform shoes.

What is uniform about taxes? Another example of why we need to reform the tax code. Its not uniform.

Phoenix-D · #5 April 3rd, 2007, 03:07 AM

Just google it- there's a lot of sites that provide the text.

What cheeses me off is some of them are trying to SELL it, and right now one of those is #1 in Google ranking. WTF people? Its a legal document, not your own book!

Gandalf Parker · #6 April 3rd, 2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Phoenix-D said:
All that says is the tax law can't vary from state to state.

Somehow I dont see the drafters of that document meaning that.

Even if it did, you think they were saying that federal tax cant vary from state to state but state tax can? You really think thats why they put that line in?

Baron Munchausen · #7 April 7th, 2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Phoenix-D said:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

All that says is the tax law can't vary from state to state.

The clause at issue is this:

Section 9, Article 4. No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

<<"Capitation" means 'head tax' or tax on individuals. Supposedly this was altered by 16th Amendment, but a Supreme Court decision claims otherwise.>>

16th Amendment

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Notice that the 16th Amendment does not mention "capitation" -- that is, direct taxes on individuals. So, maybe the Supreme Court was right?

Atrocities · #8 April 8th, 2007, 10:05 PM

Thank you Baron.

I was looking for a way to explain the complexities of this issue and you cut right through and nailed the crux of it.

Phoenix-D · #9 April 9th, 2007, 01:07 AM

Baron: first, that was for another part of the argument, not the original post.

See AT's post right above that one.

Second, read Amendment 16 again. "The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived. That overrides Section 9 article 4 prett clearly, and I'd be curious to see the Court case that says otherwise.

Atrocities · #10 April 9th, 2007, 02:07 AM

The thing is, does this Amendment mean "lay and collect taxes on incomes whatever sources derived" for individuals for for cooperations? I don't believe the Amendment was clear in that regard and that is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court ruled that the Amendment did not give the Government the right to levy new taxes against individuals because up to that point only cooperations were being charged an income tax.