Now, obviously I think that progressive tax is unfair, oppressive, and frankly unconstitutional (US Consitution says we should all be taxed “equally” not “according to our ability to pay”). With a flat tax if you make more, you pay more, make less pay less – always the same percent, as fair as it gets. (Forgetting about deductions for a moment). Progressive shifts the lion’s share of tax onto top earners, which aside from creating disincentives to work hard, also creates incentives to raise taxes (I dont have to pay, why not! Just tax the rich for what we need!!) and worst of all it creates a communist style wealth redistribution scheme where people assume it is fine to go get someone’s money and hand it to someone else, based, I guess, upon perception of relative need. bad bad bad.
However, what I really want to say is this:
Lets trade! Allow the states to have progressive income taxes, and interpret the US constitution more carefully about equal taxation, forcing a flat tax at the federal level. (Or get it any other way).
This not only pushes taxation and spending to a more local level (always good imo) but also allows good ol federalism to play a part in determining how we live: if you don’t like one state, move to another! Love the services of a state? Pay the taxes! Love the freedom? Move someplace else!
Now thats freedom!
a “flat tax” nationally would save Massachusetts taxpayers a boatload. Currently, we pay $1.00 in taxes for every $0.77 we get from the US gov’t (source). So, going “flat” would boost MA’s reciept:revenue ratio.
<
p>
That doesn’t make it a good idea for the country — just as any tax cut, while good for the cut-ee, may not be good for the country as a whole.
Progressives base their support of the progressive tax on Engel’s law, viz., the more one earns (generally) the larger the percentage of one’s income is devoted to leisure or discretionary spending. Someone making $10,000/year is spending every dime on necessities; $500 is a huge hardship. Someone making $100,000/year is not and $5,000 does not mean walking in the cold rather than taking the bus.
how does that change the theorizing of this post. If you think that way then move to state X, if you don’t believe that move to state Y.
<
p>
The same way that Say’s Law (i.e. the theory behind the supply-side economics) says that people who earn more will spend more money then people who earn less and thus create a better economy.
<
p>
So keeping with your analogy, someone making $10,000/year is spending every dime on necessities and doesn’t have much money to spend. Someone making $100,000/yeary is able to spend money on the new PSP, plasma TV, Lexus, etc. creating an opportunity for the person making $10,000/year to get another job paying them more then $10,000/year as the person who makes the PSP or transports the PSP or sells the PSP or repairs the PSP, etc.
<
p>
Neither have significant impact on the interesting idea of shifting the progressive side of the tax burden to a more local level and thus allowing choice to the tax payer.
The problem I have with Demolisher’s post, in fact the problem I have with almost everything of his I have read here, is that he starts with an unbacked assumption that conservatives are right (“Now, obviously I think that progressive tax is unfair … “) and doesn’t even have a passing clue as to why liberals think what we do.
<
p>
The debate about progressive taxation, as far as I can tell, is closed. I think everyone from moderates to socialists, i.e., the entire center-left, agrees with it. So for a conservative to even raise the question on a center-left site, the conservative must take on the burden of proof. Is there, for example, some heretofore unknown or overlooked fact that we liberals may have not have thought enough about? Heck, even Forbes when he pushed this idea really, really hard did not attract an army of supporters in the 2000 Republican primaries. I’m open to hearing contrary views but they really should be better prepared than this one. Particularly on such an absurdly unpopular idea on the center-left.
<
p>
Further, the post is marred by red-baiting rhetoric (“communist style wealth-redistribution”) — in which Demolisher has also previously indulged. The only thing that saves his post from being boring is that it is irritating.
<
p>
I guess I’m saying (with too many extra words) that Steverino is right here. (Steverino, I should listen to you more.) Take my reply as aimed at Charley and Bob who apparently believe that posts like “Trade ya!” complete with its game-like proposal add something substantial to the discussion at BMG.
Why is it that when you are confronted with a conservative position you automatically assume that the conservative doesn’t understand the liberal reasoning? We can understand you reasoning and still disagree with you. You also seem to be guilty of making the same unbacked assumption you always try to pin on conservatives that post on this blog. Some of the things you try to add as proof that liberal point of view is the “correct” one are seldom as cut and dry as you want to make them.
<
p>
For a quick second lets take one step back to Engel’s law,
<
p>
<
p>
This could be used in the discussion of supply-side economic theory as well. The more leisure or discretionary spending by the people with the money, the stronger the economy because that spending will create jobs. Nothing is as cut and dry as you seem to want to make it.
<
p>
This leads by my next point, why do some liberals try to claim “the debate is over” about subjects that are very much under debate. You don’t even appear to be correct that center-left unanimously support the progressive tax system. In Germany, a primarily liberal leaning country, the flat tax debate has been going strong and had major influence on recent elections. So let’s please try to end this practice of calling debates “over” that are still very much alive.
<
p>
Lastly, what is it about being confronted with points of view that are different from your own that troubles you so much? This post is not the first time that you tried to insinuate that conservatives add nothing to any debate on BMG. The point of Demolisher’s post is to shift the progressive portion of the tax burden locally, not how unfair the progressive tax is. He gave full disclosure that was HIS OPINION. Why is there burden of proof for disclosure of an opinion that is not paramount to the discussion? This switch is neither conservative nor liberal, it would be a way to have a closer watch on our tax dollars to try and control things like fraud and waste.
<
p>
<
p>
Well, at last check there were 54 comments to this post, including 5 by you. So explain to me (i.e. where is the proof for your assumption) why it is that conservatives do not add anything to the discussion on BMG?
<
ol>
<
ol>
<
p>
Never said nor implied you were, but I do find you entertaining at times.
<
p>
<
p>
Balderdash! On this thread alone, you have responded twice to Demolisher and twice to me out of six posts in total. This is an argument you bring out to avoid the subject, like you are trying to do now.
<
p>
<
p>
Fair enough that we will have different assessments of things based on our political points of view. That is why I provided an example of flat tax being discussed in a liberal setting. To point out that people who believe as you do are still debating the merits of a flax tax system. You will not see Hillary Clinton discussing the merits of a flat tax because our politicians (both political parties) refuse to acknowledge almost anything from the opposite side. Thus Democrats running from their initial support of the Iraq war even though this was the right choice based on the information they were given at the time. The problem was the faulty information (or out right lies if you wish) they were given to make the decision.
<
p>
<
p>
Yes, and as much as I disagree with that type of policy, you are more then welcome to it. But you do appear to only run to this when you are avoiding a debate.
<
p>
<
p>
Yes, I did see this. Quite frankly, I ignored this because it is a childish argument beneath the level you usually bring. Libertarians do not assume infinite resources. They assume that free market principles will take care of many of the things that you wish to do through regulation. There is some flaw in this thinking, the Easter Island example is the best illustration of this. But there are flaws in any extremes. The greens would not allow any industry, including most agriculture, because it would damage the natural environment. No one side will have all the answers, that is why the two party system is much better then single party rule. The problem is that our two party system is too partisan and very few will ever admit when the other side has a good idea. Most of us agree on what the right “ends” are, we disagree on the “means”.
<
p>
<
p>
Um, no. I have only made this accusation of you. Mainly because you have stated as much.
<
p>
Your assessments of when a debate is over or not may differ from mine.
If you are going to try and talk above people, maybe you should learn how to spell the latin pharse first. It’s vide supra
<
p>
But again, way to avoid the issue instead of backing up your previous statements. Some really nice work.
Your assessments of when a debate is over or not may differ from mine.
<
p>
Hogwash. Laws weren’t sent down on high and etched into stone. They are our laws, and we are free to change them as we see fit.*
<
p>
This whole “you don’t like it — move” meme is just asinine.
<
p> * Following the appropriate procedure, with the necessary votes, and within the framework of “stronger” laws like assorted constitutions and what not.
I never asserted that laws weren’t made to be changed. What I was saying is that economic theory is not paramount to this discussion.
<
p>
As far as the whole “you don’t like it, move” statement, I think that is a mischaracterization of the discussion. We are allowed to freely associate with who we wish and this holds true for moving to towns or states with people who hold similar political points of view. The suggested change of switching the progressive portion of the tax burden would allow people another choice. If I disagree with the government programs that Massachusetts is supporting I have three options, 1) shut up and say nothing, 2) try to change the priorities of government by supporting politicians that share my opinion or 3) move to a state where the prominent political theory is similar to mine. All three are legitimate choices that we all face every day. I am not saying that anyone should be forced to move, but they have the ability to choose to move as one of the options.
<
p>
By moving the progressive portion of the tax burden to a more local government it allows the people to have a stronger say over the how their taxes are spent. This works for all sides of the political spectrum. If you live in South Boston you have better access to Jackie Hart then Stephen Lynch, thus Jackie is more in tune with the needs and wants of the residents of South Boston. This, of course, is not without some possible negative consequences. There may be towns that are say only “rich” people or only Republicans. Democrats and “poor” people would not be prohibited from moving to this town but they may not want to or may not be able to afford to move to that town. But this is not unconstitutional, it may not be “fair” but many things in life are not fair. I wanted to play in the NFL but I do not have the talent to do so, is that fair?
<
p>
It’s an interesting idea that I think would change the way many people think about taxes. So is moving election day to April 15th or making people write out a check for their taxes instead of having direct with drawls from wages.
Else I may have gotten the vapors.
<
p>
I thought it was the converse: as income rises, the fraction thereof spent on food decreases. Does food stand in for all necessaries?
<
p>
It also appears that Engels didn’t owe a boatload to Sallie Mae, thus permitting the greater income, but otherwise rendering the theory FUBAR.
I think I have it right.
<
p>
Note to self: Do not quote Metaphors We Live By and especially do not quote The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State unless armed with smelling salts.
and hence tax deductible interest on primary residence 😀
And one we have used, but two law school degrees, one of which is used to teach high school, means we need a lot more equity before I can deduct it all.
Let’s combine this with Deval’s plan to allow towns and cities to raise revenue on there own. Lets make the state taxes a very low flat tax as well and have the towns and cities to have progressive income taxes. Or the state could levy no taxes and the towns and cities would have to pitch in to the state based on square footage. Then people could still live in Massachusetts but could then choose if they wanted to live in a town with great schools or just adequote schools and so on.
we could have only a tax on duck ownership, but make it really, really high.
<
p>
I think that would be good.
I fully support this anti-duck tax.
According to Mass Audubon: “All birds are protected by federal laws under the “Migratory Bird Act of 1918,” as well as by Massachusetts state laws. It is illegal to destroy, relocate or possess birds, their nests or their eggs. The only exceptions are non-native species: House Sparrow, European Starling, and Pigeon. Trained and licensed wildlife rehabilitators, who have passed a federal and/or state-administered test, are permitted to care for injured or orphaned wildlife.”
With an infinite number of cities and people with infinitely long lives, this might be workable. Every possible combination would exist; people would float around and eventually everyone would converge into a band of towns with optimal trade-offs. I contemplate the mathematics. It is beautiful.
<
p>
The trouble is there are only so many towns and so many trade-offs. There are the further complications that our economy is regional: Sudbury is not self-sustaining — fine people though the Sudburrians be. Even those who rarely eat meals in Boston have income because of Boston’s proximity. Our region prospers because of the resources it provides, some of which are human resources. If we gave everyone incentives to live in dopey school districts, education will deteriorate further and our region will eventually only attract those businesses who can employ the unskilled. Soon we’re competing with Dhaka for jobs.
<
p>
There might be a reason that South Carolina’s unemployment is so high.
But seriously, KBusch is right or, er, left: we live in a community and have to work together to prosper. That is a critical flaw that Demolisher hasn’t yet recognized (give them time). Progressive taxes are one reason the U.S. is more prosperous than the many countries which have lower taxes, and one reason why income levels are higher in the Blue states than in the Red states — making the latter basket-case dependents on the federal government and hard-working blue staters. The increasing gap between rich and poor modes ill for our future competitiveness against countries that share resources more effectively and are able to provide superior education for their children and health care for their people.
We don’t currently work together.
<
p>
I was reading comments made by Springfield Police Commissioner Ed Flynn at a recent forum. He used to work in Arlington County. He had this to say about Virgina vs. Massachusetts:
<
p>
<
p>
He’s right. We don’t work together, in fact, we work against each other. We segregate each other, and then trumpet the segregation as a competitive advantage.
<
p>
We have fallen into Grover Nordquist’s trap, where people “sort” themselves based on services — not by what they want, but by what they can afford.
<
p>
Does anyone voluntarily choose to live in a high crime area? Does anyone choose to send their kids to underperforming schools? I don’t think so. Those people are there because that is what they can afford. And the notion that a town should be self-sufficient, taking only money from its own residents, is ridiculous. I don’t care if a city’s revenue comes from local option taxes (likely aimed at non-residents) or state aid (if it’s distributed fairly), but I do care if the state is pushing the notion that some people simply deserve to have bad things because they can’t afford any better.
…maybe my vision of “working together” is different than yours in some important ways… or maybe I might assert that we don’t in fact have to be forced to work togther, but might work independently and by the magic of our free actions together we prosper more greatly than we otherwise might…
<
p>
or maybe I’m not looking to optimize cumulative welfare at the expense of individual freedom…
<
p>
who knows, but hey at least I’m not trying to force other people into the mold of my vision. Democracy is great as a natural ally of freedom but not so great
when it allows you to force others to bow and slave to whatever you can pander out as social justice (and get away with it). Popular opinion is great, but not when you are the one who has to serve it against your will.
<
p>
Where has equality gone?
There can be a middle ground. Consider this from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, one of the first places where the “magic of free actions,” idea you reference was described:
<
p>
<
p>
I’m just saying a world without any rules, where everyone looks only to their immediate self-interest, is unlikely to produce an agreeable result as a matter of either morals or utility, and I think old Smith would agree me as suggested by the quotation above.
if that isn’t the most inane thing i’ve read today.
Since when was Massachusetts residency limited to people who agreed with the current tax system? I think if you have a reasoned argument to make, you should make it, but just telling people to shove off is exactly like telling Iraq war opponents to move to Canada if they don’t like the Bush administration.
i was responding to demolisher’s proposition at the end of the dairy
so i think we agree, this is an inane suggestion demolisher has put forward (not to put owrds in your mouth…)
Demolisher, do you live in Massachusetts? Just asking.
That, by the way, is the problem with many Libertarian arguments: they presume an infinity of choices.
<
p>
If we had zillions of earths to choose from, a libertarian approach to global warming would be perfectly logical. All the self-centered, me-first folks would drown, roast, or get blown away on their worlds without ice caps; while all the communitarians, liberals, social democrats, and greens would turn sphere after sphere into happy, peaceful, prosperous versions of Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
<
p>
The problem is we don’t have an infinity of worlds and so we don’t have the luxury of indulging this experiment in “freedom”.
I do.
<
p>
I doubt I would be here otherwise.
We need an many bloggers as possible here in Massachusetts 🙂
I’m not sure how big an effect this actually is, but I was thinking that when we start taxing more of the highest incomes, we only make those people demand a proportionally higher pre-tax income, so that their net income increase feels the same as it would if it had been taxed at the lower rate. In otherwords, a CEO desiring a million dollar raise is going to ask and be offered a two million dollar raise by the board. So to give the really rich a raise, the progressive tax just forces companies to scrimp extra on their other worker’s wages and the value they offer customers.
CEO pay has only been growing at such an outrageous page since the progressive income tax system in this country was flatten and cut in half in the early 80s. The attitude that CEOs are 1000 times as important as their employees is part of the same attitude that any income tax above a third is “immoral”.
You lump together a good principled position with a current happentstance pheonomenon which have nothing to do with each other either in principle or in causality.
<
p>
CEO pay (note: you are probably referring to 8-9 figures annual income) has nothing to do with top bracket imcome tax, which kicks in hard at 6 and 7 figures. Even if the figures were the same it still wouldn’t justify demonizing and robbing high earners (all of whom are probably not CEOs) just because you have a problemt with CEO pay.
<
p>
I’m not denying (nor affirmig, necessarily) that we have some problem with CEO pay, merely saying its not at all related to taxation, or to this discussion.
I think the question, “Demolisher”, is not about high earners but whether the high pay of CEOs and the upper managerial class generally constitutes earnings — or piracy.
<
p>
Are you living in the 1970’s? The top income tax rate in this country is 35%, kicking in at $336,500. The increase from the next lowest bracket is 2% (income over $154,800 is taxed at 33%), and 5% from the next lowest bracket (income over $74,200) is taxed at 28%). There is no change for 7-figure income versus income over $336,500.
<
p>
That omits the capital gains tax rates, where capital gains income comes in at 15%. I’m no tax expert, and I’m not positive on this, but I suspect that the sale of stock options common among CEOs might be considered capital gains. So many of those people making millions aren’t doing it at the 35% rate, they’re doing it at the 15% rate.
<
p>
That’s hardly “kicking in hard”. The top brackets pre-Reagan were 70%. That’s a hard kick-in.
<
p>
I’d like to know why, when talking about lowering tax rates, people show sympathy to those rich people who have “no incentive to work” because “more than 1/3 of their income is going away in taxes”, yet we chastise people for not wanting to work hard for $5.15/hour.
So when the top brackets were radically lowered by Reagan, that’s about when ceo salaries started going up? It’s contrary to my original comment, but perhaps 70% was just so outrageously high that it just wasn’t worth it, the boards refused to give someone in that bracket a million dollar real raise if it would cost the shareholders 2.5 million, but when the top bracket went down to whatever it is now, it became a negligible extra expense, at least from the shareholder’s point of view. But from the workers pov and the operations of the company’s pov, that extra expense is felt in wages and quality. So I guess it should either be 70% again, to dare boards to cost their company that much momey, or flat, to not cost the company’s workers any extra at all.
<
p>
Usually not. Exercise of most options is at ordinary rates.
<
p>
It doesn’t say “equally” or “according to our ability to pay”.
<
p>
Also, I have to say it is that a flat tax is in and of itself a regressive tax. The Social Security payroll tax is a fundamentally regressive tax. A flat sales tax is effectively regressive as you spend a higher percent of your income on consumer goods as your income goes down. A flat income tax without any deductions is neither regressive nor progressive, so while it is definitely not a good thing, it is wrong to call a flat income tax “regressive”.
…the poster was referring to taxation at the state and local level, not taxation at the federal level. You’re quite correct about the 16th amendment and income taxation at the federal level, but that doesn’t seem to apply to income taxation at the state or local level.
<
p>
One thing that I would be really interested in is a commentary on a consumption tax at the federal level. There have been proposals for a consumption (VAT–Europe– GST–Canada) tax, but I have never seen anyone give a presentation as to whether something like that would be constitutional, unless there was a clear interstate component to the good or service.
<
p>
(Note to lawyers, don’t give me a lecture on the 1930s Jones & Laughlin case. I understand that that may provide a basis–it did for the Civil Rights Act of 1964–but it is far from set in concrete.)
I took the unconstitutional remark to regard to the federal, but I believe it is true that the Massachusetts constitution requires the income tax to be flat.
<
p>
Personally, I think a federal sales tax is a terrible idea, as are state sales taxes, in the US and in the world in general. Not that I don’t think taxes on specific items like gasoline or cigarettes are a bad idea, but across the board sales tax is not right IMO. (policy position not constitutional argument)
Sales tax has one really great advantage: its essentially voluntary. If you dont want to pay much in taxes you can choose not to spend a whole lot; if you choose to spend a whole lot you’re gonna pay alot.
<
p>
Different than income tax which is a bit more enslavey, know what I’m sayin?]]
..on the part of the businesses, large and small, who must collect, quantify and deliver to the state these taxes, paid by others, with no renumeration whatsoever, and under threat of fines and imprisonment.
…VAT and GST taxes aren’t–necessarily.
<
p>
The difference between sales taxes as implemented in the USofA and VAT and GST taxes as implemented elsewhere is that VAT and GST taxes are also applied to sales of services, not just to sales of goods. Wealthier people consume services at a much higher rate than poorer people do, and their consumption of services would be taxed under a VAT or GST system, but not under a traditional USofA sales tax regime.
<
p>
Sales taxation of services has been tried in a couple of states–the most recent being Florida, but service providers put up such a stink that it was repealed.
<
p>
Regarding the MA constitution requiring a flat income tax, I believe you are correct (the copy of the MA state constitution on the MA government web site is so convoluted as to be useless), but apparently a “tax free exemption” (whatever you want to call it) is constitutional, and, frankly, should be raised.
<
p>
BTW, the MA state’s stranglehold on the ability of cities to raise revenue (e.g. impose income taxes) dates from a time during which the state legislature was dominated by cows (i.e., pre Reynolds vs. Sims) and is an anacronysm. It needs to be done away with.
(and to the reply as well…)
<
p>
http://www.law.corne…
<
p>
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
<
p>
Main Entry: 1uni·form
Pronunciation: ‘yü-n&-“form
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English uniforme, from Middle French, from Latin uniformis, from uni- + -formis -form
1 : having always the same form, manner, or degree : not varying or variable
2 : consistent in conduct or opinion
3 : of the same form with others : conforming to one rule or mode : CONSONANT
4 : presenting an unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color
5 : relating to or being convergence of a series whose terms are functions in such manner that the absolute value of the difference between the sum of the first n terms of the series and the sum of all terms can be made arbitrarily small for all values of the domain of the functions by choosing the nth term sufficiently far along in the series
– uni·form·ly /’yü-n&-“form-lE, “yü-n&-‘/ adverb
– uni·form·ness /’yü-n&-“form-n&s/ noun
<
p>
http://m-w.com/dicti…
<
p>
far as I know nothing ever overruled that in the constitution or via judicial activism…
<
p>
NOW you may say hey thats uniform between states not between individuals but then I’d have to say something like look at the specific purposes that the federal government is allowed to tax for and show me anything remotely like entitlements
<
p>
honestly I thought it was even clearer than that (with no illusions about where we are today in actuality – really!!) but maybe I got it wong – if I find more I’ll post it.
1) I don’t see how a progressive income tax is not uniform throughout the United States: the same rules as to how much income tax you pay is the same everywhere. I thought the original intent was to have each state pay taxes based on their population? Your interpretation of “uniform” as “identical” seems to contradict that.
<
p>
2) Those lines “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” are extremely important. As is the inclusion of the phrase “promote the general welfare” in the Preamble, which places that as one of the chief responsibilities of the federal government: there is a fundamental social responsibility to take care of its citizens and the power to do so is right there in the first line of Section 8. The modern 20th century standard for a state to provide for the general welfare, such as to ensure medical health of its citizens and to financially assist the elderly or single-parent families without means of self-support, are expressly allowed and demanded in the Constitution.
… on my interpretation of “uniform throughout the United States”. Basically, if i am paying taxes and some other people aren’t, thats not uniform. Similarly with rate differences, imo.
<
p>
As for general welfare, I think thats a fair point, but again I’m going to interpret it slightly differently: general welfare should benefit us all in some way. Now, you might say hey entitlements benefit us in that we dont have to see starving people on the streets, or moreover that they don’t come and rob us. But if this is your only support for the constitutionality of transfer payments, then I think you are on a thin platform indeed when 60% of the federal budget is transfer payments. Also I find that “not getting robbed” argument rather like extortion.
<
p>
So I moved off into entitlements a bit but thats kind of the other half of the communism/slavery picture that really bothers me:
<
p>
From those according to their ability (progressive income tax)
To those according to their need (entitlements)
<
p>
Thats the heart of marxism for ya.
<
p>
In my eyes its vast theivery.
but until then there was significant debate on whether this is true. Founding fathers ended up on both sides of the issue (Madison strongly opposed to the modern interperetation, Hamilton for the more expansive modern version,) and the debate came to a head during 2 cases involving New Deal programs, each being decided 5-4 in favor of the Hamiltonian approach. IIRC, this was the point FDR was threatening to pack the court with friendly judges until a majority was in his favor. FDR bullied the welfare state into constitutionality, and if a few more Alito/Scalia types get appointed to turn a solid majority of justices into the reactionary camp, I wouldn’t be suprised to see a neoconservative cabal attempt to get it in its sights along with Roe v Wade. Another reason 2008 is so critical.
<
p>
—>Shane
That means it changed the Constitution.
<
p>
From Wikipedia,
<
p>
For more on the 16th Amendment, try starting with the Wikipedia entry on it. It will explain why your comment that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional is wrong. Isn’t the Constitution taught in schools anymore?
except for one important clarification:
<
p>
I didn’t assert that federal income tax is wrong, rather that a progressive income tax is unequal. (and wrong both constitutionally and morally)
“Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
<
p>
Read closely…. The first part of the sentence speaks about 4 things: “taxes, duties, imposts and excises”.
<
p>
Read closely again this part speaks about 3 things…”duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”
<
p>
The first list, the one that gives Congress power, includes taxes. The second list, the one that limits Congressional power in relation to “duties, imposts, and excises” does not include taxes in its list.
<
p>
It’s very important to know that the Constitution is incredibly deliberate with its wording. When a word does, or does not exist, it is on purpose.
<
p>
Here, your entire constitutionality argument is based around a flawed assumption … and the Constitution clearly says you’re wrong.
One of the twin downfalls of our freedom! (The other being the new deal!!)
<
p>
I’ll try to address all 3 posts:
<
p>
Yes I’m aware of the 16th amendment but as far as I know it does not address in any way whatsoever the uniform aspect of 8-1. Nothing about applying taxes uniformly is inconsistent with an income tax, necessarily.
<
p>
I think the primary difference between our interpretations is that I read “uniform throughout the United States” to mean uniform among all of us, throughout the US, not “between the different states” or “among the states themselves”. I’m not sure if this point has been debated or challenged before or challenged in constitutional law but I’ll check it out and see what I can find.
<
p>
The common position the the 16th repeals 8-1 really doesn’t make sense to me as there is no wording to that effect and any new government power granted by 16th is fairly explicit, I’d expect all other restrictions on the government to stay in force. Wouldn’t you?
<
p>
As for mrstas’ assertion, I believe that excises were commonly interpreted as analagous/predecessor to income taxes, but that is an interesting point.
There is no uniformity requirement for taxes, income or otherwise.
<
p>
That’s clear as day, from the text of the Constitution itself.
<
p>
It makes no sense to argue over who uses what meaning of uniformity when it’s only your imagination that makes it a requirement in the first place.
<
p>
The reason the other things are uniform is, if you look at history, designed to address a problem. Under the post Revolutionary War Articles of Confederation that created a weak central government without much power, different states set import/export duties on their products, differently from other states in regard to other nations, and taxed each other’s products at state lines. In that sense, the 13 original states were more like 13 different countries loosely allied, than 13 states within a nation.
<
p>
To fix that, the Constitution, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation, was designed to foster capitalism and mercantilism, the first tenets of these two being free trade [within the 1780’s understanding of that word]. To that end, uniformity of duties was designed to make it impossible for Mass. to have a higher import tax than Conn. and other portions of the Constitution address issues of state-state transfers by banning import/export duties between states.
<
p>
To confuse duties and excises with taxation is misleading at best. Look at the different usage of terms in the original text, and look at it closely.
while your overall point is interesting and worthy of further consideration, I think you’ve got this distinction quite wrong-
<
p>
You’ve equated “imposts” and “excises” with duties and somehow are claiming that taxes are different than these things. BY definition,
<
p>
Main Entry: 1im·post
Pronunciation: ‘im-“pOst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin impositum, from Latin, neuter of impositus, past participle of imponere
something imposed or levied : TAX
<
p>
and impost is a tax, i.e. taxation
<
p>
and
<
p>
Main Entry: 1ex·cise
Pronunciation: ‘ek-“sIz, -“sIs
Function: noun
Etymology: obsolete Dutch excijs (now accijns), from Middle Dutch, probably modification of Old French assise session, assessment — more at ASSIZE
1 : an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity
2 : any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee
<
p>
excise is clearly also one of several forms of taxation, nothing at all like an import duty.
<
p>
Now that looks clear as day to me.
…..to argue your point? The Constitution in section 8 enumerates taxes in the first clause and not in the second uniformity clause. It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says. The constitution says that taxes are different than excise and imposts and, moreover, it treats them differently. The Constitution just does not support your argument.
that the constitution had a different definition for impost and for excise than the ones I laid out. Can you point me to it?
Not from the definitions i.e. the document uses the term “X” in one way in one place and not in another place, therefore we can conclude “Y” about the term. Similar techniques are used by Talmudic scholars and other religious thinkers, among others, when they want to interpret documents; you can draw your own conclusions about how convincing they are.
…there is an association between impost and tariff or import duty, and the thesaurus of thefreedictionary.com lists only duty related synonyms. Excises and imposts are subsets of taxes. Demolisher, your argument is equivalent to saying the Constitution said, “All mammals, dogs, cats, and ferrets have fur, and all dogs, cats, and ferrets give birth to live young,” and then claiming that all mammals give birth to live young.
<
p>
—>Shane
well, this whole wording thing has become a bit like splitting hairs since gary pretty much defeated the unconstitutional argument below already, but I suppose I need to formally concede the point that the original meaning did not refer to income taxes. Was it purely tariffs? I dunno, maybe – not a critical point I guess.
<
p>
Its hard for me to imagine the founders supporting a welfare state, wealth redistribution and big government though. People came to this meritocracy for freedom. Equality in those days meant that we should all get treated the same by the government, not that we all get treated differently in order to become equalized.
<
p>
Anyhoo
The Constitution is a tiny, short document that forms the foundational framework of our nation.
<
p>
Since it uses incredibly few words, when it uses words, they are picked very deliberately, and must be examined carefully.
<
p>
The relevant passage…
<
p>
“Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
<
p>
Suppose you replace the words with symbols like you’d use in a formula:
<
p>
“Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect W, X, Y and Z, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all X, Y and Z shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
<
p>
Fight about definitions from dictionaries all you want.
<
p>
It is VERY CLEAR from the Constitution that while the first section mentions W, X, Y, and Z, the second section only mentions X, Y, Z. That is not by accident. If all the words meant “taxes” like you think they do, then they could have simply used the word “taxes” or “W” in my analogy. However, the framers did not use the word taxes alone, but instead they included it in the first list, and not in second. That’s not by accidental oversight.
<
p>
You can make your argument, but don’t make it from the Constitution. You have no basis there.
how you can juxtapose 2 words (e.g.) tax and impost, without being able to define what one of them means. What do you think impost means?
<
p>
if impost = tax then you argument falls apart.
Don’t you see the point? The Constitution is not a HUGE tome. It’s a tiny collection of words. It does not waste words, or use synonyms where they are unnecessary.
<
p>
It is incredibly sparse in its verbiage. What words it uses, it uses VERY carefully, and VERY deliberately.
<
p>
The Constitution quite purposefully used 4 words in the first part of the sentence, and 3 in the second. Before you ask for me to explain anything, you must make a case that the Constitution itself is mistaken? Is the missing word a typo? An unintentional oversight?
<
p>
The word tax is listed separately from impost, duty, etc, for a reason, and that reason is that it has a different meaning. The meaning of the words is secondary to you understanding that if the meaning wasn’t different the framers wouldn’t have used two distinct words.
<
p>
Of course, if you concede the truth of that statement, then your entire argument about the unconstitutionality of various forms of taxation falls apart, so you’re grasping for some thread to hold on to. Unfortunately for you, reality is simply not what you imagine it to be.
it would have been easier if you just looked up the meanings of the words.
<
p>
Your points may be valid but why on earth would you want to pontificate for paragraphs on the meaning of a phrase without knowing what some of the words mean? Weird.
….ignoring the important facts. The Constitution does makes deliberate reference to TAX, IMPOST and EXCISE. Further, when limiting Congresses power the Constitution makes no reference to TAX. There is really not much to discuss or argue. You can provide as many definitions of excise and impost as you like. As far as the Constitution is concerned they are not taxes and with the help of Amendment XVI it is perfectly clear that they are NOT income taxes. You may believe that public policy should dictate that progressive income tax is unfair, but the Constitution is silent on the issue and public policy currently allows it.
<
p>
As much as I loathe progressive tax rates, just to put the Constitutional issue to rest, this point was challenged several times back in the 1920s. Progressive tax rates are not unconstitutional for Federal purposes:
<
p>
<
p>
They are unconstitutional for Mass income tax purposes.
can you link a source on that?
<
p>
I suspected as much – but I might still object on the basis of flawed interpretation! (is that allowed?) For example, Roe v Wade does not convince me that the right to abortion is present in the constitution…
<
p>
(even though I am in fact pro choice)
<
p>
So what is “in the constitution”? you’ve got:
<
p>
the constitution (check)
the bill of rights (check)
subsequent amendments (check)
<
p>
and then you’ve got
<
p>
judicial interpretation (check??)
<
p>
which in most cases clarifies the unclear, but in other cases fabricates new pieces of the constitution which I have an awfully hard time checking off as “in the constitution”…
<
p>
maybe I’m beating a dead horse here 🙂
I pulled the case from Lexis.
<
p>
It was a 1928 Federal case. It’d be hard (impossible?) to challenge it now, after nearly 80 years of income tax graduated rates.
<
p>
Politically, Forbes ran a flat tax champaign a few years back. The special interests really ganged up against it: insurance/finance, housing construction, charitable groups.
judicial interpretation (check??)
<
p>
Go do some research on the meaning of “judicial power.” That’s in the first paragraph of Article III of the US constitution, and that is what the constitution invests in the judiciary branch. To find out what “judicial power” means.
<
p>
Actually, you might look at a few of the Federalist Papers regarding the Judicial Department (the judiciary). The FPs are available all over the Internet. If memory serves, the FPs relating to the Judicial Department begin around FP76. You might be surprised at what you find. When I first read them, I was surprised to find that what is called “judicial review” (the power of the courts to declare acts of the legislature and acts by the executive unconstitutional), was presumed to be part of “judicial power.” The US Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury vs. Madison was not necessary to establish it.
<
p>
The Federal constitution was not written in a vacuum. It presumed a body of law and practice that existed for centuries. Alberto “no right to Habeas Corpus” Gonzalez notwithstanding.
But maybe you know something generations of legal historians have missed. 😉
what about the anti-federalist papers?
<
p>
tee hee
Apparently you do not understand the import of that provision and the reason that it was included. What the provision was intended to insure was that federally-imposed import duties be the same, regardless of whether the goods were imported into the port of Boston, the port of New York City, or the port of Charleston, SC. So that the federal government would not favor one section of the country over another.
<
p>
The same regarding imposts and excise taxes.
<
p>
I am just amazed at the ignorance of some people who comment here.
Considering you just claimed that it is somehow magically certain that judicial review was mandated from the earliest days of the Republic. If it was so certain, why didn’t the SC actually exercise it in any meaningful way until after the Civil War? Just didn’t happen to come up, I guess. “I am just amazed at the ignorance of some people who comment here.”
…Marlow vs. Madison was decided in 1803, a bit before the War of Northern Agression (1861-1865).
<
p>
I can’t believe that I am bothering with dolts here.
…point remains.
…..Groves v. Slaughter, Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Dred Scott v. Sandford. Of course we regard these decisions as historically very bad (and rightly so). They helped in no small way in getting the Civil War underway. Not desirable but meaningful nonetheless. And the Court was not quick to act in progressive ways after the war; they very quickly limited the potential of the 14th amendment and were reluctant to apply it to the equality of women until the late 20th century. The “advocate judge” knife cuts both ways and just because the Court was not supporting a liberal agenda at all times does not mean they weren’t exercising their power.
…that response has to do with either the judiciary department or the presumption, evident in the Federalist papers, that what has come to be called “judicial review” was part of “judicial power,” but I’m sure that you’ll let us know.
<
p>
If you want to discuss slavery, feel free. The problem is that the problem was politically unresolvable if there was to be a union in the late 18th century, it was pushed off and pushed off throughout the first half of the 19th century, until the Southerners made it impossible for the Northerners (who had abolished slavery) to ignore it (the Fugitive Slave Act, and Lincoln’s beautifully crafted Cooper Union speech), and things blew to hell in 1861.
<
p>
The sad fact is, that the South won the civil war. Not the one in 1861-65. And I suspect that you understand what I mean. The two Northern political parties have been vying for the allegiance of the Dixiecrat party. The Democrats held it for a while, now the Republicans have it. The South is the tail that’s wagging the dog in the USofA, and the South is primarily–Calvinist.
Now, obviously I think that progressive tax is unfair, oppressive, and frankly unconstitutional (US Consitution says we should all be taxed “equally” not “according to our ability to pay”).
<
p>
No it doesn’t. That ruse–presumably based on the 14th amendments “equal protection” provision, has been tried before, and, as far as I know, it has failed. You might persuade me otherwise, but I doubt it.
<
p>
You might have an argument if the issue was whether two people with the same income were to be taxed differently (although, just to let you know, the definition of “income” is not entirely clear), but dollars aren’t people and aren’t subject to the equal protection clause. That is the basis for the fact that the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause doesn’t preclude progressive taxation.
<
p>
(NB: and that’s beside the fact that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies to states, not to the federal government, but that’s an issue for another day.)
…above…
section 8 i mean..
<
p>
🙂
..of course, Article 1.
<
p>
woo, its late.
you mention the true reason progressive income taxes are obviously constitutional. It is “equal” because EVERYBODY pays the same rate on their $0 to ~$7,500 earnings, EVERYBODY pays the same rate on their ~$7,500 to ~$30,000 earnings, and so forth. Minimum wage workers and billionares then pay the same base rate within the same bracket.
<
p>
How would demolisher’s beloved flat tax even pass muster under his own definition of “equal” taxation? After all, rich people pay more under a flax tax because they have more income. I suppose the only “equal” taxation, under his formulation, would be if EVERYBODY paid (say) $10,000 in taxes, regardless of income?
<
p>
The ironic thing in all this is that the same far-right types that make this argument (not necessarily including demolisher) are the same that insist on interpreting Constitutional provisions based upon “original intent”. If you consider the “original intent” or “understanding” of the framers of the 16th amendment, it is pretty clear that “equal” does not mean what demolisher thinks it means — after all, the the only types of income tax existing before the 16th Amendment were indeed progressive taxes levied only on high incomes. Nothing suggests the framers intended to close off that gap. Even the right-wing courts of the 1920s understood this.
The “Unconstitutional” argument is bunk. The progressive tax in the way it is applied and the flat tax can both be interpreted as “equal”. The fairness of both is very debatable.
<
p>
I think everyone paying one set fee, the $10K you proposed is not equal. People with more money and assest have more that requires “protection” by government. It is fair that they pay more. How much more is the question? A flat tax still has “rich” people paying more then “poor” people. And, IMHO, this would be the fairest system. Of course there would have to be a “floor” below which you do not have to pay taxes. I think the German flat tax plan is a good example of this (see previous post for link).
<
p>
As far as what you said:
<
p>
<
p>
This is true but there is a little more to it, from All1040.com:
<
p>
<
p>
Now a two tier “flat” tax as the original income tax was, I believe this is what Forbes had suggested, would be acceptable to me. I know this is a progressive tax, but it would be much simpler then the existing system that is way too complicated for the average person. Someone with a high school diploma should be able to do their own taxes with little hesitation. More importantly then changing to a true flat tax, simplifying the tax code should be the true goal of any of these changes, but that is off point. Sorry.
The flat tax goes off the rails because of the special interests.
<
p>
Someone says flat tax, which eliminates the mortgage interest deduction. Banks, mortgage brokers, construction go crazy, and politicians say, ok, flat but we’ll keep the mortgage interest deduction.
<
p>
Then, municipalities balk because the deductibility of state income and property tax that otherwise subsidizes the states. Not to mention municiple loan interest which is now, not federally taxed.
<
p>
Then, there’s a host of insurance breaks that have been around since 1913. So, the insurance lobby goes nuts.
<
p>
There’s the charities and their charitable deduction, the financial institutions and their IRAs, the real estate lobby and it’s morass of regulations re: depreciation, interest, recourse and non-recourse debt.
<
p>
Flat tax just hasn’t been politically workable. It’s hard to see how it will be, at least in the near term, IMHO.
we’ll see amazing growth in some of the states (e.g. Estonia) which have adopted a flat tax, and the movement will become self evidently superior on a global basis. That might give us a wake up call – but then again we don’t seem to learn from the ills of European socialism do we… 🙂
Well, I think the growth rate in Estonia has a lot more to do with cheap labor markets (and its recent addition to the EU didn’t hurt either) than the flat tax.
but I have never accepted the answer that something is hard to do, for what ever reason, as a reason that it should not be tried.
<
p>
Yes, special interests are a huge problem in our society for any number of things. This does not mean we should not try and reduce or eliminate this influence. What those steps are I do not know, perhaps term limits in one thing that comes to mind, also eliminating the practice of “gifting” to our politicians. But this is off topic.
<
p>
If we decide that the “fairest” way to tax the citizens of the US is a flat tax or a simplified progressive tax, we should NOT avoid doing what we think is right because special interests make it hard.
<
p>
I understand that you are just being a pragmatist, but that reasoning is what got us stuck with the messed up system we now have.
I agree with nearly everything you note here, though we differ on the question on whether progressive or flat taxation is the “fairest” system. I believe your point:
<
p>
<
p>
gets to the heart of the philosophical argument of taxation.
<
p>
I also agree that the tax code is too complicated (though I believe this is slightly overstated, since many lower-income persons file the 1040EZ or 1040A, which is not as complicated). However (and I think we are on the same page on this), I don’t think complication has anything to do with whether it is a flat tax or whether it is progressive.
<
p>
A flat tax can be complicated (if it retains the many deductions, credits, etc. that exist today) and a progressive tax can be very simple. I note this because I’ve heard many pro-flat tax arguments start with: “we need a simpler system”, as if the flat tax and simple go hand-in-hand. Rather, I think you are correct that it really comes down to what you think is the “fairer” tax, and that simplicity is an entirely different issue altogether.
If I gave the impression I was for a flat tax due solely to simplicity, I apologize. We are agreed, that regardless the methodology, the tax code needs to be simpler and that is a topic for another thread.
<
p>
Like I had said previously, I think something like the proposed German flat tax system would be the “fairest”. A quick summary of that would be as follows:
<
p>
1) an allowance of $8,000 (I am just replacing Euros with dollars, someone much smarter then myself would have to actually come up with the amounts) for each dependent, including children.
2) an additional allowance of $2,000 for each wage earner to offset expenses
3) a flat tax of 25% on 60% of the first $5,000 of taxable income
4) a flat tax of 25% on 80% of the taxable income from $5,000-$18,000
5) a flat tax of 25% on all income over $18,000.
<
p>
As you can see, this is not a true “flat tax”. It is more of a simplified progressive tax. The key part of going to this system, IMHO, would be the elimination of deductibles.
that anyone should be allowed to not pay taxes. Its no good – everyone should have to pay something even if its a percent of a smaller income, or even if we had to have deductions applicable up to a point but not all the way down to 0 (taxable income that is).
<
p>
People who don’t pay taxes have no incentive to control the growth of government, and have no consequence whatsoever to voting for ever more spending. I find it irresponsible of society to allow this.
<
p>
Everyone should have to weigh what politicians promise them with how much it is going to cost them.
<
p>
I disagree. After all, there is a consequence since the same tax structure applies to them as it does billionares. If a lower-income person gains more income, they will go into the higher tax bracket that they (indirectly, of course) voted for.