SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #61
Really read what it says in the constitution people...here is a quote of it
Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article 1, section 8, clause 1: 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;
In the preamble there is clearly a difference between common defense and general welfare. That difference being that one is to be provided for and the other is to be promoted, not provided.
In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1.
Its so blatantly obvious i'm surprised people still play this silly game.
I actually think that uniform tax law can nuke a lot of other federal taxes such as S.S. tax, death tax, and etc but since the federal court will probably side with itself and not vote to cut off its own revenue it will be impossible to get rid of those.
spidermantuba what do you think of my statement?
I think it clearly demonstrates you did absolutely zero research on the subject.
The requirement that taxes be uniform throughout the United States is a requirement that the taxes be uniform throughout the United States - not a requirement that if be uniform through economic classes. All this means is that you can't tax people based on which state they live in. You can't, for example, impose a 10% flat tax on the people of Indiana, but make the tax 1% everywhere else.
UNITED STATES V. PTASYNSKI, 462 U. S. 74 (1983) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
From UNITED STATES V. PTASYNSKI,
This general purpose, however, does not define the precise scope of the Clause. The one issue that has been raised repeatedly is whether the requirement of uniformity encompasses some notion of equality. It was settled fairly early that the Clause does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. at 112 U. S. 594, a "tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found."
Nor does the Clause prevent Congress from defining the subject of a tax by drawing distinctions between similar classes. In the Head Money Cases, supra, the Court recognized that, in imposing a head tax on persons coming into this country, Congress could choose to tax those persons who immigrated through the ports, but not those who immigrated at inland cities. As the Court explained,
"the evil to be remedied by this legislation has no existence on our inland borders, and immigration in that quarter needed no such regulation."
Id. at 112 U. S. 595. The tax applied to all ports alike, and the Court concluded that "there is substantial uniformity within the meaning and purpose of the Constitution." Ibid. Subsequent cases have confirmed that the Framers did not intend to restrict Congress' ability to define the class of objects to be taxed. They intended only that the tax apply wherever the classification is found. See Knowlton v. Moore, supra, at 178 U. S. 106; [Footnote 11] Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 173 U. S. 521-522 (1899).