Thinking Can Be Taxing

I just concluded a discussion (debate) with a friend regarding the question of the federal income tax. He was whooped but refused to admit it. The question was on the fairness/constitutionality of the ‘progressive’ federal income tax where the more income one makes the higher percentage tax is paid on it. My point is that the 16th Amendment authorizing the federal income tax does not speak to tax brackets or percentages. Given that, the next place to look for instruction is the 14th Amendment which guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally under the law. Anyone with passing knowledge of logical deduction would conclude that within those constraints all citizens taxed on their income would be taxed at the same percentage rate. Right? But, he replied if you make more you should pay more! Eureka, he just discovered the mother-lode. Egad, how many times have I heard that tired bromide? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…ooops, wrong country wrong constitution. I desperately tried to explain the scenario that 10% of a million dollars is substantially more than 10% of fifty-thousand dollars. Not enough, he snapped. Says who, says I? Well, the Congress. So is 20% of a million enough, compared with 10% of fifty-thousand I ask? Maybe. Again I remind him of the 14th Amendment and the equal protection concept. He is not moved to enlightenment. So rather than obey the actual letter of the Constitution we should let the Congress arbitrarily set the tax brackets based upon the prevailing political winds of the day. And change them constantly. How’s that for equal treatment? Now the 10th Amendment becomes relevant. If the Constitution does not specifically empower the Congress, it cannot act; but rather must defer to the States acting as agents of the People. So, in carrying out its 16th Amendment power to levy income taxes on the citizens, the Congress must also be guided by the equal protection concepts of the 14th Amendment. To do otherwise would be acting extra-constitutionally or even un-constitutionally. Passing legislation to set progressive tax rates does not and cannot amend the Constitution. Gotcha, I cry! He is unfazed. Ah well, pearls before swine.
The rub is that he really knows that I am technically correct, but that to admit so would begin unraveling a huge quilt leading to the undoing of 50 years of progressive chinks (chunks) in the Constitution. The result would be a federal government about 10% of its current size and power. The States’ power would thus grow proportionally. And it’s much easier to control one capital than it is fifty. Also, under this scenario the importance of Presidential, Congressional and Senatorial races would be greatly diminished. The importance of which party controls the federal government is likewise less critical. There would be very little mischief for them to meddle in and much less damage that they could do to our pocketbooks and our freedoms.
What we are rapidly approaching is a return to simple democratic majority rule, which is of course tyranny of the majority over the minority. Since we have strayed so far from the actual text of the Constitution it has become almost meaningless to many politicians. Why not just take out a lighter and finish the job? Without our constitutional moorings the federal government is free to do anything it pleases without repercussion. That is why it does matter so much these days which party is in power and why these national elections matter so much. Conservatives tend to meddle less than liberals in our pocketbooks and freedoms, but it would be far better to remove the ability and temptation altogether.
Let’s return to the actual Constitution as it is written. And at the same time return to the constitutionally required flat-tax rate for all citizens equally under the law; or just pass a Constitutional amendment to institute a national sales tax (not a V.A.T.).