Perchoutofwater Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Has anyone ever challenged the progressive income tax under the 14th amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) Has anyone ever challenged the progressive income tax under the 14th amendment. Don't know if such a challenge has ever been made. But since the 14th amendment restricts only state action I can't see why it would impact a federal progressive income tax. Even a progressive state income tax would be subject to the lowest level of scrutiny: the state would merely have to espouse a "rational basis" for treating people differently based on different income levels. Thus, to prevail a litigant would have to convince a court that such a progressive scheme of taxation is completely lacking in rationality. Imposing a higher rate of tax on people with a greater ability to pay tax is completely rational, regardless of whether or not you think its fair. A challenge against a federal progressive income tax would have to come under the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The same "rational basis" standard would still apply, though. Edited April 28, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 FINALLY! An outlet for Perch's rampant aggression towards the federal govt! Go get 'em tiger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 Don't know if such a challenge has ever been made. But since the 14th amendment restricts only state action I can't see why it would impact a federal progressive income tax. Even a progressive state income tax would be subject to the lowest level of scrutiny: the state would merely have to espouse a "rational basis" for treating people differently based on different income levels. Thus, to prevail a litigation would have to convince a court that such a the progressive scheme of taxation is completely lacking in rationality. Imposing a higher rate of tax on people with a greater ability to pay tax is completely rational, regardless of whether or not you think its fair. A challenge against a federal progressive income tax would have to come under the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The same "rational basis" standard would still apply, though. I was thinking of the equal protection clause, and isn't the United States a state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Can we merge this thread into Whomper's "Happy" thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I was thinking of the equal protection clause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Has anyone ever challenged the progressive income tax under the 14th amendment. I'd rather they didn't. I've had about enough creative interpretations of the 14th amendment to have it read whatever we want it to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 The founding fathers were in favor of progressive taxation. Of course this wasn't necessarily on income, but rather wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Don't know if such a challenge has ever been made. But since the 14th amendment restricts only state action I can't see why it would impact a federal progressive income tax. so you're saying the restrictions of the 14th amendment don't apply to, say, an act of the US congress? I don't believe that is correct at all. there is indeed a "state action" doctrine in the case law, originating in this case, but that doctrine holds that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses apply only to state action, in contrast to actions of individuals. the distinction is between restricting government and individuals, not state government and federal government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 Just thinking that equal protection means we should all pay the same percentage right? Otherwise it is discriminatory. Especially when a minority is being taxed the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I was thinking of the equal protection clause, and isn't the United States a state? Nope. The US is a republic of states, not a state itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 Nope. The US is a republic of states, not a state itself. Is the president not considered a head of state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 so you're saying the restrictions of the 14th amendment don't apply to, say, an act of the US congress? I don't believe that is correct at all. That's exactly what I'm saying. The 14th Amendment provides that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws." We are afforded substantially identical "equal protection" from federal action by the 5th Amendment. Under both the 14th and 5th Amendments "state action" is required, which is to say we are afforded protection from governmental action as opposed to the actions of private citizens. But the term "state action" is more broadly defined to include all government action whereas the word "state" in the 14th Amendment more specifically refers to each of the 50 states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Just thinking that equal protection means we should all pay the same percentage right? Otherwise it is discriminatory. Especially when a minority is being taxed the most. well, everyone IS taxed the same amount on their first x amount of income, the next x amount, and so on. there are plenty of good arguments against steeply progressive income taxes, I just don't think the 14th amendment is one of the better ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) Is the president not considered a head of state? No, you're thinking of this guy. "Head of state" is a generic term that applies to the person at the top of pretty much any political body. The queen of England is considered the head of state there, for example. Its not a technical term of art. While I could be wrong, I do not believe that term even appears in the Constitution. Edited April 28, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 That's exactly what I'm saying. The 14th Amendment provides that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws." We are afforded substantially identical "equal protection" from federal action by the 5th Amendment. Under both the 14th and 5th Amendments "state action" is required, which is to say we are afforded protection from governmental action as opposed to the actions of private citizens. But the term "state action" is more broadly defined to include all government action whereas the word "state" in the 14th Amendment more specifically refers to each of the 50 states. the 14th amendment has been held to apply to the federal government in what is referred to as the doctrine of reverse incorporation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) well, everyone IS taxed the same amount on their first x amount of income, the next x amount, and so on. That is a pretty accurate way of looking at it. But you could couch the argument as people in one tax bracket are being discriminated against relative to people of another tax bracket. The practical barrier to such an argument is that tax brackets are not one of the "protected classes" that are afforded greater protection under the 14th and 5th Amendments, which shunts the argument into the "rational basis" level of scrutiny. Litigants universally fail to win under that standard because government can almost always come up with some stated reason for treating people different that isn't complete gibberish. Edited April 28, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 the 14th amendment has been held to apply to the federal government in what is referred to as the doctrine of reverse incorporation. Yeah, through the 5th Amendment. Just like I said. Just like your link says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.