Tax Return Processing Fee
-
@mikehurley said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 from my extremely-layman reading I’d interpret “uniform throughout the United States” to mean “same rules apply in all states”, not “uniform tax for all people.“
Otherwise even a normal “flat” tax (say, 5%) would arguably not be flat enough, you’d need an absolute flat tax, say $2,000 a year. For everyone, even unemployed etc. That can’t be the intended interpretation.I think the argument would say a flat percentage would be uniform, but progressive taxes aren't, because people with higher incomes are paying a different percentage, implicitly creating a form of classicism, which the uniformity clause was intended to prevent.
From what I've read, uniform doesn't apply to the amount collected, but the rules for determining the amounts collected. Like I've said before when I read that clause that was how I read it. Everybody who makes $50k will pay $X in taxes. Everybody who makes $60k will pay $Y in taxes. Everybody in situation A pays $B less in taxes. Largely, the exact rules don't matter.
Right. The uniformity would be that $X out of $50k would have to be the same percentage as $Y out of $60k.
However I can see why others could read it differently and if I had a time machine I'd ask the framers to use more precise language for this kind of thing.
Here's something amusing and interesting to think about - how much of the Constitution would have been written differently (hopefully to be more precise) if the framers knew the sort of legal nitpicking that would happen over the years? Would the 2nd Amendment have been written differently? Would the General Welfare clause have been more targeted? Etc. Etc.
I think everyone who ever seriously considered the US Constitution has wondered that.
-
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
But there's also the question of some whether the phrase "without apportionment" in the Sixteenth ought to provide sufficient exemption from the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 to allow a progressive income tax.
Hmm, I don't remember hearing that argument before. Maybe my RWNJ friends are insufficiently RW or insufficiently NJ.
-
From what I've read, uniform doesn't apply to the amount collected, but the rules for determining the amounts collected. Like I've said before when I read that clause that was how I read it. Everybody who makes $50k will pay $X in taxes. Everybody who makes $60k will pay $Y in taxes. Everybody in situation A pays $B less in taxes. Largely, the exact rules don't matter.
Right. The uniformity would be that $X out of $50k would have to be the same percentage as $Y out of $60k.
That's my point, where do you get the idea that the percentage needs to match? Case law does not say that and I would say the way the word uniform is used in that Clause does not mean that. It could I suppose but I wouldn't consider that the obvious meaning. As long as the rules apply equally to all regardless of geography, regardless of what those rules are, it's good.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
But there's also the question of some whether the phrase "without apportionment" in the Sixteenth ought to provide sufficient exemption from the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 to allow a progressive income tax.
Hmm, I don't remember hearing that argument before. Maybe my RWNJ friends are insufficiently RW or insufficiently NJ.
I don't know which would be the case. They would probably argue that the 16th Amendment itself was unconstitutional and should not have passed. I was just trying to come up with an argument that would admit the amendment and still be against progressive taxes.
-
@mikehurley said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
From what I've read, uniform doesn't apply to the amount collected, but the rules for determining the amounts collected. Like I've said before when I read that clause that was how I read it. Everybody who makes $50k will pay $X in taxes. Everybody who makes $60k will pay $Y in taxes. Everybody in situation A pays $B less in taxes. Largely, the exact rules don't matter.
Right. The uniformity would be that $X out of $50k would have to be the same percentage as $Y out of $60k.
That's my point, where do you get the idea that the percentage needs to match? Case law does not say that and I would say the way the word uniform is used in that Clause does not mean that. It could I suppose but I wouldn't consider that the obvious meaning. As long as the rules apply equally to all regardless of geography, regardless of what those rules are, it's good.
"Uniform" means it applies equally to all. If the rate changes with level of income, then it's not applying equally to all. Unless you're saying uniformity means only sameness across geography, which I would argue is an overly restrictive definition of the term.
And case law only means that courts have interpreted it a certain way. It doesn't mean that's what it's supposed to mean.
-
@mikehurley said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
However I can see why others could read it differently and if I had a time machine I'd ask the framers to use more precise language for this kind of thing.
If I had a time machine, I'd ask the framers to use more precise language for a bunch of things. The first one that came to my mind was one that you mentioned in your next paragraph (before I read it). Establishment Clause is another one.
-
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@HardwareGeek said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
But there's also the question of some whether the phrase "without apportionment" in the Sixteenth ought to provide sufficient exemption from the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 to allow a progressive income tax.
Hmm, I don't remember hearing that argument before. Maybe my RWNJ friends are insufficiently RW or insufficiently NJ.
I don't know which would be the case. They would probably argue that the 16th Amendment itself was unconstitutional and should not have passed. I was just trying to come up with an argument that would admit the amendment and still be against progressive taxes.
Excuse the ignorance, but how can an amendment
sbe unconstitutional?
Americans sometimes make it sound like the “founding fathers” where all-knowing sages and whatever they envisioned is the ultimate truth which must never change. But as far as I can tell, amendments are the chosen method of changing the constitution (and extremely rare), so how could jurisdiction prevent legislation power here?
-
@jinpa said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
Still no reason they couldn't have an easy-to-find list of various versions and their prices (including the free version).
Apart from the fact that that might lead to you not giving anything like as much money to them?
-
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@mikehurley said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
From what I've read, uniform doesn't apply to the amount collected, but the rules for determining the amounts collected. Like I've said before when I read that clause that was how I read it. Everybody who makes $50k will pay $X in taxes. Everybody who makes $60k will pay $Y in taxes. Everybody in situation A pays $B less in taxes. Largely, the exact rules don't matter.
Right. The uniformity would be that $X out of $50k would have to be the same percentage as $Y out of $60k.
That's my point, where do you get the idea that the percentage needs to match? Case law does not say that and I would say the way the word uniform is used in that Clause does not mean that. It could I suppose but I wouldn't consider that the obvious meaning. As long as the rules apply equally to all regardless of geography, regardless of what those rules are, it's good.
"Uniform" means it applies equally to all. If the rate changes with level of income, then it's not applying equally to all. Unless you're saying uniformity means only sameness across geography, which I would argue is an overly restrictive definition of the term.
And case law only means that courts have interpreted it a certain way. It doesn't mean that's what it's supposed to mean.
It’s probably the intended definition, otherwise either party would’ve challenged it right from the beginning.
But as discussed, you could say “same rate” is overly restrictive and only “same amount” is uniform. I have another idea, though: instead of going from flat to “ultra-flat” you could go to ultra-progressive: everything
aboutabove $100,000 is taxed in full. That’d be “uniform” in some definition, too.
-
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
Excuse the ignorance, but how can an amendments be unconstitutional?
I don't know. Ask the California state Supreme Court; they declared an amendment to the state constitution unconstitutional (according to the state constitution; there's no logical contradiction in a state constitution being found to violate the Federal constitution).
-
@HardwareGeek said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
I don't know.
I saw this the other day (when chasing down whether ex post facto tax law changes were constitutional). Apparently, a constitution can state that some parts of it are protected from some types of amendment, and that those parts that are so protected are superior to other parts of the constitution. It's very much the case that not all constitutions do this!
-
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@HardwareGeek said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
But there's also the question of some whether the phrase "without apportionment" in the Sixteenth ought to provide sufficient exemption from the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 to allow a progressive income tax.
Hmm, I don't remember hearing that argument before. Maybe my RWNJ friends are insufficiently RW or insufficiently NJ.
I don't know which would be the case. They would probably argue that the 16th Amendment itself was unconstitutional and should not have passed. I was just trying to come up with an argument that would admit the amendment and still be against progressive taxes.
Excuse the ignorance, but how can an amendments be unconstitutional?
Americans sometimes make it sound like the “founding fathers” where all-knowing sages and whatever they envisioned is the ultimate truth which must never change. But as far as I can tell, amendments are the chosen method of changing the constitution (and extremely rare), so how could jurisdiction prevent legislation power here?If another part of the Constitution said that nothing relating to X can be passed by the legislative body, then an amendment to allow the legislation to pass laws relating to X would have to be passed before an amendment relating to X could be passed by the legislation.
They could get around that by calling a Constitutional Convention, in which the states themselves (via representatives) introduce and enact amendments.
-
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
They could get around that by calling a Constitutional Convention, in which the states themselves (via representatives) introduce and enact amendments.
There's also the Right of Revolution, which is the right of the People to outright throw out a Constitution and put something else in its place. It doesn't happen very often, even at a global level, as it is often accompanied by a nasty war…
-
@dkf Additionally, even without a war, you'd have to get every single state to sign off on the constitution, in a convention where anything can be proposed or modified. 3/4 under rigid rules is hard enough.
-
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
They could get around that by calling a Constitutional Convention, in which the states themselves (via representatives) introduce and enact amendments.
That's never been done (in the US), in part because there's no provision in the Constitution limiting a Constitutional Convention to a particular topic. Once you have a convention in operation, there are no holds barred. They could potentially amend any part they could get enough votes to pass, even rewrite the whole thing from scratch. Almost nobody wants to take the chance of stuff they like being amended.
-
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@HardwareGeek said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
But there's also the question of some whether the phrase "without apportionment" in the Sixteenth ought to provide sufficient exemption from the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 to allow a progressive income tax.
Hmm, I don't remember hearing that argument before. Maybe my RWNJ friends are insufficiently RW or insufficiently NJ.
I don't know which would be the case. They would probably argue that the 16th Amendment itself was unconstitutional and should not have passed. I was just trying to come up with an argument that would admit the amendment and still be against progressive taxes.
Excuse the ignorance, but how can an amendments be unconstitutional?
Americans sometimes make it sound like the “founding fathers” where all-knowing sages and whatever they envisioned is the ultimate truth which must never change. But as far as I can tell, amendments are the chosen method of changing the constitution (and extremely rare), so how could jurisdiction prevent legislation power here?If another part of the Constitution said that nothing relating to X can be passed by the legislative body, then an amendment to allow the legislation to pass laws relating to X would have to be passed before an amendment relating to X could be passed by the legislation.
They could get around that by calling a Constitutional Convention, in which the states themselves (via representatives) introduce and enact amendments.
That sounds like doing the same thing “with extra steps” (assuming the same body who is passing the amendment is also able to give itself the power to pass said amendment).
@dkf said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
Apparently, a constitution can state that some parts of it are protected from some types of amendment, and that those parts that are so protected are superior to other parts of the constitution. It's very much the case that not all constitutions do this!
I didn’t think of that, though I don’t think it would apply here. Something like “shall pass no law regarding X” wouldn’t make it entrenched unless explicitly calling out “and this can’t be changed via amendment”.
Now that you mention it, we do have an entrenched clause in the German constitution (“Ewigkeitsgarantie”, eternity clause). It covers certain things as absolutely unchangeable (aside from enacting a completely new constitution as given by the populace) such as article one, basic human rights, and things like state form (democratic, federal republic, ...)
-
@pie_flavor said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
Additionally, even without a war, you'd have to get every single state to sign off on the constitution
Perhaps. Or there might be other ways to coerce it, or to encourage it economically, or to do it piecemeal (which is how it has worked for a lot of the US). It's not exactly something that's been tested a lot! However, it does follow totally from the observation that laws only have power because people say they do, and if the people start ignoring a law outright then it ceases to be meaningful even if it was previously a part of the relevant constitution. This is all at the boundary of legal theory and political theory…
-
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
I didn’t think of that, though I don’t think it would apply here. Something like “shall pass no law regarding X” wouldn’t make it entrenched unless explicitly calling out “and this can’t be changed via amendment”.
A simpler way would be if you had two articles/clauses that were in direct conflict and nothing in the newer clause said that it overrode the older one. That's a bad situation for a constitution to be in, and most framers of constitutional law try to avoid it, but states where plebiscites can amend directly (such as California AIUI) can get into this state. That's when the relevant court has to figure out what to do about it (because having the legal equivalent of
0 = 1is a bad idea) and the usual approach is to go for the least disruptive option, typically the status quo.
-
@pie_flavor said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
you'd have to get every single state to sign off on the constitution
No, that also requires only three-fourths approval.
-
@djls45 Note that I was responding to @dkf who was talking about formally chucking it out and drafting a new one, where the new one is identical to the old one minus the entrenchment, not the convention method of amendment.
-
@pie_flavor You'd still need only three-fourths of the States to ratify it for the current one to be abolished so the new one could be accepted.
-
@djls45 To ratify a totally new constitution? What makes you say that?
-
@dkf said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
states where plebiscites can amend directly (such as California AIUI)
Yes.
-
@pie_flavor said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 To ratify a totally new constitution? What makes you say that?
An amendment requires 3/4ths approval. A rewrite can be done via a (very large) amendment because nothing is protected. Ergo, a complete rewrite can be accomplished with only 3/4ths of states ratifying.
And if one of those remaining states didn’t like it... well, things probably won’t go nearly as well for them as they did for the Confederacy.
-
@Unperverted-Vixen And this is the part where you scroll up and learn that we are talking about parts of the Constitution that cannot be amended due to an entrenchment clause, so it cannot be done via a very large amendment, which is the whole reason a rewrite was mentioned in the first place.
-
@pie_flavor said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 To ratify a totally new constitution? What makes you say that?
Yeah, that doesn't sound right.
Any obligation of an individual state to respect a majority ruling of other states it doesn't want itself goes out of the window with the constitution that enforces it.
Legally speaking, at least. Practically it might look different.
-
@pie_flavor Yes, that was discussed, and I thought we'd already come to the conclusion that the US constitution has no such clause?
-
@Unperverted-Vixen It in fact does.
Wikiwand - Entrenched clause
An entrenched clause or entrenchment clause of a constitution is a provision that makes certain amendments either more difficult or impossible to pass. Overriding an entrenched clause may require a supermajority, a referendum, or the consent of the minority party. The term eternity clause is used...
-
a declaration that direct taxes must be apportioned according to the state populations, were explicitly shielded from Constitutional amendment prior to 1808.
So that would mean what @djls45 said was right, that the amendment was unconstitutional. Well, except for the loophole that the entrechment clause is not itself entreched.
-
@pie_flavor said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
And this is the part where you scroll up and learn that we are talking about parts of the Constitution that cannot be amended due to an entrenchment clause, so it cannot be done via a very large amendment, which is the whole reason a rewrite was mentioned in the first place.
But it can be done by wholesale adoption of a new constitution, because constitutions don't really have any power other than that which is granted to them by the People. The power of the old constitution to prevent amendment or replacement would be irrelevant without meaningful numbers of people to do the enforcement.
This is also why there are no meaningful rules for a constitutional convention other than those that the convention sets for itself: when you're changing all the basic rules, the rules for how to set the basic rules are up for grabs.
-
@pie_flavor Not really. From your own link (emphasis added):
United States
Article V of the United States Constitution temporarily shielded certain clauses in Article I from being amended. The first clause in Section 9, which prevented Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves prior to 1808, and the fourth clause in that same section, a declaration that direct taxes must be apportioned according to the state populations, were explicitly shielded from Constitutional amendment prior to 1808.[10]Article V also shields the first clause of Article I, Section 3, which provides for equal representation of the states in the United States Senate, from being amended, though not absolutely.[11] This has been interpreted to require unanimous ratification of any amendment altering the composition of the United States Senate.[12] However, the text of the clause would indicate that the size of the Senate could be changed by an ordinary amendment if each state continued to have equal representation.
-
@HardwareGeek Equal representation in the Senate is still entrenched even if the size isn't, exactly.
-
@M_Adams said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@dkf said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@M_Adams said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
retroactively adjust their tax laws
Is that constitutional?
No, but technically speaking, neither is the entire progressive income tax structure.
All that being true, no one is going to fight that and risk being flagged for extensive audits (going back up to 7 years) while their case winds its way through Tax Court ( The IRS is given, historically, very wide latitude, as the tax code’s three objectives are
: collecting the largest amount of money possible, being used as a political weapon against your opponents, and being used as a political weapon against your opponents).And IIRC, tax laws are considered “administrative regulations” which are a very different beast under US law.
My SIL works for the IRS.
-
@pie_flavor said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@HardwareGeek Equal representation in the Senate is still entrenched even if the size isn't, exactly.
There's ways around that - e.g. don't call it the Senate; if there's no Senate, all states have equal suffrage in it (that is to say, none). But you're right, there is some minor entrenchment at present.
-
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@Steve_The_Cynic Wait, so all of France didn’t pay any taxes for 2018??
Income tax, but (with a few specific and weird exceptions) yes. During 2018 we paid tax on our 2017 income, and in 2019 we are paying tax on our 2019 income. To avoid all sorts of nightmarish difficulties(1), they decided to excuse us from paying tax on our 2018 income.
Most other taxes - VAT (sales tax(2)), taxe d'habitation(3), taxe foncière(4), etc. - are already collected during the relevant year rather than during the following year, so we still have to pay them.
(1) Translation: protests that would make the Gilets Jaunes thing look like the actions of sunny-dispositioned hippies. (Possibly including the beginning of the Sixth Republic.)
(2) For the consumer, there's a pedantic distinction between sales tax and VAT, and the most obvious result of that distinction is that the price shown on an item displayed in a store includes VAT in a VAT regime, but in a sales tax regime (e.g. the US), it does not.(5)
(3) Tax paid by the occupier of a dwelling.
(4) Tax paid by the owner of a dwelling. Owner-occupiers pay both.
(5) Well, that was my experience in the 1980s when I lived over there. Except for the year where I lived in New Hampshire, where there isn't any sales tax or any VAT. Or any (state) income tax.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@Steve_The_Cynic Wait, so all of France didn’t pay any taxes for 2018??
Income tax, but (with a few specific and weird exceptions) yes.
That sounds like quite a large tax cut for that year.
During 2018 we paid tax on our 2017 income, and in 2019 we are paying tax on our 2019 income. To avoid all sorts of nightmarish difficulties(1), they decided to excuse us from paying tax on our 2018 income.
The first part already sounds nightmarish. So you have to save up everything you own in taxes and pay for it next year? How many people will have already spent it, anyway, and won't be able to afford paying taxes?
(1) Translation: protests that would make the Gilets Jaunes thing look like the actions of sunny-dispositioned hippies. (Possibly including the beginning of the Sixth Republic.)
Yeah. Slightly adapted from a gay joke:
Whoever said "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" has never met a Frenchman slightly inconvenienced.(2) For the consumer, there's a pedantic distinction between sales tax and VAT, and the most obvious result of that distinction is that the price shown on an item displayed in a store includes VAT in a VAT regime, but in a sales tax regime (e.g. the US), it does not.(5)
I hate this so very much. Show me the price I have to pay, the other number is completely meaningless.
-
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
I hate this so very much. Show me the price I have to pay, the other number is completely meaningless.
It's not always practical to include sales tax in the price, because the tax can vary depending on the location, type of product (e.g. food is not taxed where I am, but prepared food is), special status of the customer, etc. Sometimes you may find mom-and-pop stores that show tax-included pricing, but most don't bother.
-
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@Steve_The_Cynic Wait, so all of France didn’t pay any taxes for 2018??
Income tax, but (with a few specific and weird exceptions) yes.
That sounds like quite a large tax cut for that year.
Sort of, except that the tax received by the government is largely unchanged (see the next part).
During 2018 we paid tax on our 2017 income, and in 2019 we are paying tax on our 2019 income. To avoid all sorts of nightmarish difficulties(1), they decided to excuse us from paying tax on our 2018 income.
The first part already sounds nightmarish. So you have to save up everything you own in taxes and pay for it next year? How many people will have already spent it, anyway, and won't be able to afford paying taxes?
It happens. My first boss over here did, indeed, forget to put money aside during his first working year to pay the tax on the first one during the second one, and had to borrow money from his parents to pay the tax. (He didn't repeat the mistake...)
But in general it wasn't a huge problem, especially if you applied for what's called mensualisation - you got to pay last year's tax by monthly direct debits over the first ten months of the year, which did occasionally cause oddities.
In general, during the months up until the tax was formally calculated (July / August), they took a projected amount based on the previous year's tax figure. The formal calculations usually yielded a (slightly) different value than the year before, and depending on whether it was more or less, they merely added extra payments in November and possibly December, or shrank the payments in October and possibly September (etc.).
Well, unless it was wildly different. In 2015, Mrs Cynic passed away, so I followed the procedures and filed two declarations (one at two "parts" for Jan to June, and one at one "part" for July to Dec). The calculated tax was zero (for inadequately explained but apparently valid reasons), so in August I got a bank transfer to my account from the tax man at an amount equal to the total of all the monthlies I had already paid, followed about two weeks later by a letter explaining it. When you get a mystery four-figure transfer to your account, and it turns out to be from the tax man, well, I don't know about you, but it made me a little nervous, so I called them immediately and they explained.
Oh, and then they tried to set my mensualisation for 2016's tax, to be paid in 2017, to zero as well, which would have been wildly wrong (seeing as how on one "part", I pay about three times as much tax as we did on two). Fortunately, there was a relatively easy-to-use, if hard to find, way to adjust the figure that would be used to calculate the monthlies for the following year.
-
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
They were charging me another fee that they didn't mention would cost anything before I picked it.
I call shenanigans! I know I'm supposed to respect Hanlon's razor and maybe it's an accident and I should know better but no! I cry crookery! They're trying to nick off with your hard-earned money.
@kazitor said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
The link in the email had to be followed less than an hour after it as sent. It regularly took longer to arrive.
Shenanigans!
@M_Adams said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
state and local tax authorities sometimes wait until after “Tax Day” to retroactively adjust their tax laws...
Schenigelei!
-
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
That sounds like quite a large tax cut for that year.
Yup, but there are limits. I don't know the exact rules, but you can still be taxed if your 2019 revenue is significantly higher than the previous years ones'.
@topspin said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
Whoever said "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" has never met a Frenchman slightly inconvenienced.
Indeed:
-
@djls45 said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@dkf said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
@M_Adams said in Tax Return Processing Fee:
retroactively adjust their tax laws
Is that constitutional?
No, but technically speaking, neither is the entire progressive income tax structure.
Well, there is this bit in the Constitution, too:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration.
-
@slavdude That is why I added a trolleybus icon.
And
; there's already been a lot of discussion of the 16th Amendment since that post, too. :)
-
@slavdude Welcome back!
-
@pie_flavor Thanks. It's been a pretty hellish few months, work-wise, but in a good way, I guess.
-
@slavdude Slave-dude has been working like a slave? :P
-
@djls45 Yep, pretty much.
Entrenched clause - Wikipedia
