[ancient_geezer]

Generally the EITC is rationalised as the return of Payroll (i.e. SS/Medicare) tax dollars.

Can Congress return tax dollars to selected portions of the taxpayers under the constitution? You tell me? How does one gain standing, as an individual, in the Courts to overturn what in the minds of Congress amounts to the return of an "overpayment".

In my own opinion, the EITC is improper because it does not treat all taxpayers equally. It favors one segment of the population over another. But the same can be said of every credit, special deduction or exemption in the tax code, including the laying of import duties and sin taxes or specific excises on any product of commerce and not others.

The Constitution states:

 

Constitution for the United States of America:

• Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

• Article I 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; "

• Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

The founding fathers established the rule of "uniformity" to prevent states from being treated differently under the tax law. That was done to prohibit the use of indirect taxes as defacto Tarriffs benefitting or acting to the detriment of commerce in one state or group of states in regard to the rest.

The rule of uniformity imply only that a common rule will be applied regardless of where the tax is levied.

The Courts make it clear as to where the resolution of such problems lay:

 

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

• "The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the Government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."

Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321

• 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56]   he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."

The limits of taxation?:

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

• "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

[allrightythen]

Can Congress return tax dollars to selected portions of the taxpayers under the constitution?

No. Congress can lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, only for the common defense or general welfare according to the constitution. The EITC should be found unconstitutional on its face. The taxing power was intended to be (thus) limited.

Not any more it seems. Now with great swelling of words, the 'courts' declare that public policy trancends rights to property. Anyone claiming his property becomes a kind of enemy of the State. I regret to say Dershowitz is right. The Constitution is dead letter. Public policy has so colored the actions of government, that it rules now. Wouldnt you agree?