“If the government decides to tax boats, is the tax unconstitutional because they pay and I don’t? No. Why? Because it is equally applied — if I buy a boat, I would be subject to the same tax.”
Do you receive some sort of representation from your neighbor having paid taxes on that boat, such as a road built? Yes? Then you received unjust representation.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!
“if the government decides to tax boats, is the tax unconstitutional because they pay and I don’t?”
Do I have to explain this? No, because that would be a property tax. Or if it is a tax on buying boats, then a consumption or excise tax. Income taxes are what were called capitation taxes or poll taxes, more commonly today head taxes. It is applied upon individuals by classing them according to how much they’ve accumulated over the period in question in income. Property taxes are applied upon the ownership of something, or if it is a consumption tax upon the purchase of something. No special status is implied.
“The fact that the law may impact one group of people...differently than another group of people...doesn’t make it unconstitutional”
Perhaps it would be easier for you if you thought of it not as one law affecting people differently, which it really isn’t, but rather as different laws for different classes of people, which is more accurate.
“is the law unconstitutional because they pay and I don’t?”
Yes, if you ate paying a different rate for a different income level. Because then obviously there’s one rule for them and one for you.
“Because it is equally applied”
How fan you say that? They have one rate applied to them and another is applied to you based solely on income classification. How can that ne considered equal application?
The more I think about it, property taxes like poll taxes are considered direct taxes. So if your boat tax is a tax on ownership and not a tax on purchase, it may be a matter of status like income brackets. I’d have to think about it.
Please ignore my depiction of property taxes in post 124 as not being direct taxes. I was going off half-cocked.
“like ‘the rich’ murderers”
Come now. This is beneath you. Richness is a status; murderousness is not. You are put on trial for discreet acts of murder, not for being a murderer. Once convicted you obtain special status as a convict or an ex-con, but not as a murderer.
Having an income at so-and-so a level does confer special status, though, more like being a felon than being a murderer.
By the way, if you want to attack felon status as in violation of equal protection, go ahead. I say it’s acceptable along the same lines as unequal laws for inors and adults, mothers and fathers, or marrieds and singles.
It is special status, just like different rates for different income groups. Only I don’t buy the state’s interest as legitimate in varying income tax rates like I do for blocking felons from voting. That the government can get more money with less political risk from soaking the rich does not trump equal protection.