The Constitutionality Of Providing Tax Exemption Essay

There is nothing worse than working hard all year, having taxes withheld from your paycheck, and then finding out you still owe Uncle Sam come April. Taxes seem to be one of the most politically charged issues, with candidates from both parties making the topic an integral part of their campaign. Whether any real movement takes place is something that remains to be seen, as the Nation gears up for the next Presidential election.

This idea of reducing taxes to increase investment within the economy sounds like a good idea but hasn’t lived up to its expectations historically. The idea of supply side economics wasn’t a new idea for the American tax code. During the early 1920s, income tax rates were cut multiple times which averaged to a total of most rates being cut by a little less than half. The Mellon Tax Cuts named after Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. He believed that changes in income tax rates causes individuals to change their behavior and practices. As taxes rise, tax payers attempt to reduce taxable income by either working less, retiring earlier, reducing business expansions, restructure companies or spending more money on accountants to find tax loopholes. If executed properly tax cuts can actually benefit economic growth, data from the Internal Revenue Service(IRS) showed that the across-the-board tax cuts in the early 1920s resulted in greater tax payments and larger tax share paid by those in the higher incomes. As the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners were cut from 60 percent or more to just 25 percent, the amount that this tax group payed soared from around 300 million to 700 million per year. (See Figure 2) This sudden massive increase in revenue allowed the U.S. economy to rapidly expand during the mid and late 20s. Between 1920 to 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and

The current tax policy in the United States is very confusing and it is very costly for our government to administer it. It is in the best interest of our country and its citizens to revise or replace our current tax policy.

In the United States, the top one percent received about 20 percent of the overall income for 2016. This creates an uneven distribution of income causing Americans to argue about whether or not the wealthy should pay more in federal income taxes. One side of the argument is that the wealthy make a huge portion of the nation’s income; therefore, they should have higher tax rates. The other side argues that wealthy Americans already pay their fair share of taxes by paying nearly 40 percent and should not be forced to pay more. These arguments both use compelling evidence to make their claims; however, a solution could be reached by increasing the tax rate of the top one percent by only 10 to 20 percent.

The Establishment Clause guarantees the separation of church and government. Christian Theism is the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear , it was believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion. The Supreme Court established various tests to assess the constitutionality of laws that happened before it. The Lemon Test, has three parts addressing purpose, effect, and involvement. To pass the test, government action must be used only for a secular purpose; cannot promote neither prohibit a specific religion. As well as to not substantially involve government in religious matters. Failure on any one of the three

The federal and state governments provide the American citizens with all of the basic necessities within our communities and society that is taken for granted. Programs responsible for assistance in times of need, providing a quality standard of living, and maintaining the strongest military in the world costs incomprehensible amounts of money and could never exist without taxes from the American people. Taxes are payments made by individuals and businesses to support the government and its services. The constitution grants that congress “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises and to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the people”. Taxes paid by Americans redistribute

Kathy and Brett Ouray were married in 1996. In 2014, they consider themselves completely estranged. Due to financial reasons they have decided to not get a divorce or live separately. They also do not have any legal documentation of separation and neither of them has lived outside the home for a significant amount of time. They currently reside together with their three children. They have decided that Brett has contributed more to the upkeep of their home and children than Kathy. They have also decided to file separately. Brett believes he is eligible to file for head-of-household.

Galloway (2013), Galloway argued that the town of Greece violated the establishment clause. The establishment clause within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the national government is unable to establish an official religion. In this court case, it was ruled that the prayers at the town hall did not violate the establishment clause. The basis for this ruling had to do with tradition. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2013), the Green family had to provide health care to their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ruling for this case was that the religious beliefs of the Green family are a factor that can let them deny health care to employees that have different religious beliefs. With a five to four ruling, the Hobby Lobby Stores won the case. These two cases show how Freedom of Religion can be used

Despite adopting this test, the Supreme Court has been quick to disregard the test and lower the wall separating issues of state and faith as long as educational barriers such as the banishment of school prayer remained untouched. This quick change was evident in the 1981 ruling by the court that a law that prohibited the use of public school properties and campuses for religious purposes unconstitutional was deemed itself unconstitutional. This slow reduction of the separating wall was evident in many more cases through the Supreme Court's following history; cases such as deeming acts of the University of Virginia unconstitutional, who violated the free speech of a fundamentalist Christian group by not funding their magazine. Other following cases slowly deemed the funding of Christian organizations and schools more acceptable as Christian books and financial aid to said students, was deemed constitutionally sound if the aid went to the school, not to the students. These establishment issues not only of education but on the use of religious displays and depictions in

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

The Lemon test refers to the case Lemon vs. Kurtzman, which took place in 1971. The case was heard with two other cases involving religion and education, with the main issue being financial support for teacher salaries that were part of parochial schools. State financial aid was being awarded to non-public schools that were teaching religion, which created unsettlement (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89.) The establishment clause was intended to prevent government involvement or support of religion.

Throughout history, taxation on United States citizens has proven to be a necessary component of a growing economy as means of generating revenue for the federal budget. The federal budget funds the many government programs implemented to keep the disabled, elderly, and unemployed from falling bellow the poverty level. Unfortunately, this fund is not always available when catastrophic evens, such as an economic recession, deplete the revenue coming in and create a budget deficit. In order to regenerate money coming in and replace the deficit, the government calls on money gained from taxes. What happens when tax money is already appropriated to other programs? A tax reform. A tax increase has many times been the

Controversy will always follow humans where ever we go. Humans have argued over many issues for centuries, often times with no conclusion or “correct” answer ever in sight. One common issue that has been debated since the early 1900s is whether or not the more wealthy individuals in a society should be taxed more heavily than their poorer counterparts. Many have argued over the pros and cons of the taxation of richer people, but when one looks at it objectively, the pros far outweigh the cons. Not only do the pros outweigh the cons, but a question one must ask oneself is whether or not prosperous people really need that extra money? Richer people should be taxed higher because it is better for the economy, social classes will

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) maintains strict governance of charitable organizations with whom receive their tax exempt status under IRC Sec. 501(c)(3). Organizations classified under IRC Sec. 501(c)(3) are monitored by the IRS for transactions with disqualified individuals in which benefits provided by the organization exceed the consideration received by said organization (IRS, 2015). Additionally, transactions determined to be in will result in sanctions levied against the individuals who received financial benefit from those transactions.

Since the recent passage of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, on October 21, 1998, making the Internet tax free, there has been an intense debate on whether to tax or not to tax Internet purchases. The conservative side, also known as the Republicans, is opposed to Internet taxation saying that it is too costly to collect taxes on Internet purchases. They also believe that since Internet retailers do not have a physical presence in every state, why should the state receive sales tax on a nonexistent store in that state? This would be taxation without representation (par. 18 Lukas). On the other hand, the liberals, also known as democrats, believe that taxation of the Internet should be lawful because