We are created equal, but we don’t have to end that way

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal ... ”

Those are the first few words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Every once in a while I take out my copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United

States and the 27 amendments thereto and refresh my mind with the strength of those words.

However, it seems to me that somewhere along the line the “all men are created equal” has become subject to a somewhat whimsical interpretation.

In Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution we find the following words: “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.”

To me, the operative words in the foregoing are “shall be uniform.” That seems to be an extension of the “all men are created equal” thought.

I realize that the authors, after having said “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,” then dropped the initial words in stating that the means of providing funds for the common defense and general welfare shall be uniform. But does that provide a valid basis for the mish-mash taxation structure we now have?

In the matter of taxation on an individual’s income, we have several levels of income at which the tax rate changes. Does that meet the test of “uniform”?

In another aspect of the current tax structure, we have the standard deduction and itemized deduction provision. Each of us uses that which we feel is to our advantage. Is that uniform?

Congress keeps monkeying around with the provisions of the tax code such that each year we have a learning process to go through in attempt to understand what it is they have done to dig deeper into our pockets.

I have been reading about one of the new proposals (and I guess it really isn’t new, as they have run it up the flagpole before) where they indicate the desire to lower the homeowner mortgage interest deduction, over a period of five years, from its current level of the first $1 million on your principal residence and $100,000 on a home equity line of credit to a maximum of $500,000 or, as an alternative, a
flat 15 percent tax credit for everybody with a mortgage below the declining limits of the first option.

Such an action will be of benefit to those who do not itemize at the expense of those who do itemize. Again, we see the continued push by those in Washington to take from those who have and give to those who have not.

Yes, all men are created equal, but from thereon each is (or should be) on his own. If, by dent of one’s efforts, a person is able to achieve a modicum of success, be it financial or otherwise, he should not lose control through the tax policies of the federal government. 

Bayne’s column runs every Sunday on the editorial page.