Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Taxing and Spending Clause [1] (which contains provisions known as the General Welfare Clause [2] and the Uniformity Clause [3]), Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the ...
The United States Constitution and its amendments comprise hundreds of clauses which outline the functioning of the United States Federal Government, the political relationship between the states and the national government, and affect how the United States federal court system interprets the law. When a particular clause becomes an important ...
USC via Cornell: when citing one of a series of USC sections, where it would be redundant to display the full citation for each section, this template can be used to display only the section number. {{ United States Code subsection }} , {{ USCSub }}
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." [16] The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power.
A Lindahl tax is a form of taxation conceived by Erik Lindahl in which individuals pay for public goods according to their marginal benefits. In other words, they pay according to the amount of satisfaction or utility they derive from the consumption of an additional unit of the public good.
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the U.S. Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States. [1]
The term, in the form "taxing and spending", is attested from 1928. [1] It was used, in the form "spend and tax", in the 18 October 1938 edition of The New York Times, [6] in a profile of Franklin D. Roosevelt's advisor Harry Hopkins, the administrator of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), a key agency of Roosevelt's New Deal program, written by Arthur Krock, with the subheading "Spend ...
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796), [1] is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages [2] did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes.