Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): A. 598 (1935), this Court held that a graduated-rate income tax violated the Uniformity Clause. The statute in that case taxed income below $5,000 at a rate of 2%, income between $5,000 and $10,000 at a rate of 2.5%, and income between $10,000 and $25,000 at a rate of 3%. The Kelley Court explained that the tax was non-uniform because it “resulted] in taxing those whose incomes arise above a stated figure merely for the reason that in the discretion of the Legislature their incomes are sufficiently great to be taxed.” Id. at 602. Relying upon Kelley, we subsequently struck down a city ordinance that taxed “every individual engaged in an occupation ... whose gross earnings would amount to $600 or more during the year.” Saulsbury v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 413 Pa. 316, 196 A.2d 664 (1964) (<HOLDING>). More recently, in Amidon, supra, this Court 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the equal protection clause proscribes discrimination against whiteanglos (B) holding that a graduatedrate income tax violates the uniformity clause (C) holding that the statement of current monthly income was the presumptive amount of projected disposable income but presumption could be rebutted by the debt or upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances (D) holding that unlike the uniformity clause the united states constitution does not require equalization across all potential subclassifications of real property (E) holding that the uniformity clause proscribes the unequal treatment of certain individuals based upon their income
Output (English): holding that the statement of current monthly income was the presumptive amount of projected disposable income but presumption could be rebutted by the debt or upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances