602; Turco Paint & Varnish Co. v. Kalodner, 320 Pa. 421, 184 A. 37, 40 (1936) (“Where different rates are legislatively imposed on varying amounts or quantities of the same tax base, then you have a graded tax that lacks uniformity under our Constitution.”); Cope’s Estate, 43 A. at 81 (explaining that the Uniformity Clause guards against any “device that necessarily or intentionally infringes on the established rules of uniformity and relative equality”). Imagine, hypothetically, that the Gaming Act contains two separate municipal assessments: (1) a $10 million lump sum; and (2) a tax of 2% of GTR, subject to an exemption for the first $500 million of each casino’s GTR. The non-uniformity inherent in such a scheme is unmistakable. See Saulsbury, 196 A.2d at 666; Kelley, 181 A. at 602 (<HOLDING>); Cope’s Estate, 43 A. at 81 (“[T]he act in
holding to read words and concepts into our statutes that the general assembly did not write shows disrespect both for the general assembly and the common law which the legislature has the power expressly to displace holding that if the legislature has granted the agency discretion over a particular matter then we review the agencys action pursuant to the deferential abuse of discretion standard  bearing in mind that the legislature determines the boundaries of that discretion holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature recognizing the power of the general assembly to enact statutes bearing on the introduction of evidence holding that the uniformity clause prevents the general assembly from 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