Personal taxes in the US came about because of the anti-saloon league and women suffrage.
The Anti-Saloon League was the leading organization lobbying for prohibition in the United States in the early 20th century. It was a key component of the Progressive Era, and was strongest in the South and rural North, drawing heavy support from pietistic Protestant ministers and their congregations, especially Methodists, Baptists, Disciples and Congregationalists.[1] It concentrated on legislation, and cared about how legislators voted, not whether they drank or not. Founded as a state society in Oberlin, Ohio in 1893, its influence spread rapidly. In 1895 it became a national organization and quickly rose to become the most powerful prohibition lobby in America, pushing aside its older competitors the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party. Its triumph was nationwide prohibition locked into the Constitution with passage of the 18th Amendment in 1920
Anti-Saloon League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those damn pious progressive religious women!
Personal taxes took place of liquor and beer taxes. If you feel the need to throw trash upon progressives, the religious ones are the best place to start.
"Personal taxes in the US came about because of the anti-saloon league and women suffrage."
Total nonsense.
1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.
[. Hylton vs United States, 1796...on the constitutionality of a federal carriage tax. " United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 respectively theArticle I, Clause 9 requirement for the apportioning of direct taxes. It found the carriage tax was an "excise" instead of a "direct tax" requiring apportionment among the states by population".
Hylton v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While earlier decision (Ware v. Hylton) had nullified a state statute, in this case the court refused to nullify a federal statute, in effect giving Congress greater discretion in levying taxes than the ratifiers of the Constitution had intended. So much for federalism.]
2. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.
3.
The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an indirect tax, defined as taxing an event: a tax on the event of receiving income
.therefore it didnt have to be apportioned, merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas not in rebellion.
a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didnt have to pay any tax.
Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first progressive, not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.
b.
But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, United States Taxes and Tax Policy, p. 22.
5.
Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on taxing the rich.
In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax
but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitutions apportionment rule,
a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 54, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.
b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act
. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864.
Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6.
The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the money class to pay in proportion to their ability to pay
which, essentially was the first half of From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.
Covered more fully in chapter eight of "Hostile Takeover," Kibbee
Please.....take notes so you don't go around saying silly things.
"If you feel the need to throw trash upon progressives, the religious ones are the best place to start."
If you mean to lay the blame for theft at the feet of progressives/liberals/socialists/Democrats.....
...I sure do, and I just proved it.
Obama: "But he did identify what he called tactical lessons. He let himself look
too much like the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html
I must also acknowledge my blindness and obliviousness. Please enlighten me to the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Before you begin however did you hear the Republicans advocating for Pell grants on the Senate floor yesterday?
