On Taxes And An Anniversary

[PoliticalChic]

1. The Communist Manifesto was issued on this day, February 26th, in 1848.

a. In 1861, in the US, we saw the birth of progressive income taxation. While not directly based on Marx...watch how this falls out....

b. 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


2. 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.



3. 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 taxbut 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



4. 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.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

1. The Communist Manifesto was issued on this day, February 26th, in 1848.

a. In 1861, in the US, we saw the birth of progressive income taxation. While not directly based on Marx...watch how this falls out....

b. 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


2. 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.



3. 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 taxbut 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



4. 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.

Domination of Dead Daddy's Dough

Tax away trust funds and inheritances over an economically harmless sum and you'll never have to pay income taxes again. Even the rich won't have to pay, except the parasitic heirs, who never earned a dime of it.

Those who oppose this resent their Daddies for not getting rich and making life easier for them than it is for others. Or they must believe in the vengeance of ghosts.

They are economic cowards who have no reason to whine in this class-restricted debate. They should go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where they belong and grovel before their spoiled-putrid Masters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now...for today's lesson in the history of economic theory.....

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
404 Not Found

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, the common good.

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeufs 'Plebeian Manifesto,' which was later renamed the 'Manifesto of the Equals.' Babeufs early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact.

He wrote: The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the lastWe reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all. Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would [have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.

5. Oscar Wilde: Under socialismthere will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundingsEach member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the common good. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didnt get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.

Domination of Dead Daddy's Dough

Tax away trust funds and inheritances over an economically harmless sum and you'll never have to pay income taxes again. Even the rich won't have to pay, except the parasitic heirs, who never earned a dime of it.

Those who oppose this resent their Daddies for not getting rich and making life easier for them than it is for others. Or they must believe in the vengeance of ghosts.

They are economic cowards who have no reason to whine in this class-restricted debate. They should go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where they belong and grovel before their spoiled-putrid Masters.

"... inheritances ..."

So you are one of the folks who wants to separate a working man and his family?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Domination of Dead Daddy's Dough

Tax away trust funds and inheritances over an economically harmless sum and you'll never have to pay income taxes again. Even the rich won't have to pay, except the parasitic heirs, who never earned a dime of it.

Those who oppose this resent their Daddies for not getting rich and making life easier for them than it is for others. Or they must believe in the vengeance of ghosts.

They are economic cowards who have no reason to whine in this class-restricted debate. They should go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where they belong and grovel before their spoiled-putrid Masters.

Put your money where your mouth is and will all of your assets to Uncle Sam.

No law against it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Put your money where your mouth is and will all of your assets to Uncle Sam.

Another "Who's Your Daddy?" Decline and Fall

Why would I volunteer that? It would leave my children to be dominated by the RichKid Reich. It's college-level stupidity to individualize change. Statements like yours are completely illogical.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another "Who's Your Daddy?" Decline and Fall

Why would I volunteer that? It would leave my children to be dominated by the RichKid Reich. It's college-level stupidity to individualize change. Statements like yours are completely illogical.

Your post is absurd, but I love this line:
" college-level stupidity "

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Your post is absurd, but I love this line:
" college-level stupidity "

Americans have to be dumbed down by the Totalitarians to believe that getting a job by going four years without a job is good for the economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Americans have to be dumbed down by the Totalitarians to believe that getting a job by going four years without a job is good for the economy.

I am generally pleased with the education I received......although I have learned a great deal on my own......but I am truly disappointed with the product my alma mater has been turning out since.