Who wants to defend the Federal Income Tax?

[Robert W]

I fail to see the obsession with Federal taxes without looking at how they are intertwined with state and local taxes

They all come out of the same pocket and contribute to you being a citizen of this country

Because states vary. Some do not have income taxes. Some do not have sales taxes. And on property taxes more than likely all have those. But we are today working on the feds. So dash off on local taxes all you please. But to keep me interested, you will want to stick to the Feds.

 

[Robert W]

It comes from the outlay percentage dedicated to labor....By hook or by crook, the employee pays it all.

I am sorry. I have hired too many workers and paid them plus been a worker for firms to keep arguing this point. I say the income source is the customer. The way you explain it the income source is not the customer, but the worker. That is magic.

 

[Hector12]

YES, and I blame FDR for starting this road to hell.

Liberals and reactionaries continue to disagree about the New Deal. They agree that the New Deal shifted wealth, power, and prestige from the business community to the government.

Those who dislike the government are likely to dislike if for events that have happened since the Roosevelt administration.

At the time, life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. They were more likely to be employed. They benefited from a growing public sector of the economy that was paid for by increasing taxes on the rich and the corporations. That is why Roosevelt was re elected three times, and why reactionaries have not been able to repeal the major reforms of the New Deal.

 

[Oddball]

I am sorry. I have hired too many workers and paid them plus been a worker for firms to keep arguing this point. I say the income source is the customer. The way you explain it the income source is not the customer, but the worker. That is magic.

Income isn't an outlay...Taxes are outlays....The percentage allotted for employees is an outlay...There's no magic fairy that swoops in to give you more funds to pay those outlays, just because it has the artificial label of "employer's share" on it.

 

[Robert W]

Not the question
It is a question of how we raise our revenue

And has nothing at all to do with state and local taxes given the title of this topic, Federal income taxes.

 

[Oddball]

At the time, life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. They were more likely to be employed. They benefited from a growing public sector of the economy that was paid for by increasing taxes on the rich and the corporations. That is why Roosevelt was re elected three times, and why reactionaries have not been able to repeal the major reforms of the New Deal.

Total lie.

Great Myths of the Great Depression

www.mackinac.org

 

[Robert W]

Liberals and reactionaries continue to disagree about the New Deal. They agree that the New Deal shifted wealth, power, and prestige from the business community to the government.

Those who dislike the government are likely to dislike if for events that have happened since the Roosevelt administration.

At the time, life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. They were more likely to be employed. They benefited from a growing public sector of the economy that was paid for by increasing taxes on the rich and the corporations. That is why Roosevelt was re elected three times, and why reactionaries have not been able to repeal the major reforms of the New Deal.

I suggest for reading:

 

[Robert W]

Total lie.

Great Myths of the Great Depression

www.mackinac.org

Correct and backed up by an economist historian:

 

[Hector12]

I suggest for reading:

I suggest for reading:

If you have read it tell me what she has to say using your own words.

 

[Robert W]

Income isn't an outlay...Taxes are outlays....The percentage allotted for employees is an outlay...There's no magic fairy that swoops in to give you more funds to pay those outlays, just because it has the artificial label of "employer's share" on it.

When is a Worker legally liable to pay 100 percent of the FICA tax?

NEVER Where does the firm get the funds to pay for both the worker and the tax?

The customer.

 

[Robert W]

If you have read it tell me what she has to say using your own words.

**** man, you want my words to substitute for the authors?

Essentially she proves that FDR did not cause the economy to get better. However if you want to give credit, give it to the Japanese and Hitler for us getting into a major war.

FDRs policies were in a large measure overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

[Robert W]

If you have read it tell me what she has to say using your own words.

Sure good man.

It is amazing that a book like this even exists. Incredibly complex subjects are interwoven into narratives that are poignant and inspiring. The art is fantastic - it feels like you're watching a masterpiece of black and white film noir. You will see a side of history seemingly buried - your understanding of what lead to and what happened during the Great Depression will grow and you will be entertained - it's a history thriller. Buy this book.

Another person:

I read this book back in 2008 as a requisite for better understanding the Great Recession that was just getting started. Prior to this, my thinking was primarily influenced by what I had learned in high school and college history classes. Our school learning basically tells us that despite the great and noble effort by FDR, the depression was so bad that it defied any cure, and the only thing that could cure it was a world conflagration. So the question on my mind in '08 was, is it necessary to repeat this same history? Are we destined to suffer a full decade of miserable economic performance and to have it capped by a world on fire? Wouldn't it be better if we all took a more exhaustive look at history in order to avoid a foolish repeat? This book takes an unvarnished look at the Great Depression an uncovers a multitude of bungling and missteps our leaders made during this era. It's a must-read for anyone with a discerning spirit.

The book starts with a cameo story about a young man who commits suicide. The note he leaves behind reveals the despairing mood of the time. The reader fully expects (like we learned in our sugar-coated stories in history classes) that this story will be contrasted with the story about having a brave and heart-lifting man elected as the US president, and he is soon revelling the masses with hope and optimism and heartwarming fireside chats. The shocking truth is the setting is not in 1932, it's 1939! The brutal truth is that the late 30's was even worse than the early 30's. During the late 30's the US suffered a recession within a depression. FDR had been the champion for the Forgotten Man for nearly a full decade, but things only got worse.

The book then does a rewind and begins a detailed and honest look at FDR history in order to catalog his war on the rich, flirtation with Communism, court packing and power grabbing, and an honest revelation of the economic history of the era. At this point, a reader might be perplexed. If the depression was so awful, why was FDR elected to 4 terms? If the answer was hinted at in this book, it wasn't clear to me. BUT! I feel this question is more directly addressed in the book, "FDR, New Deal or Raw Deal?", by Burt Folsom, Jr. The short answer is that socialism is a vote buying scheme, pure and simple. Beyond that, elected officials can (and will) divvy out taxpayer financed rewards to where they will buy the most votes.

The author also gives an account of the origins of the Forgotten Man theory, and how FDR bastardized it for his own use. Let's see if I can get the original theory right without looking at the book. Person A and B are socialistic do-gooders and want to help distressed person X. Instead of A and B contributing directly to the plight of X (or convincing Gates or Buffet that X is a worthy cause), they con their gov't to prey on C to finance the cause. C is the forgotten man! He's the middle class working stiff struggling to make ends meet through honest endeavor. Despite this, he is bludgeoned into forking over what little wealth he has, by socialistic do-gooders who are too cowardly to put their own money where their mouths are. C is the forgotten sap who is forced to pay for contraceptives for promiscuous brats who think that big gov't is the answer to everything.

Oops! I just fully revealed my strong conservative bias. All the better, I guess. If asked, I would offer with no embarrassment that I strongly dislike socialism. It's not I begrudge a better life for those in distress. But who would be so foolhardy as to trust big government with their hamfisted inefficiency to handle such delicate and lofty goals? You need to ask yourself: How good a job is our gov't doing with core responsibilities like protecting our borders, balancing the federal checkbook, and saving us from gross predators like like Madoff? Yet our political leaders would have us believe that with little funding they can heal the sick and raise the dead! Thank God I am a conservative!

With that in mind, I have to confess my frightening vision for the future. I can't help but shake my head negatively when I see so many parallels between FDR and the Obama admin. The hallmarks are class warfare, creeping socialism, and extreme deficit spending. It's like Obama is repeating FDR's script. And it seems like we are reaping the same results - the economic suffering seems protracted and Europe and the middle east are sinking into a contagion. Am I wrong to think that our elected leaders are suspects when I hear them say, "Let no good crisis go to waste"? Hey! You say predatory lenders, I say PREDATORY GOVERNMENT!

Update: 140616. Here we go again. History is repeating itself. A prolonged lagging economy, high unemployment caused by the administrations never ending class warfare and reckless high deficit spending. And now the Middle East is going up in flames and the Soviets and Chinese are flexing their muscles aggressively. Thanks to elected officials who love to milk a crisis for all it's worth and keep an electorate cowed in submission to big governement, the final results will be the same. Get ready for WW3.

 

[rightwinger]

And has nothing at all to do with state and local taxes given the title of this topic, Federal income taxes

Your tax dollars are at many levels and through different means
In terms of Government services, it is all intertwined

I still have not heard any other way of paying for the Federal Government than income taxes

 

[Hector12]

Sure good man.

It is amazing that a book like this even exists. Incredibly complex subjects are interwoven into narratives that are poignant and inspiring. The art is fantastic - it feels like you're watching a masterpiece of black and white film noir. You will see a side of history seemingly buried - your understanding of what lead to and what happened during the Great Depression will grow and you will be entertained - it's a history thriller. Buy this book.

Another person:

I read this book back in 2008 as a requisite for better understanding the Great Recession that was just getting started. Prior to this, my thinking was primarily influenced by what I had learned in high school and college history classes. Our school learning basically tells us that despite the great and noble effort by FDR, the depression was so bad that it defied any cure, and the only thing that could cure it was a world conflagration. So the question on my mind in '08 was, is it necessary to repeat this same history? Are we destined to suffer a full decade of miserable economic performance and to have it capped by a world on fire? Wouldn't it be better if we all took a more exhaustive look at history in order to avoid a foolish repeat? This book takes an unvarnished look at the Great Depression an uncovers a multitude of bungling and missteps our leaders made during this era. It's a must-read for anyone with a discerning spirit.

The book starts with a cameo story about a young man who commits suicide. The note he leaves behind reveals the despairing mood of the time. The reader fully expects (like we learned in our sugar-coated stories in history classes) that this story will be contrasted with the story about having a brave and heart-lifting man elected as the US president, and he is soon revelling the masses with hope and optimism and heartwarming fireside chats. The shocking truth is the setting is not in 1932, it's 1939! The brutal truth is that the late 30's was even worse than the early 30's. During the late 30's the US suffered a recession within a depression. FDR had been the champion for the Forgotten Man for nearly a full decade, but things only got worse.

The book then does a rewind and begins a detailed and honest look at FDR history in order to catalog his war on the rich, flirtation with Communism, court packing and power grabbing, and an honest revelation of the economic history of the era. At this point, a reader might be perplexed. If the depression was so awful, why was FDR elected to 4 terms? If the answer was hinted at in this book, it wasn't clear to me. BUT! I feel this question is more directly addressed in the book, "FDR, New Deal or Raw Deal?", by Burt Folsom, Jr. The short answer is that socialism is a vote buying scheme, pure and simple. Beyond that, elected officials can (and will) divvy out taxpayer financed rewards to where they will buy the most votes.

The author also gives an account of the origins of the Forgotten Man theory, and how FDR bastardized it for his own use. Let's see if I can get the original theory right without looking at the book. Person A and B are socialistic do-gooders and want to help distressed person X. Instead of A and B contributing directly to the plight of X (or convincing Gates or Buffet that X is a worthy cause), they con their gov't to prey on C to finance the cause. C is the forgotten man! He's the middle class working stiff struggling to make ends meet through honest endeavor. Despite this, he is bludgeoned into forking over what little wealth he has, by socialistic do-gooders who are too cowardly to put their own money where their mouths are. C is the forgotten sap who is forced to pay for contraceptives for promiscuous brats who think that big gov't is the answer to everything.

Oops! I just fully revealed my strong conservative bias. All the better, I guess. If asked, I would offer with no embarrassment that I strongly dislike socialism. It's not I begrudge a better life for those in distress. But who would be so foolhardy as to trust big government with their hamfisted inefficiency to handle such delicate and lofty goals? You need to ask yourself: How good a job is our gov't doing with core responsibilities like protecting our borders, balancing the federal checkbook, and saving us from gross predators like like Madoff? Yet our political leaders would have us believe that with little funding they can heal the sick and raise the dead! Thank God I am a conservative!

With that in mind, I have to confess my frightening vision for the future. I can't help but shake my head negatively when I see so many parallels between FDR and the Obama admin. The hallmarks are class warfare, creeping socialism, and extreme deficit spending. It's like Obama is repeating FDR's script. And it seems like we are reaping the same results - the economic suffering seems protracted and Europe and the middle east are sinking into a contagion. Am I wrong to think that our elected leaders are suspects when I hear them say, "Let no good crisis go to waste"? Hey! You say predatory lenders, I say PREDATORY GOVERNMENT!

Update: 140616. Here we go again. History is repeating itself. A prolonged lagging economy, high unemployment caused by the administrations never ending class warfare and reckless high deficit spending. And now the Middle East is going up in flames and the Soviets and Chinese are flexing their muscles aggressively. Thanks to elected officials who love to milk a crisis for all it's worth and keep an electorate cowed in submission to big governement, the final results will be the same. Get ready for WW3.

The reactionary argument against the New Deal amounts to the claim that if Herbert Hoover had been re elected in 1932 the United States would have recovered earlier from the Great Depression. Obviously we cannot go back in time and engineer that re election. Nevertheless, we can see what the situation was like in 1932, and how things changed later. I will use as economic guide posts the years 1932, 1940, and 1944.

1932 was Hoover's last year in office. The unemployment rate was 23.6%. The per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 dollars was $4,901. The top tax rate was 63.0%. (The previous year it had been 25%.)

In 1940 Roosevelt was re elected for the second time. Unemployment had declined to 14.6%. The per capita GDP in 1996 dollars had grown to $7,423. The top tax rate had grown to 81.0%.

In 1944 Roosevelt was re elected for the third time. Unemployment had declined to 1.2%. The per capita GDP in 1996 dollars had grown to $12,380. The top tax rate had grown to 94.0%.

United States Unemployment Rate

Find information and statistics about the overall unemployment rate in the United States from 1920 to 2013.

www.infoplease.com

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

www.singularity.com

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Reactionaries have argued that it was not the New Deal, but the the Second World War that ended the Great Depression. I would like to remind them that military spending and employment is government spending and employment. During the Roosevelt administration we taxed and spent our way to prosperity.

 

[saveliberty]

As long as Americans expect government to fix their problems, there will be a need to pay for it. Cut the dependence and you can cut taxes.

 

[Robert W]

The reactionary argument against the New Deal amounts to the claim that if Herbert Hoover had been re elected in 1932 the United States would have recovered earlier from the Great Depression. Obviously we cannot go back in time and engineer that re election. Nevertheless, we can see what the situation was like in 1932, and how things changed later. I will use as economic guide posts the years 1932, 1940, and 1944.

1932 was Hoover's last year in office. The unemployment rate was 23.6%. The per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 dollars was $4,901. The top tax rate was 63.0%. (The previous year it had been 25%.)

In 1940 Roosevelt was re elected for the second time. Unemployment had declined to 14.6%. The per capita GDP in 1996 dollars had grown to $7,423. The top tax rate had grown to 81.0%.

In 1944 Roosevelt was re elected for the third time. Unemployment had declined to 1.2%. The per capita GDP in 1996 dollars had grown to $12,380. The top tax rate had grown to 94.0%.

United States Unemployment Rate

Find information and statistics about the overall unemployment rate in the United States from 1920 to 2013.

www.infoplease.com

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

www.singularity.com

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Reactionaries have argued that it was not the New Deal, but the the Second World War that ended the Great Depression. I would like to remind them that military spending and employment is government spending and employment. During the Roosevelt administration we taxed and spent our way to prosperity.

Well the word reactionary is code for you loved FDR.
The gist of your argument that if one selects a particular month, it seems as if FDR had great policies. However as it turns out, his gains were using the Hoover plans. And trust me the media wants that covered up.

Actually the public at large had to live with rations. We damned sure had wages capped. So the notion we were better off does not fit the true history of FDR. FDR and the country essentially was saved from more misery at home by WW2. But at the expense of the young men sent to fight that war.

 

[Robert W]

As long as Americans expect government to fix their problems, there will be a need to pay for it. Cut the dependence and you can cut taxes.

I once was on the Budget committee of a major Real Estate Board. We wrestled how to save the board from a disaster and maybe having us put out of business. We managed to turn things around but we did not raise dues. Experts know how to solve those problems. Sadly with our congress being primarily attorneys, and not accountants, we are in the pickle we are in and frankly will last until we get a good big group of economists in the Congress.

Who recalls our last economist president? It was Ronald Reagan.

 

[Robert W]

The reactionary argument against the New Deal amounts to the claim that if Herbert Hoover had been re elected in 1932 the United States would have recovered earlier from the Great Depression. Obviously we cannot go back in time and engineer that re election. Nevertheless, we can see what the situation was like in 1932, and how things changed later. I will use as economic guide posts the years 1932, 1940, and 1944.

1932 was Hoover's last year in office. The unemployment rate was 23.6%. The per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 dollars was $4,901. The top tax rate was 63.0%. (The previous year it had been 25%.)

In 1940 Roosevelt was re elected for the second time. Unemployment had declined to 14.6%. The per capita GDP in 1996 dollars had grown to $7,423. The top tax rate had grown to 81.0%.

In 1944 Roosevelt was re elected for the third time. Unemployment had declined to 1.2%. The per capita GDP in 1996 dollars had grown to $12,380. The top tax rate had grown to 94.0%.

United States Unemployment Rate

Find information and statistics about the overall unemployment rate in the United States from 1920 to 2013.

www.infoplease.com

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

www.singularity.com

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Reactionaries have argued that it was not the New Deal, but the the Second World War that ended the Great Depression. I would like to remind them that military spending and employment is government spending and employment. During the Roosevelt administration we taxed and spent our way to prosperity.

Trump was generous to our military.

 

[Robert W]

Your tax dollars are at many levels and through different means
In terms of Government services, it is all intertwined

I still have not heard any other way of paying for the Federal Government than income taxes

Well since your thinking is stalled, let me educate you.

Tariffs imposed on nations!!! Pulls in some bucks for them dealing with a very prosperous nation.
A Flat tax that is not dependent on incomes. It will change America so we do not have to keep reporting to the Feds. When we report to the Feds, they keep spending more and more. If we want to keep going broke, then the way to do this is to vote for Democrats. Do you want us to go broke?
As a person who was on the Board of Directors both of the local Real Estate Board and also the California Association of Realtors, where there we handled 135,000 members, never at any point did we charge fees based on Realtors incomes. Nope. We charged all of them equal fees. We did not hurt the members by charging them based on incomes. We knew it would work to keep the huge guys profitable and the small groups would go out of business.

Democrats need to change their tune on income taxes. It puts a lot of members of this state (and all states) out of business.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let's be honest people. Do you enjoy the Federal Income Tax? Did you approve it? Who approved it? Is it legal? Have Courts defended it? We must tax. But how? Why income? What else can be taxed? The founders imposed Tariffs to fund the Nation. But they did not create the Federal Income Tax as you all must know.
How about a short video explaining this to all readers?

Before you get angry or disturbed, be honest. Do you enjoy the Federal income Tax you pay? Why not think of alternatives?

Thank you for bringing up an imprtant question about incom taxes. However, by positing it as something that is to be enjoyed or not is rather odd. Since it is really not something that anyone thiks about as enjoyable ,it seems to set a tones for being anti income tax. Lets think about this.

The issue of income tax, which is heavily relied upon to fund both state and federal government is closely tied to the debate about small and limited government vs, expansive and active government-often derided as the nanny state,

My position is and always has been that the debate should not be abut the size of government , but rather, about what government does, how well it does it, who benefits or suffers from what it does.

No one enjoys paying taxes of any kind, but neither do they enjoy ineffective and insufficient support and services from the government. Taxes pay for everything from police and fire protection, to the maintenance of bridges and roads, to ensuring the safety of food, drugs, water, and all consumer products, to national security and defense

You correctly point out the income tax was imposed in the early part of the 20th century This coincides with the advent of the progressive movement, championed by Teddy Roosevelt who promoted the concept that government exists for the purpose of making life better for people as opposed to government existing as a self serving end in itself. That principle has been built upon by progressives ever since resulting in the advancement of middle and working class Americans.

Yes the income tax is progressive. Those earning a higher income pay a greater percentage. And yes, you can decry that as socialism because it is, in effect a redistribution of wealth. But just as no systems of pure socialism is sustainable, neither is pure and unbridled capitalism. Then blending of those concepts has proven to be the best and most efficacious way of ensuring the well being of the masses.

Lets also remember that a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage is untenable. The working class would have to pay an amount that is unaffordable, while the amount that the wealthy pay would result in revenue far below what is need to sustain a functioning government. The worst idea that was recently floated by certain Republicans was to do away with the income tax in favor of a national sales tax of 40%! Think about the impact on people who work for a living and spend all of their earnings on essential goods as opposed to those who can sock away most of their earnings tax free. That would greatly accelerate the slippery slope towards an oligarchy that we are already sliding down as the result of Republican tax cuts for the wealthy

While many in this country decry the high taxes that we pay, it should be noted that there are countries where people pay much higher taxes, and they do so happily. They are happy because they do not have to worry about bankruptcy as a result of an illness. They do not have to worry about their roads and bridges collapsing under them. They have clean water and safe food and drugs. They have great schools and affordable housing and much more because the government provides those services . Denounce it as socialism if you like but I would be willing to pay higher taxes for better government