100th Birthday of The Income Tax

[Gaspar]

In your mind a toilet in a place you've never seen and know nothing about other than what you saw in Google Earth is the waste. Yes, the obscure thing you can't even get reliable information on because its cost was .000000083% of the federal budget is a good example of waste. Why don't you come back with information about how the toilet was authorized and the paperwork involved in it and tell us why the government thought they needed to build a toilet. I would understand your complaint better if we were in the midst of some massive toilet building program and were building 100,000 of these things a year or something.

Let's not forget that if the government told people "go up the road 3 miles and use the toilet at the gas station" you'd be complaining about the evil government driving up the cost of business by telling people to use their toilets. Of course, the only reason you're talking about toilets at all is as a distraction from spending that you like that not only would add up to something if we were doing a lot of it but actually does make up a significant fraction of the budget.

I don't really care about toilets Nate.  I just get a kick out of the folks that are willing to defend anything government does as justified.  Absolutely love it!

The 100th anniversary of the income tax is a messianic holiday for some. It represented the birth of the Progressive movement.  Celebrate it.  Light a candle.

[nathanm]

You mistake my laughing at your unwillingness to actually understand the issues about which you complain for defending government spending. Like your complaints, it's about you, not the government.

[Conan71]

In your mind a toilet in a place you've never seen and know nothing about other than what you saw in Google Earth is the waste. Yes, the obscure thing you can't even get reliable information on because its cost was .000000083% of the federal budget is a good example of waste. Why don't you come back with information about how the toilet was authorized and the paperwork involved in it and tell us why the government thought they needed to build a toilet. I would understand your complaint better if we were in the midst of some massive toilet building program and were building 100,000 of these things a year or something.

Let's not forget that if the government told people "go up the road 3 miles and use the toilet at the gas station" you'd be complaining about the evil government driving up the cost of business by telling people to use their toilets. Of course, the only reason you're talking about toilets at all is as a distraction from spending that you like that not only would add up to something if we were doing a lot of it but actually does make up a significant fraction of the budget.

Bears and humans have shat and pissed in the woods around there for centuries.  Who needs a smoothouse in Alaska anyhow?

Of course everyone has latched onto this one incident completely forgetting it's representative of 1000's of other $98,000 "smoothouses" the government wastes money on every year.  That's how you run up a $16 trillion dollar debt. 

It takes a lazy mindset to believe that all government over-spending is in the defense budget just as much as it takes a lazy mindset to cop the idea that the only logical way to dry up the debt and deficit is by raising taxes.  Those are simpleton approaches when it's clear the government is far bigger than it needs to be and spends far too much money on things it doesn't need.

[nathanm]

It takes a lazy mindset to believe that all government over-spending is in the defense budget just as much as it takes a lazy mindset to cop the idea that the only logical way to dry up the debt and deficit is by raising taxes.  Those are simpleton approaches when it's clear the government is far bigger than it needs to be and spends far too much money on things it doesn't need.

I have never said that the only waste in Government is in defense. Being the largest part of the discretionary budget and known to contain much waste, it is the place to look for the greatest savings. After we have done that, it will be appropriate to examine the rest of the budget. To use a household analogy, if you're spending 30% more than you make, you can either cut out gas, food, and everything else and basically be breaking even but starving to death or you can move into a smaller house and only cut part of the gas, food, and everything else budget.

And it's just as lazy for the Tea Partyists to only approach the deficit from the spending side as it would be for Democrats to approach it only from the tax side. Only one group is refusing to consider both, however.

[Red Arrow]

The 100th anniversary of the income tax is a messianic holiday for some. It represented the birth of the Progressive movement.  Celebrate it.  Light a candle.

What the heck, light two.
 
 

[AquaMan]

Unfortunately, Gas's info is not correct. It was neither the birth of progressivism nor was it 100 years ago. Even the 16th Amendment merely somewhat coincided with the beginning of the progressive movement which would be more accurately placed 20 years earlier.

History of the Income Tax in the United States

Source: Tax Foundation.
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945



Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz2hB67KtLn

[Gaspar]

Unfortunately, Gas's info is not correct. It was neither the birth of progressivism nor was it 100 years ago. Even the 16th Amendment merely somewhat coincided with the beginning of the progressive movement which would be more accurately placed 20 years earlier.

History of the Income Tax in the United States

Source: Tax Foundation.
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945



Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz2hB67KtLn

All movements have their roots.  The creation of a tax levied on one group of people to provide for another represented the birth of Progressivism as a legitimate movement, just as the discovery of Big Foot would make the North American Wood Ape Conservancy a legitimate organization.  Certainly open to interpretation though. 

[AquaMan]

You would have a decidedly minority view on that topic. I hardly think the Civil War funding through income taxation was the dawn of progressivism. War is anything but a progressive tenet.

And its very revealing that you would consider an income tax that was levied to fight a war as "levied against one group of people to provide for another". It circumvents the idea of a smaller group (working people) supporting the interests of a larger group (working people, non working people, plus soldiers).

But, like you say, people see what they want and interpret as they find necessary.

[Gaspar]

You would have a decidedly minority view on that topic. I hardly think the Civil War funding through income taxation was the dawn of progressivism. War is anything but a progressive tenet.

And its very revealing that you would consider an income tax that was levied to fight a war as "levied against one group of people to provide for another". It circumvents the idea of a smaller group (working people) supporting the interests of a larger group (working people, non working people, plus soldiers).

But, like you say, people see what they want and interpret as they find necessary.

I think you just made my point.  Progressivism grew out of the desire to fight economic inequality. Before the income tax, there was little or no mechanism within our government for the progressive movement to use.

The income tax had a singular purpose and a very narrow scope. Before it's institution the progressive movement struggled to find a foothold, because the concept of redistribution would have been viewed as outright Communistic (still is to most).  A tax on income once established, like any government mechanism, was sure to grow, and offered the missing tool for redistribution and future progressive policy.  i.e. the baby was born.

The income tax was initially viewed as an innocent tax on the wealthy with a very narrow scope, of course, when a child is born, you have no way of knowing if he/she will be a great scientist or a serial killer.  The best you can do at that point is give the kid a good name.

[swake]

The income tax had a singular purpose and a very narrow scope. Before it's institution the progressive movement struggled to find a foothold, because the concept of redistribution would have been viewed as outright Communistic (still is to most).  

The idea of redistribution is as old as the nation. Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and Thomas Paine wanted a 100% inheritance tax. No transmission of wealth between generations in order to solve the problem of wealth inequality.

Who's your avatar right now again?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

[RecycleMichael]

Who's your avatar right now again?

I think that is his mother.

[AquaMan]

Its obvious you didn't read the link, don't believe it or simply choose to make up stuff as you go. Hard to even respond when that happens.

Just a note. The income tax that the republican president instituted died out in 1872 before the beginning of the progressive movement and wasn't re-born until 1894. It then died again when during the "golden age" the wealthy barons of industry killed it off rather than give up any of their loot. It wasn't till the Progressive Movement was well under way that it became an amendment to the constitution in 1913.

Perhaps you are mistaking the progressive movement for the beginnings of the Liberal movement which began in the late 1700's in Europe and resulted in many elements of our constitution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ok! Deal!  Oh, wait, I don't have that kind of authority. 

I think both of your examples and my example are all excellent case studies for government waste.  One does not justify the other. 

Can't believe how often we have to revisit the concept of "perspective" with you...concentrating continuously - obsessively - on the minutia while letting the really big stuff slide....or get a pass because it wasn't Obama.

[Gaspar]

The idea of redistribution is as old as the nation. Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and Thomas Paine wanted a 100% inheritance tax. No transmission of wealth between generations in order to solve the problem of wealth inequality.

Who's your avatar right now again?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

Not arguing that.  Arguing that the progressive movement had no foothold in our capitalist system until the mechanism of income tax was established.

[AquaMan]

Not arguing that.  Arguing that the progressive movement had no foothold in our capitalist system until the mechanism of income tax was established.

It had no foothold because it didn't exist at that time. So, I guess you win on semantics.