The income tax began with a Constitutional amendment in 1913. (There had been brief income taxes during the Civil War and the 1890s.) Inheritance taxes began around 1900, and sales taxes in the 1930s. Before the 20th century, the Federal government collected taxes on imports (tariffs) and whiskey. There were excise taxes on trade goods. According to Wikipedia, "tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until it was surpassed by income taxes." See here. Without an income tax, the US could afford public schools, roads, bridges, dams, a legal and law enforcement system, a military, and all the other requirements of a prosperous and growing nation. Today, with an income tax, only massive borrowing and money printing lets the government meet its obligations. What happened? What went wrong? Who wanted an income tax and why? What would happen if we did away with income tax? What do you think?
As long as we allow Democrat/Progressive Wealth Distribution and Social Engineering schemes in violation of the Constitution we will NEED the income tax and all other taxes WHILE STILL running huge deficits. Lets not forget Pillar or Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, the little RED book written to destroy capitalism. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. The income tax was a gift o the Progressives. The Graduated Income tax was a gift of the Progressives who were inspired by the Communist Manifesto!
I agree. Now what can we do about it? Income taxes have become so normal, most people can't imagine life without them, or without the bloated government they help pay for. Most proposals for alternate tax systems aim to raise as much money by other means.
Hmm, well we could eliminate the Democrat/Progressive Wealth Distribution used for the military, and corporate & foreign aid. We could make that Democrat/Progressive Wealth Distribution at the stock market illegal. We could double tax those Democrat/Progressive offshored accounts.
In 1913, the GOP controlled the Senate and the Dems the House (http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm)
Oh, and you don't want to remind them of the reality that like the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th amendment was known as the Aldrich Amendment for a long time.
As technologies advanced and the scope of the government has increased, revenue must also increase. I love how everyone who whines about stuff like this acts as if the government does the same level of activity it did before the income tax.
I cheerfully acknowledge the government does more. Most tax opponents I know do the same. The question is whether we need or benefit from the heightened "level of activity." More isn't always better.
I believe we do benefit from the extra government involvement. Without government standardization of education alone, the United States economy would not have progressed to anywhere near where it is today.
So what is the method of funding for all of this? The government can meet its obligations no matter what. It is sovereign. However, we would struggle to have a competitive currency and financial footing with the rest of the world. Taxes are a valuable deflationary tool. Interest rates would have to be off the charts. I suppose it could be replaced with some sort of Federal sales tax on every item, which certainly could work.
Based off what data? Hence, I reiterate. Mark Levin said 15% in his Liberty Amendments. You haven't shown any proof as to why 15% is "good" other than your own "reasonable" opinion which is based on nothing but hot air.
I simply think it is a reasonable level of taxation. There are many, many other taxes that we pay, I think sending the FedGov't the 15% of my income right off the top is reasonable. 39.6% is not. Too many other taxes and fees in our society to be paying 40% income tax.
So based off what you want... Very credible. The government has a hell of a lot more obligations than catering to what you think is "reasonable."
I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this? The guy asked for opinions on the income tax. I said that "I think 15% is reasonable." If I say 16% will that get Mark Levin out of your head? Show me the "data" that proves 39.6% is exactly the rate that is "good."
I didn't say 39.6% is "good." The tax rate needs to be progressive and enough to support the demands of our growing country. It is kind of a blanket statement, but it answers the quesiton of the OP. I advocate spending cuts AND tax reform. I just know the Bush-era tax cuts don't do well with revenue.
