...
Yeah that
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
If I remember correctly, we didn't have a national income tax before the Civil War, so how were we raising money for the government before that? I'm guessing tariffs, duties, etc.? So is there a way that we can do away with a national income tax of any kind, and just get by on something else; and if so... what would the something else be? We don't have an income tax in FL, and as I understand it the money comes from sales taxes, property taxes, and federal money.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I thought we didn't have income tax until sometime in the early 1900's.
Bruzilla said:
Read this!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060875410/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-6687965-3623316#reader-link
We did not have an income tax until after 1913.Bruzilla said:
It was unconstitutional before that. It was a "temporary" measure to pay off the debt from WWI.
The feds were not to do nearly as much as they do so they didn't need as much money. But you know how it is, give a politician any money and they will spend 150% of it. Money is power and they want all the power they can get.
If the power to tax is closer to the people, i.e., local, county, state, then the taxes are more easily controlled. At the federal level, complain about taxes to Milkulski and see how far it gets you.
Last edited:
ylexot
Super Genius
...and/or this:tomchamp said:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/08...102-9714030-5545753?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I listen to Boortz at work every morning, so I'm quite familiar with his ideas, but changing the tax code was not my question. The initial post equated paying taxes to communism, so what I was wondering about was doing away with a Federal tax, of any kind, not just doing away with the current tax code.
Could there be no Federal taxes aside from import tariffs and fees, with the states providing a stripend to the federal government to maintain the military, essential government, etc.? Or, is this undoable due to the differences in potential earnings at the state level? For example, how could a state like Montana afford to build and maintain roads given their population, while states like CA or NY are swimming in money? How would we have any sensible distribution of population if that were the case? Would states that are heavy in agriculture and light on manufacturing increase the costs of agricultural products to make more money to cover the state's expenses? Would the folks swimming in money in NY or CA need that money just to cover a loaf of bread, or would they jack the Bread Basket states for the use of their ports? And could such a non-united approach to our much hated redistribution of wealth (which taxes are to me anyway) lead us to several regional civil wars... at least on an economic level?
Could there be no Federal taxes aside from import tariffs and fees, with the states providing a stripend to the federal government to maintain the military, essential government, etc.? Or, is this undoable due to the differences in potential earnings at the state level? For example, how could a state like Montana afford to build and maintain roads given their population, while states like CA or NY are swimming in money? How would we have any sensible distribution of population if that were the case? Would states that are heavy in agriculture and light on manufacturing increase the costs of agricultural products to make more money to cover the state's expenses? Would the folks swimming in money in NY or CA need that money just to cover a loaf of bread, or would they jack the Bread Basket states for the use of their ports? And could such a non-united approach to our much hated redistribution of wealth (which taxes are to me anyway) lead us to several regional civil wars... at least on an economic level?
B
Bruzilla
Guest
2ndAmendment said:
Understanding the Constitution is one thing, understanding that it was written at a time when every state was on the eastern seaboard, generating about the same revenues, and sharing many of the same interests is another. The situation that the Founding Fathers had getting 13 colonies to get along is far different than getting 50 states with widely-varying interests to get along.
Times have changed. People have not. They are still greedy and power hungry. The founders were trying to prevent a central government that was too strong with the money (taxes) and consequently the power concentrated in the Federal government they formed. As early as the first Congress, politicians were trying to circumvent the Constitution in order to gain power and money. It has only gotten worse.Bruzilla said:
The Federal government used to get all its revenue from duties and tariffs for goods coming into the U.S. and traveling between the states. That was enough to maintain the military, which was and is Constitutionally the primary reason for the Federal government, until the First World War. The income from those sources would have eventually paid the debt, but it would have taken a while and there would have been little to no monies left to do anything else at the Federal level. Hence, the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 to be able to levy taxes on individuals on their income. It was to be a temporary measure to pay off the war debt and then the income tax was to be repealed. History shows how temporary the tax law is.
The new source of money was a new source of power. After the war debt was essentially paid, there was money to do other things and the depression came along and Constitution be damned, the Feds used the money to redistribute the wealth and give jobs and support to those that didn't have them. Good - yeah, I guess. Constitutional - absolutely not. Would people have survived without the Federal handouts? Yes. The economy would have recovered from the greed of the stock market and the crash even if the Feds had not stepped in. So why?
It gave the politicians something to crow about, "Look what I did for you!" And the public was on the dole and it continues today. State and local politicians were happy to take the fed money and reduce (not increase) local and state taxes, and they could blame the feds for the increased taxes. So local accountability was lost to a great extent as was local and state autonomy. The people lost the most. They lost control over government, because there was little to no local accountability.
We now live in a country that was created as a representative republic and is predominately socialistic now. Sad. Almost without fail if something goes wrong with the economy, gas too expensive, rent too high, not enough toilet paper in the store, whatever, people scream, "Why doesn't the government do something?". Because it is not the government's job at any level to do anything that is not authorized by the founding documents of whatever governmental entity whether it is federal, state, or local. But the people running the government, probably with good intentions, step in and do something, constitutionally or not. What people lose sight of is that every time government does something for them, they lose the freedom that they had to do it for themselves. Freedom lost is never regained without conflict.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I agree 100% with everything you wrote. But, what would happen if we did away with federal income tax all together, and put the government on an allotment that was only big enough to maintain the military and ensure domestic security. What would the outcome of such an action be? Now that we're 50 states with widely-ranging needs instead of 13 colonies with similar needs, what would happen?
The first issue I see hitting us would be mass flights of citizens from states with low populations to states with high populations, since states with low populations would have to radically increase state taxes in order to survive. And since most of the highly-rural heartland produces most of our agriculture, that would hurt. I could also see states beginning to regulate travel between other states, charging fees for entry/exit, duties and tariffs on goods, etc. I think that before long we would look like Europe in the 1960s and 1970s.
I'm also looking at things like energy. In the Founding Fathers' day, energy was candles, lanterns, whale oil, horses, and oxen. What would the impact be of each state importing, developing, and selling it's own energy? Nothing really good comes to my mind.
So I'm thinking that federal taxes may be illegal, or unneeded in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, but could we really get along without them, and the government they pay for, in this day and age?
The first issue I see hitting us would be mass flights of citizens from states with low populations to states with high populations, since states with low populations would have to radically increase state taxes in order to survive. And since most of the highly-rural heartland produces most of our agriculture, that would hurt. I could also see states beginning to regulate travel between other states, charging fees for entry/exit, duties and tariffs on goods, etc. I think that before long we would look like Europe in the 1960s and 1970s.
I'm also looking at things like energy. In the Founding Fathers' day, energy was candles, lanterns, whale oil, horses, and oxen. What would the impact be of each state importing, developing, and selling it's own energy? Nothing really good comes to my mind.
So I'm thinking that federal taxes may be illegal, or unneeded in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, but could we really get along without them, and the government they pay for, in this day and age?
You are forgetting that the states gave up the right to regulate commerce and immigration/emigration when they became part of the United States. That is one of the powers of the Federal government; regulate interstate commerce.Bruzilla said:
I think we could get along without a Federal income tax IF the feds would start living according to the Constitution. About 90% of what is spent is done on unconstitutional programs. Do away with all the unconstitutional programs and the feds don't need all that money. Instead of paying 25% to the feds, you'd pay 15% additional to the state; doing away with bureaucracy saves money. There would be less waste because Joe State Legislator lives down the street and he doesn't want his house wrapped in toilet paper.
The concept the founders had would work today, but greed and power does not let it. It is far better to have the power and collection of taxes closer to the people. Government should get smaller and less powerful the further it gets from the people. That is the way it was designed, but it has been flip flopped. It may take a revolution to change it back, and then we would be at the mercy of the world because they would pile on. We would probably become a bunch of colonies belonging to other countries; back where we started.