Feb. 3, 1913 was the beginning...

[Hu_Fan]

... of taking your money. Or you go to jail. Said another way, "Buy what we (the government) are selling, or we come with guns and chains and haul you away."

The only organization that can force you to buy what they are selling is the government. Crazy, huh!

But a point that this really is all about is that a government can push through legislation -- and then have to live with the consequences for a century. Back in 1913, a "few percent" for taxes seemed outrageous. But today, in California, one can expect to be taxed almost 50% counting all levels of taxation. The Federal Gov't today is running a $2 Trillion revenue stream and playing games with spending that is double that.

All because a 100 years ago a Congress took a chance and pushed it through -- many thinking it would never be ratified. But it was.

Are we any more or less responsible following Obama's push for radical legislation at full throttle, hang the discussion or thoroughness... or process.... on so many issues that radically affect our lives today and may for years to come?

Today we are playing games with Obamacare and will soon find out in decades hence, just how risky that bit of gamemanship will be. Same for going after the 2nd Amendment in any form or fashion, and racing to push through 'whatever' immigration reforms.

One of the great things about government -- odd as it may sound -- is it's own inherent ineptness and slowness and reluctance to act. By the time a law might be passed, it should be vetted relentlessly and made to stand on it's own legs and face all challenges.

President Obama doesn't care about those built-in handbrakes and wants to let it all hang out on downgrades that usually say '6 percent grade, use lower gears.'

I wish to hell there never had been taxation on fruits of labor. I would rather revenue be designed some other way. And, counter to the wording of the 16th Amendment, I would never want revenue to go unchecked. As part of the wording of the 16th Amendment goes.... to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment...". Therein is the problem: haul in all you can get, and you don't even have to apportion it back. Meaning you can keep as much as you want for yourself (buildings, departments, staff) and any pork you can dream up.

It allows the government to support itself. And... that means... grow as big as it can. Without limits. It can waste like hell, it can attract lobby efforts to pull the money toward whatever cause the most influence will garner. It can, in short, be crazy as hell, just like it is and has been for years. And now we have a $16 Trillion deficit and runaway money supply and 100-year old Federal Reserve playing God with FIAT money to go with it. (Fed was also setup that same year, 1913).

If you ask me, instead of tinkering with the 2nd Amendment, we should be busy repealing the 16th. I'm all for an Amendment that repeals the 16th Amendment and declares a government cannot tax income of a business or private or corporate enterprise. Either direct or indirect. And further, cannot tax estates or inheritances. The fruits of labor are the private property of the citizens, their heirs and assigns.

How'd you like to live in a country like that? I damn sure would. It existed a century ago, because that's what life was like at the turn of the century 100 years ago. Nobody calculates that the Great Depression came along a decade after passage of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Revenue Act, also of 1913, and the establishment of the Federal Reserve that same year (all three acts came within 11 months of each other). It's too long for a post here, but my view is that it played a part in what led to and created and sustained the Depression (the mess was not allowed to correct itself, is the short answer on that -- and since we did not learn that back then, we're about to not let things correct themselves now: history repeats).
So the effects are still with us today. This is the only time in the history of the world that the lingua franca (global money) is fiat. And a government with almost unlimited tax & spend authority is running everything into the ground.

Because it can afford to. Because of the 16th Amendment that did not put any reins on its use of its revenue.
In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[NJlonghorn]

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, 90+ percent of the population was dirt poor. Disease was rampant, life expectancy was around 50, and educational standards were dismal for all but the most wealthy. While it was possible to lift yourself out of povery by by your proverbial bootstraps, precious few individuals were able to do so. The vast majority of those born into poverty died in poverty.

Even during the current recession, the vast majority of Americans now are much better off than their ancestors were then. There is enough credit to go around, but the rise of big government is a significant part of the reason for the improvements we have experienced over the last century.

That said, I agree that government has gotten way too big over the last few decades, and that we need to find ways to rein it in. But it is ridiculous to glorify the pre-big-government era as some sort of panacea that was ruined by the 16th Amendment.

 

[Hu_Fan]

///good points

found this online.... searching for life at 1900... The Link

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's easy to look back and say we shouldn't have adopted a national income tax. However, at the time, the US was becoming a major world power with an expanding military (especially the Navy) and was only a few years away from buidling its first national highway system. You're not going to do that with a government financed only by tariffs and excise taxes.

The big problem with the 16th Amendment was that it gave no protection at all to taxpayers. There are no constitutional limits on rates, so there was nothing to "restrain the beast." Perhaps even worse, by allowing the government to collect taxes on income from "whatever source derived," the Amendment effectively eliminated private property in the United States. Nothing is outside its scope. Everything you own is because of the "generosity" of Congress. It has the power to take it all away at any time by simply passing a law. It's shocking that the Congress and the states weren't horrified by such language.

 

[RomaVicta]

Interesting discourse. My compliments.

The big government projects to control rivers such as the Tennessee and Colorado are examples of government's involvement in making electricity possible to the poor and improving life.

The harnessing of electricity was a matter of great invention, but its power would have been largely unavailable without government investment.

That doesn't excuse the excesses of government from obscene military contracts for unneeded or overpriced items nor the pork barrel, but it's good to keep in mind that government has and can do good things for the people.

 

[LongJohn]

An argument I have heard for a national sales tax instead of income tax is that it would apply to everyone so you cast a broader net. Doesn't matter how income is generated (black market, under the table, gambling, honest income) everyone still buys stuff. Then you get rid of all the loop holes and deductions.

 

[Mr. Deez]

RV,

You are correct that the government has spent significant money on electricity and many other things that have benefited the public infrastructure. However, those are relatively small ticket items. If that was all the government was doing, we most likely wouldn't need a broad tax like an income tax. Social Security, healthcare spending (Medicare and Medicaid), national defense, and interest on the national debt - that's where the serious money is being spent, and that's what's driving the need for taxes on income (the income tax and the FICA tax).