Income tax

[Galvatron]

"...with the passage of the 16th Amendment, authorizing an income tax...the federal government now had virtually unlimited resources to do whatever the politicians wanted. Respect for the Constitution disappeared almost overnight. The U.S. government plunged the nation into World War I, a strictly European war, something it couldn't have done without the income tax to finance the war effort..."

"This is a fascinating subject because it is the single subject that automatically encompasses an end to practically every other ill the federal government has inflicted upon us."

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/IncomeTaxDay.htm

[Stormbringer]

Interesting. I think it would be quite successful at doing what he says it but then comes the question of unintended consequences. There are plenty of negatives to this and I'm wary of those.

[jegs2]

"As soon as the people find out that they can dip into the public coffer, our nation will degenerate into tyranny." -- Madison

[Andrew J.]

The U.S. government plunged the nation into World War I, a strictly European war

Hmph. This guy makes it sound like the only reason we got involved in the war was because we suddenly had enough money to do so. Hasn't this guy ever heard of unrestricted submarine warfare, or the Zimmerman Telegram?

Not only that, but he's guilty of the false-cause fallacy. He assumes all our problems are caused by high taxes-yet Sweden has about a 50% tax rate, and the Swedes are better off than we are! Clearly, taxes are not the sole problem.

[RedImperator]

Hmph. This guy makes it sound like the only reason we got involved in the war was because we suddenly had enough money to do so. Hasn't this guy ever heard of unrestricted submarine warfare, or the Zimmerman Telegram?

Not only that, but he's guilty of the false-cause fallacy. He assumes all our problems are caused by high taxes-yet Sweden has about a 50% tax rate, and the Swedes are better off than we are! Clearly, taxes are not the sole problem.

His argument is that the income tax made it possible to finance the war and makes it possible now for the government to expand far beyond its constitutional boundaries, where it screws everything up. He's also arguing that the economy would be better off if 50% of people's incomes, on average, didn't get consumed by taxes, which is pretty much a "well, duh" argument in mainstream economics. Browne is a capital-L Libertarian, and he's writing for a libertarian audience, so he's making a few assumptions that his audience already agrees with--namely, that the Federal government ought to have no role beyond what it's explicitly allowed to do in the Consitution.

[irishmick79]

Unfortunately, Mr. Brown overlooks the fact that the US income tax was first implemented in 1862, at the hight of the american civil war. The income tax was hardly an original idea by 1913, and had been utilized off and on since the end of the civil war. While the constitution didn't strictly outlaw the income tax, the Supreme court did during the 1890's. The congressional amendment overruled them, marking one of the rare instances in the american political system where congress revived an issue struck dead by the Supreme Court.

[RedImperator]

Unfortunately, Mr. Brown overlooks the fact that the US income tax was first implemented in 1862, at the hight of the american civil war. The income tax was hardly an original idea by 1913, and had been utilized off and on since the end of the civil war. While the constitution didn't strictly outlaw the income tax, the Supreme court did during the 1890's. The congressional amendment overruled them, marking one of the rare instances in the american political system where congress revived an issue struck dead by the Supreme Court.

He's not saying it's unconstitutional (at least I don't think--it's been several days since I read the article), he's saying it's a bad idea. I'm inclined to agree, but my knowledge of economics isn't deep enough to state decisively that everything would be better without one, and my knowledge of politcs says there'd be enormous fallout if a proposal like this went through.

[Stormbringer]

He's not saying it's unconstitutional (at least I don't think--it's been several days since I read the article), he's saying it's a bad idea. I'm inclined to agree, but my knowledge of economics isn't deep enough to state decisively that everything would be better without one, and my knowledge of politcs says there'd be enormous fallout if a proposal like this went through.

It's contitutional, that's the whole point of the amendment. The thing is he's arguing that an income (aside from exceptional cases) isn't what the founding father intended. I'm inclined to agree.

[irishmick79]

He's not saying it's unconstitutional (at least I don't think--it's been several days since I read the article), he's saying it's a bad idea. I'm inclined to agree, but my knowledge of economics isn't deep enough to state decisively that everything would be better without one, and my knowledge of politcs says there'd be enormous fallout if a proposal like this went through.

The problem with his argument is that he plays with history a little bit to get it to say what he wants.

The income tax managed to stick around because the population got so big that the regular excise taxes just simply weren't sufficient to cover the cost of the government's operations, which in correlation with the population had grown as well. The wars made it difficult for the government to continue to finance the war efforts and maintain regular services at the same time. Something had to be done to increase revenue, and the income tax was the answer.

[Hamel]

If you want a decent military, keep that income tax on the books

[Joe]

Np, a national retail sales tax could easily raise enough revenue and then some for our current military.

[RedImperator]

The argument against the income tax, aside from the economic one, is that it enables the government to operate outside its constitutional bounds--Social Security, the war on drugs, corporate welfare, regular welfare, farm price supports, midnight basketball, and the rest. You might think one of the things the goverment does outside its constitutional mandate is a good thing--the Libertarian gambit has been to ask people to trade those handfuls of programs they like (on top of all the other programs they loathe) for half their income back. Then, they argue, if it turns out we really really needed one of the things we gave up, we can pass a constitutional amendment giving the government the power to do that (provide a safety net at the sustenence level, for example, or the National Park Service, or disaster relief, or whatever).

[Glocksman]

Np, a national retail sales tax could easily raise enough revenue and then some for our current military.

Sales taxes are the most regressive kind of tax because as a percentage of income, the poor will pay more taxes than the well off. A flat rate income tax (eliminating the brackets as well as all of the deductions and breaks) would be infinitely preferable to a national sales tax.

[Axis Kast]

Don't forget that income tax was preceeded or paralleled by a horrific property tax. Assuming the government couldn't lay down a proportionate levy on personal wealth, they'd have to begin shifting the burden to large landowners anyway. That gets to become a major problem in the Midwest.

[Soontir C'boath]

Anyone heard of this? Got this in my mail from conservativesalert.com


ISSUE: Do you think it's time to get rid of the income tax?
More and more folks on Capitol Hill agree.

Congressman John Linder (R-GA) has once again introduced the
"FairTax" bill (H.R. 25). The FairTax is one of the most
exciting proposals to ever reach the American people. It offers
long-needed tax relief -- in the form of lower prices, nearly
nonexistent compliance costs, and the ability to choose how
much to spend in taxes -- to all Americans, while eliminating
the income tax and allowing Americans to keep 100 percent of
their paycheck.

The FairTax will dramatically reduce prices, protect and ensure
funding of Social Security and Medicare, empower the low-income
earners, and put choice and control back into the hands of
every American. All the crucial elements are in place: a public
that is eager and ready for a fairer tax system, and a Congress
willing to seriously consider genuine tax reform. To be
competitive in the next century and to renew the American
dream, we must change the way we fund our national government.

The FairTax Act:

* Repeals all corporate and individual income taxes, payroll
taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes
and gift taxes.
* Imposes a revenue-neutral national sales tax on all new goods
and services at the point of final purchase for consumption.
Business-to-business transactions and used products (which have
already been taxed) are not subject to the sales tax.
* Rebates the sales tax on all spending up to the poverty level.

Results of the FairTax:

* Dramatically reduce the costs of goods and services by 20 to
30 percent.
* Allows you to keep 100 percent of your paycheck, pension, and
Social Security payments.
* Gross Domestic Product will increase by almost 10.5 percent
in the first year after enactment.
* Compliance costs would decrease by 90 percent.
* Real investment would initially increase by 76 percent
relative to the investment that would be made under present law.
While this increase would gradually decline, it remains 15
percent higher than under the existing tax structure.
* Exports would increase by 26 percent initially and would
remain more than 13 percent above the level under the current
tax system.
* Real wages will increase.
* Increases incentives to work by as much as 20 percent in many
households, leading to higher economic growth and efficiency.
* Interest rates will fall 25 to 35 percent.

Isn't it time for REAL change in our federal tax system? We need
to support this bill TODAY!

ACTION ITEM: Rep. Linder has announced that he has added more
than 20 co-sponsors -- including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
(R-TX) -- to the FairTax bill. "The momentum behind the FairTax
continues to build, and Majority Leader DeLay's co-sponsorship
is just the latest signal that support for the FairTax is
growing," said Linder. "The bill now has 21 co-sponsors -- more
than any other fundamental tax reform legislation in the House --
and they represent a bipartisan coalition of members from across
the nation. Not only do my colleagues recognize the harm done to
the American people by the overly intrusive and burdensome income
tax code, their constituents recognize it every April 15th,"
continued Linder.

Cyaround,
Jason