| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
What's wrong about this photo? Or if you're a true-born Southerner, what's right?
While scanning through some of the up and coming movies in 2005, I ran across this intriguing title; "CSA: Confederate States of America (2005)". It's an "alternate universe" take on what would the country be like had the South won the civil war.
Stars with bars:
Suffice to say anything from Hollywood on this topic is sure to to bring about all sorts of controversial ideas and discussions. I was surprised that they are approaching such subject matter, and I'm more than a little interested.
Some things are better left dead in the past:
For myself, I was more than pleased with the homage paid to General "Stonewall" Jackson in Turner's "Gods and Generals". Like him, I should have like to believe that the South would have been compelled to end slavery out of Christian dignity rather than continue to enslave their brothers of the freedom that belong equally to all men. Obviously it didn't happen that way.
Would I fight for a South that believed in Slavery today? I have to ask first, would I know any better back then? I don't know. I honestly don't know. My pride for my South and my heritage would have most likely doomed me as it did so many others. I won't skirt the issue, in all likelyhood, slavery may have been an afterthought. Had they been the staple of what I considered property, I possibly would have already been past the point of moral struggle on the point and preparing to kill Northern invaders.
Compelling story or KKK wet dream?:
So what do I feel about this? The photo above nearly brings me to tears, as I highly respect Abraham Lincoln. I don't care if they kick me out of the South. Imagine if GW was in prayer over what to do about a seperatist leftist California. That's how I imagine Lincoln. A great man. I wonder sometimes what my family would have been like today. How many more of us would there be? Would we have held onto the property and prosperity that sustained them before the war? Would I have double the amount of family in the area? How many would I have had to cook for last week for Christmas? Would I have needed to make more "Pate De Fois Gras"?
Well, dunno about that either. Depending on what the previous for this movie are like, I may or may not see it. If they portray it as the United Confederacy of the KKK I won't be attending.
This generation of our clan speaks some 5 languages in addition to English, those being of recent immigrants to this nation. All of them are good Americans. I believe the south would have succombed to the same forces that affected the North. Immigration, war, economics and other huma forces that have changed the map of the world since history began.
Whatever. At least in this alternate universe, it's safe for me to believe that we would have grown to be the benevolent and humane South that I know it is in my heart. I can believe that slavery would have died shortly before or after that lost victory. I can believe that Southern gentlemen would have served the world as the model for behavior. In my alternate universe, it's ok that Spock has a beard. It's my alternate universe after all, it can be what I want.
At any rate, I lived up North for many years. Wonderful people and difficult people. I will always sing their praises as a land full of beautiful Italian girls, maple syrup and Birch beer. My uncle ribbed us once before we left on how we were going up North to live "with all the Yankees". Afterwards I always refered to him as royalty. He is, really. He's "King of the Rednecks". I suppose I'm his court jester.
So what do you think of this movie?
And Reagan's tax increases would never have been approved by Lincoln!
Reagan cut taxes once in office and then raised them again for SS-did he not?
We had Whig Presidents and Congresses before (as well as Federalists) and the nation survived.
Amen to your post!
There was a brief period in Virginia law where you could free slaves in your will with no restrictions. The loophole was open from 1782 to 1806. George Washington took advantage of the loophole when he died in 1799. The loophole was closed when Jefferson died in 1826.
After 1806 in Virginia, apparently you could free slaves in your will if you or your estate provided for them for the rest of their lives or if you sent them back to Africa. IIRC, Lee's father-in-law freed his slaves in his will in the 1850s, and Lee sent some of his slaves to Liberia. The Virginia legislature did not want freed slaves becoming a burden on the economy and did not make it easy for free blacks. There were laws in Virginia returning freed slaves to slavery if they stayed in Virginia longer than 12 months after being freed.
SMART FReepers are laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
frankly, i'm about ready to start IGNORING their DUMB, REVISIONIST, hateFILLED posts.
i wonder if they'd like THAT.
free dixie,sw
frankly, i'm about ready to start IGNORING their DUMB, REVISIONIST, hateFILLED posts.
i wonder if they'd like THAT.
free dixie,sw
FEW people in the southland actually owned slaves (only about 5-6% DID own any!) & the NON-slaveowners were NOT inclined (regardless of what you were taught in school to go to war over some other RICH guys slaves.
for the VAST MAJORITY of southerners the war was ONLY about FREEDOM from the north & having the boot of the damnyankees OFF our collective necks.
free dixie,sw
Unfortunately for the record, it was Bushpilot. His posts are now vanished, but you can gather what they said from the context. Here's my immediate reply to him after saying that he'd rather be a slave in the south than an industrial worker in the north. Go look for yourself.
To: bushpilot
Incredible. You'd rather be a slave than a free worker if being a slave meant you'd be comfortable. Are you sure you're in the right forum?
Of course, the problem with being a slave is that you don't get to decide if you're mixing up juleps in the big house or chopping cotton in the sun. You can quit the coal mine job and go find another. Your wife and children can't be sold off to the Mississippi bottoms. But I guess that's all a small price to pay for getting to polish massa's boots in the big house, huh?
736 posted on 11/01/2004 8:28:02 PM PST by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250410/posts?page=732#732
Wrong. Reagan cut taxes starting in 1981 over three stages through 1984 IIRC. The 1986 tax cut was a mixed bag the further cut the rates in the upper income tax brackets but raised them indirectly through capital gains and the removal of state tax and consumer loans deductions - a product of the Democrats in Congress (specifically Gephardt and Bill Bradley) more than anything Reagan did.
The Social Security Act of 1983 subjected half of the program's handouts to income tax, which technically speaking is NOT a tax hike since the fee is extracted from a government entitlement rather than actual earned income.
In any case however, you have absolutely no evidence that Lincoln would've found anything Reagan did to social security objectionable beyond your own uninformed speculation. As to whether he would've found the Reagan tax cuts objectionable, that much may be concluded on the fact that in his own lifetime and 30+ year political career Lincoln never once wavered on raising taxes and never saw a tax hike that he did not like.
Reagan had to agree to them did he not?
I am not blaming Reagan, but the fact is that a Presidency is only one office and has to deal with other branches of government just like Lincoln would have had to.
The Social Security Act of 1983 subjected half of the program's handouts to income tax, which technically speaking is NOT a tax hike since the fee is extracted from a government entitlement rather than actual earned income.
Technically speaking is government double-speak.
The money is coming out of our paychecks.
In any case however, you have absolutely no evidence that Lincoln would've found anything Reagan did to social security objectionable beyond your own uninformed speculation. As to whether he would've found the Reagan tax cuts objectionable, that much may be concluded on the fact that in his own lifetime and 30+ year political career Lincoln never once wavered on raising taxes and never saw a tax hike that he did not like.
Lets take the spin off this real quick.
First, were we paying more in taxes after Reagan left then when in came in (and I include SS as a tax)
Two, the point being that no 19th century President would have dreamed of the scope of government in the 20 and 21st century.
Whigs, Democrats, Federalists would have been appalled by it.
When you talk about Lincoln raising taxes, please remember that the nation had no personal income tax, hence our tax rate, even with high tarriffs was very low.
It is very easy to forget we are dealing with a different historical period and neglect the all important historical context.
I would agree for the majority of the people of the South, the war was not about keeping slaves.
Most did not have them.
However, for the slaverowners, who were the dominant political group in the deep south, slavery drove their actions to secede.
Also, even though poor whites had an economic reason for seeing slavery ended, they had a social reason for keeping it, they always felt superior to a black slave.
This was the motivation for the Jim Crow laws, to keep the 'social order' intact.
Clearly, slavery was a 'tar-baby' that was very difficult to deal with that in a manner that would be fair to both the slaves and the communities that had to absorb them.
The slaves needed to educated.
The old ones needed to be taken care of.
And we are talking about millions of people here.
Plenty beaucoup wrong with that! Or do you not want to teach kids to think for themselves?
One was responsible for creating leading the nation, the other for preserving conquering it.
Try to get it right, will you? The North lost the Civil War almost as badly as the South -- they lost their future to the business interests, the railroads, and the robber barons.
Or did you not read about that in American history classes?
And furthermore, the connection of the rise of the robber barons to the election of Lincoln is not post hoc ergo propter hoc -- the Republicans were the party of business and industry (no matter what happened with slaves or ex-slaves), and they served those interests avidly all through the Gilded Age, right down to the present day. The only time their hold on the party has been threatened has been when Main Street, conservative Republicans briefly took over the GOP to nominate Barry and elect Ronnie -- and before Ronnie left office, the hand of Manor Bush had taken a steel grip on the whole party. I went to the 1988 caucuses, and they were a joke. We got Bush I rammed down our throats by a bunch of blue-haired ladies in upmarket pret-a-porter, who just sat there saying not a thing all evening, then voted the straight Bush ticket, got into their Lincoln Continentals, and went home.
The party has been subserving their interest at the expense of everything else ever since. Housemaids, gardeners, drywall installers -- what immigration problem? Basta! What this country needs is a serious reduction of the minimum wage!
Oh, and big tax cuts in the higher brackets. Better still, turn the entire income tax into a sales tax. Like Leona Helmsley said, "paying taxes is for little people!"
Point: the GOP has been, and still is, the party of really rich people running really large economic machines that the GOP privileges above the interests of mere voters (employees, hands, churls). Ergo, the common men who fought in Union blue to "save the Union" in 1865, gave their lives so that John D. Rockefeller could monopolize the illuminating-oil industry, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick could break the Knights of Labor with an army of Pinkertons and the Militia during the Homestead strike (in order to preserve Carnegie's sacred right to cut wages in half), the owners of the South Fork Dam (Carnegie and Frick again, among others) wouldn't have to face their responsibility for the Johnstown Flood (2200 dead, five years to recover), and Mrs. Vanderbilt could give out precious stones as party favors to her plutocratic guests.
Everyone else got Hobson's choice, time clocks, company stores and company towns, private armies of security police, mile-long assembly lines where workers lasted 18 months (maybe), ten-dollar death benefits for workers, and all the rest of the things we've been used to associate with 19th-century HR administration.
Only a few people won the Civil War, claywit. Smell the coffee.
in point of fact, the 1st person accounts of CSA soldiers of the period indicate that FEW people (other than the 5-6% of slaveowners) cared a damn about the "preservation of the peculiar institution".
yes, i know that's what you've been spoon-fed by the REVISIONIST, self-righteous, damnyankee-controlled :publick edumakashun sistim" BUT it is INCORRECT.
frankly the "oh, so PC, wunerful,wunerful edumakaters" know that what they feed students is a self-serving lie, but they count on the LIES repetition to cover-up for them.
free dixie,sw
Yeah, and eliminating the deductions was part of the deal he made to cut INCOME TAXES overall by chopping 22% off the upper income tax bracket.
I am not blaming Reagan, but the fact is that a Presidency is only one office and has to deal with other branches of government just like Lincoln would have had to.
Big difference: Lincoln's own party controlled all of Congress in his presidency and he supported each and every tax hike they sent him.
The Social Security Act of 1983 subjected half of the program's handouts to income tax, which technically speaking is NOT a tax hike since the fee is extracted from a government entitlement rather than actual earned income.
Technically speaking is government double-speak.
So you believe that a social program handout is legitimate earned income?
The money is coming out of our paychecks.
No. Taxes are coming out of our paychecks, but Social Security is not and never has been a true paycheck financed retirement trust as it is often billed. In reality Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program for the elderly. It taxes workers and redistributes the revenues in the form of handout checks. "Taxing" part of those SS handout checks is no different than "taxing" some AFDC/TANF welfare queen on the handout she recieves - in reality it is nothing more than a reduction in the total handout they receive, and from a conservative perspective that is a good thing.
Lets take the spin off this real quick. First, were we paying more in taxes after Reagan left then when in came in (and I include SS as a tax)
When Reagan took office the top tax bracket's rate exceeded 70%. When he left office it was 28%. Do the math.
Two, the point being that no 19th century President would have dreamed of the scope of government in the 20 and 21st century.
Really? Cause Lincoln assembled the largest military per capita at any point in history, presided over the most far-reaching government welfare giveaway in U.S. history (the Homestead Act), and accumulated more power within the office of the presidency than any president before him as well as any since save, possibly, FDR (and even that is debatable because FDR, unlike Lincoln, did not use his office to harass and obstruct members of the other two branches of the national government).
When you talk about Lincoln raising taxes, please remember that the nation had no personal income tax, hence our tax rate, even with high tarriffs was very low.
Somebody's still gotta pay those tariffs, ftD. In terms of revenue, they function sort of like a sales tax by making goods that people buy more costly. Furthermore, you are flat out wrong about there being no income tax in Lincoln's day. The first income tax was signed into law by Abe Lincoln himself (yet another of his many violations of the constitution) under the Internal Revenue Act of 1862!
Well, thank you Karl Marx.
Or did you not read about that in American history classes?
You mean in the Public Schools, run by those truth seeking, right-wing school teachers?
And furthermore, the connection of the rise of the robber barons to the election of Lincoln is not post hoc ergo propter hoc -- the Republicans were the party of business and industry (no matter what happened with slaves or ex-slaves), and they served those interests avidly all through the Gilded Age, right down to the present day. The only time their hold on the party has been threatened has been when Main Street, conservative Republicans briefly took over the GOP to nominate Barry and elect Ronnie -- and before Ronnie left office, the hand of Manor Bush had taken a steel grip on the whole party. I went to the 1988 caucuses, and they were a joke. We got Bush I rammed down our throats by a bunch of blue-haired ladies in upmarket pret-a-porter, who just sat there saying not a thing all evening, then voted the straight Bush ticket, got into their Lincoln Continentals, and went home. The party has been subserving their interest at the expense of everything else ever since. Housemaids, gardeners, drywall installers -- what immigration problem? Basta! What this country needs is a serious reduction of the minimum wage! Oh, and big tax cuts in the higher brackets. Better still, turn the entire income tax into a sales tax. Like Leona Helmsley said, "paying taxes is for little people!" Point: the GOP has been, and still is, the party of really rich people running really large economic machines that the GOP privileges above the interests of mere voters (employees, hands, churls). Ergo, the common men who fought in Union blue to "save the Union" in 1865, gave their lives so that John D. Rockefeller could monopolize the illuminating-oil industry, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick could break the Knights of Labor with an army of Pinkertons and the Militia during the Homestead strike (in order to preserve Carnegie's sacred right to cut wages in half), the owners of the South Fork Dam (Carnegie and Frick again, among others) wouldn't have to face their responsibility for the Johnstown Flood (2200 dead, five years to recover), and Mrs. Vanderbilt could give out precious stones as party favors to her plutocratic guests. Everyone else got Hobson's choice, time clocks, company stores and company towns, private armies of security police, mile-long assembly lines where workers lasted 18 months (maybe), ten-dollar death benefits for workers, and all the rest of the things we've been used to associate with 19th-century HR administration. Only a few people won the Civil War, claywit. Smell the coffee.
Wow!
That was a Howard Dean moment!
You support M.Espinola's quote about Neo-Confederates not being supportive of any political party, nor any flag but the stars and bars.
Any talk with you about America and her values are frankly, a waste of time, and I do not say that in a harsh spirit.
You have a marxist interpretation of history, which is a distorted one.
Despite the failures of this nation to adhere consistently to the principles of the Declaration, it has been the free-est nation on earth.
It has been a great force for good in the world.
It is a great shame that you do not appreciate her greatness.
In fact, the Confederates also had a desertion problem and had to institute a draft.
That does not mean that slavery was not the political reason why secession was attempted.
It was a rich man's war, but the poor man's fight.
So, did taxes go up overall or not?
He just shifted where the tax burden would fall.
Stop playing word games.
I am not blaming Reagan, but the fact is that a Presidency is only one office and has to deal with other branches of government just like Lincoln would have had to. Big difference: Lincoln's own party controlled all of Congress in his presidency and he supported each and every tax hike they sent him.
Yes, there was a little matter of a war being fought.
So, how did Davis do with taxes?
The Social Security Act of 1983 subjected half of the program's handouts to income tax, which technically speaking is NOT a tax hike since the fee is extracted from a government entitlement rather than actual earned income. Technically speaking is government double-speak. So you believe that a social program handout is legitimate earned income?
I mean (and you know it) is that the source of revenue is a tax.
Where the money goes is irrevelant to the discussion of taxation.
The money is coming out of our paychecks. No. Taxes are coming out of our paychecks, but Social Security is not and never has been a true paycheck financed retirement trust as it is often billed. In reality Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program for the elderly. It taxes workers and redistributes the revenues in the form of handout checks. "Taxing" part of those SS handout checks is no different than "taxing" some AFDC/TANF welfare queen on the handout she recieves - in reality it is nothing more than a reduction in the total handout they receive, and from a conservative perspective that is a good thing.
Yea, and it comes out of our pay checks!
And if I am not receiving a social security handout payment, I am paying out.
As for a person who receiving a 'reduction' on the handout they receive, it is still a net gain for them and net loss for me.
I am paying taxes, they are not.
Lets take the spin off this real quick. First, were we paying more in taxes after Reagan left then when in came in (and I include SS as a tax) When Reagan took office the top tax bracket's rate exceeded 70%. When he left office it was 28%. Do the math.
Ah,we are not talking about brackets now, but overall revenue going to the treasury from tax revenues.
As you have admitted it was an increase, not a decrease based on shifting the tax burden.
Two, the point being that no 19th century President would have dreamed of the scope of government in the 20 and 21st century. Really? Cause Lincoln assembled the largest military per capita at any point in history, presided over the most far-reaching government welfare giveaway in U.S. history (the Homestead Act), and accumulated more power within the office of the presidency than any president before him as well as any since save, possibly, FDR (and even that is debatable because FDR, unlike Lincoln, did not use his office to harass and obstruct members of the other two branches of the national government).
Because he had to fight one of the greatest wars in history.
What was the size of the 'libertarian' Confdederacy by wars end?
Wars increase the size of Governments.
As for the homestead act, what could be more conservative then giving the 'government' land to the people-free!
We should do the same thing now.
When you talk about Lincoln raising taxes, please remember that the nation had no personal income tax, hence our tax rate, even with high tarriffs was very low. Somebody's still gotta pay those tariffs, ftD. In terms of revenue, they function sort of like a sales tax by making goods that people buy more costly. Furthermore, you are flat out wrong about there being no income tax in Lincoln's day. The first income tax was signed into law by Abe Lincoln himself (yet another of his many violations of the constitution) under the Internal Revenue Act of 1862!
Yes, but no one forces you to buy a particular good, so a sales tax allows alot more freedom of action.
Now, with your income taxed, you have no choice in the amount of taxes you are willing to pay, unless you cut back on your income.
The greatest increase of national gov't came in the early 19th century with the progressives, with the income tax and direct elections of senators.
That is where you need to look to see the change in the philosophy of government.
No argument, but it's also important to recognize the popular sentiments that led to those. Direct election of senators was the equivalent of term limits today--a popular move against cronyism and corruption. And the progressive movement in general was a reaction to the excesses of gilded age capitalism.
The Lost Causers on these boards sometimes hold up the unequal railroad rates charged to southern (and western, for that matter) farmers vs. northern manufacturers as evidence of the persistent yankee conspiracy against them. But the whole subject of railroad rates was hotly debated and was a major progressive platform plank. Railroads fought the government long and hard (see Wabash v. Illinois) until the progressives established the ICC.
They did not. Per aCongressional Committee on Joint Taxation study conducted in 2000, the average person's tax burden under the 1980 tax code was 33.2% of their income. After the Reagan cuts it was 21.4% on average. You seem to be suffering from the strain of liberalism that commonly infects mid-stage Lincoln idolaters.
He just shifted where the tax burden would fall.
Utter left wing Reagan-bashing nonsense. You seem to be suffering from the strain of liberalism that commonly infects mid-stage Lincoln idolaters. Per Dr. Peter Sperry of the Heritage Foundation the federal tax burden of your beloved social security handouts - which were never a Reagan program to begin with - consistently decreased between 1981 and 1989 for four out of five taxpaying quintiles and only increased slightly (by 2%) for the fifth - the top 20%
Stop playing word games.
The only word games here are yours, ftD, and they're emitting a strong liberal stench not uncommon to your Wlat Brigade predecessors.
Yes, there was a little matter of a war being fought.
...and a big matter of taxes being raised at Lincoln's wishes dating back to the Morrill Tariff's introduction in 1860 over a year before that war began.
So, how did Davis do with taxes?
Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"
I mean (and you know it) is that the source of revenue is a tax.
The source of virtually all revenue these days is a tax of some sort, ftD. Why do you single out a decrease in the amount of handouts for a single program then when calculating your tax assessments?
Yea, and it comes out of our pay checks!
Your reading comprehension is lacking of late, ftD. I'll repeat myself. Taxes are coming out of our paychecks, but Social Security is not and never has been a true paycheck financed retirement trust as it is often billed. In reality Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program for the elderly. It taxes workers and redistributes the revenues in the form of handout checks. "Taxing" part of those SS handout checks is no different than "taxing" some AFDC/TANF welfare queen on the handout she recieves - in reality it is nothing more than a reduction in the total handout they receive, and from a conservative perspective that is a good thing.
As for a person who receiving a 'reduction' on the handout they receive, it is still a net gain for them and net loss for me.
Such is the nature of handout programs, and for that particular one you need to be blaming FDR, not Reagan.
Ah,we are not talking about brackets now, but overall revenue going to the treasury from tax revenues.
Revenue increases when economic activity increases (as happened in the 1980's). That doesn't mean taxes went up, and quite to the contrary if a tax cut spurs that increase in economic activity. Don't you remember how the Laffer Curve works?
Because he had to fight one of the greatest wars in history.
So claimed Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, and every other tyrant who ever lived.
What was the size of the 'libertarian' Confdederacy by wars end?
Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"
As for the homestead act, what could be more conservative then giving the 'government' land to the people-free!
It wasn't the government's land though. It was the land of the whole United States and its people, the government only being the mechanism by which it was rationed. The conservative would espouse using the market mechanism of prices to ration that land (using the revenues, in turn, to alleviate the federal tax burden on the people and finance the operations of a limited government) whereas the liberal would espouse rationing by giving it away to persons who meet certain social categories by way of a handout program administered through the bureaucracy, all the while financing the government through taxation measures that are enacted to coincide with that handout program.
We should do the same thing now.
Your liberal bug has reached the state of a fever, ftD. Don't worry though. It happens to all Lincoln idolaters sooner or later because liberalism is the inevitable logical conclusion of Lincoln idolatry.
Yes, but no one forces you to buy a particular good, so a sales tax allows alot more freedom of action.
Is that supposed to make me feel better when the sales tax is an exhorbitant 50% or 100% on the total value of the item (as was frequently the case with the value added onto imports by protective tariffs)? Am I supposed to conclude "well, I have the freedom not to drink tea or play cards so I guess those silly stamps King George wants me to buy are fair enough" and fish the crates out of Boston harbor?
Now, with your income taxed, you have no choice in the amount of taxes you are willing to pay, unless you cut back on your income.
Funny how Lincoln figured that out and exploited it to the fullest with his Internal Revenue Act of 1862 - the same Internal Revenue Act of 1862 that established the first American income tax, which you denied and evidently still deny to have been an issue in the Lincoln administration. Go figure.
The greatest increase of national gov't came in the early 19th century with the progressives, with the income tax and direct elections of senators.
Nah. And I presume you mean early 20th century, BTW. If that is the case they were only acting on the precedents of Lincoln before them. Lincoln invented the income tax in 1862 and it stayed in place for a decade until people started making a stink about the fact that it was unconstitutional. Needless to say, only half a century later the progressives picked up the "Saint Abe did it" banner and crammed the 16th amendment through to restore the Lincolnian economic system. Interestingly enough, the "progressives" 1% tax rate on the main bracket ($3000+ a year) that included everybody but the poor and the super rich was but a tiny fraction of the rates imposed on ALL of Lincoln's income tax brackets! For comparison:
Lincoln Income Tax of 1862:
3% bracket: $600 to $10,000 ($650 to $10,700 in 1913 dollars adjusted for inflation)
5% bracket: $10,000 plus
Lincoln Income Tax Hike of 1864:
5% bracket: $600 to $5,000 ($470 to $3900 in 1913 dollars adjusted for deflation - yes, there was deflation back then)
10% bracket: $5000 +
"Progressives" Income Tax of 1913:
1% bracket: $3,000 to $500,000 individually or $4,000 to $500,000 for married couples
7% bracket: $500,000+
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.