Posted on 09/21/2002 11:39:06 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
Rino's suck
Isn’t it equally as likely that the libertarians could field a major candidate who wasn’t thrown off the ticket or arrested before an election; in itself a MASSIVE success.
Interestingly, it was considered and even implemented prior to being resurrected in its current form. I don't know how they justified it prior to the Constitutional Amendment.
The first income tax suggested in the United States was during the War of 1812. The tax was based on the British Tax Act of 1798 and applied progressive rates to income. The rates were .08% on income above £60 and 10 percent on income above £200. The tax was developed in 1814 but was never imposed because the treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815 ending hostilities and the need for additional revenue.
The Tax Act of 1861 proposed that "there shall be levied, collected, and paid, upon annual income of every person residing in the U.S. whether derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any source whatever.
The 1861 Tax Act was passed but never put in force. Rates under the Act were 3% on income above $800 and 5% on income of individuals living outside the U.S.
The Tax Act of 1862 was passed and signed by President Lincoln July 1 1862. The rates were 3% on income above $600 and 5% on income above $10,000. The rent or rental value of your home could be deducted from income in determining the tax liability. The Commissioner of Revenue stated "The people of this country have accepted it with cheerfulness, to meet a temporary exigency, and it has excited no serious complaint in its administration." This acceptance was primarily due to the need for revenue to finance the Civil War.
Although the people cheerfully accepted the tax, compliance was not high. Figures released after the Civil War indicated that 276,661 people actually filed tax returns in 1870 (the year of the highest returns filed) when the country's population was approximately 38 million.
The Tax Act of 1864 was passed to raise additional revenue to support the Civil War.
Senator Garret Davis, in discussing the guiding principle of taxation, stated "a recognition of the idea that taxes shall be paid according to the abilities of a person to pay."
Taxes rates for the Tax Act of 1864 were 5% for income between $600 and $5000; 7.5% for income between $5001 and $10,000; 10% on income above $10,000. The deduction for rent or rental value was limited to $200. A deduction for repairs was allowed.
With the end of the Civil War the public's accepted cheerfulness with regard to taxation waned. The Tax Act of 1864 was modified after the war. The rates were changed to a flat 5 percent with the exemption amount raised to $1,000. Several attempts to make the tax permanent were tried but by 1869 " no businessman could pass the day without suffering from those burdens" The Times. From 1870 to 1872 the rate was a flat 2.5 percent and the exemption amount was raised to $2,000.
The tax was repealed in 1872 and in its place was installed significant tariff restrictions that served as the major revenue source for the United States until 1913.
Jefferson in particular seems to favor "progressive" taxation:
If the income tax were to continue, I myself would favor a "flat" tax, with personal and dependent deductions only to alleviate the burden on those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder."Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
And Thomas Jefferson gets his wish too. Being as how the rich people buy more, and buy more expensive things, they will pay proportionately more.
That is a false statement. Only affirmative votes are counted. A vote FOR any candidate is a vote FOR that candidate, and does not count in the tallies for anyone else.
Considering that you haven't even advanced to 'trite and bumperstickerish', your comments have no value to me at all. You are one that puts party over freedom day in and day out. Those lost at the Alamo did not die for your type. You have forgotten.
Well that brings us back to square one.
And history proves the preference for the tariff over the sales tax.
Incidently, they DID err in the implementation of BOTH by targeting specific items/commodities while exempting others for no apparent reason than to accommodate the manipulative desires of influential special interests.
IMHO, tariffs should be levied at a flat rate on ALL imported goods, regardless of what they are or where they are from.
Similarly, rather than targeting certain items for a sales/excise tax (such as we do now with alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc.), any domestic sales tax should be broadly applied to ALL items, WITH THE EXCEPTION of life's necessities: food, clothing, shelter and medicines.
No, they do all their shopping in offshore tax havens.
Isn't your goal return to Constitutional government? I don't think the Republicrats have the same objective.
It's nice to have others agree, but even if no one else does, I'll say what I think needs to be said.
Oddly enough, I'm probably more conservative in lifestyle and politics than most of the big mouth conservatives on this forum. They advocate Big Government either when it serves their purpose or by silence when 'their guy' is in office. They are hypocrites who are merely mirror images of the clinton koolaid drinkers.
The prey flees from the roaring male lion into the jaws of the female lion pride.
Voters flee one party out of fear only to get the same fate in a different wrapper.
Bush is continuing with the worst of clinton's plans but with packaging that pseudoConservatives like.
I'd still like someone to list me the executive orders that Bush stopped or the Constitutional freedoms that he has restored or enhanced. He has passed more government growth than clinton ever dreamed he could.
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.