When someone tells you to research a topic for them, it usually means they have no real understanding of their own argument. Otherwise, why would he not pull that amendment up real quick (it would take two seconds), link to it, highlight the part he wants you to know, and win the argument right then?
Because he can't.
You're jumping in a little late, but just because I'm nice, I'll fill you in, and then maybe Catawba will better understand my point. I asked this...
"Have you ever known a person to settle for making less, if they have the clear and easy means to make more?"
Catawba answered thus...
"Yes, that is why the country adopted progressive tax rates in the first place, to prevent a few robber barons from owning the country."
To which I responded...
"No, it was started to fund the civil war. The "progressive" part began when extracting a flat tax no longer sufficed for the ever expanding budget. It was decided to take more from wealthier people ONLY because they feared a second uprising like the one they experienced after announcing that the then "war time" tax on income would remain in effect, despite there being no war. And since there are usually far more non rich than rich...they opted to tick off the lesser of the two threats. History. It's not just for historians anymore."
And Catawba said...
"Obviously, as you have abandoned the historian's perspective to just make up your own."
At which point I suggested maybe he research the HISTORY of the 16th amendment, to better understand how I am most certainly NOT abandoning the historians perspective just to make up my own. I did not say to read what it says, but to look up the history of the thing. And no, it would NOT be a simple copy and paste, it would have been a wall of text, if I had done so, and no one would have read it, because people tend not to read things that take longer than 5 minutes on debate forums. So, next time you want to jump into something, maybe take a peak first, otherwise you might end up in ****.