Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

haymarket · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
I see, so the world started with George Bush?

j-mac

No but the 47% malarkey did and I just proved it to you.

And Turtle has been schooled on this many many times and should be able to recite it from memory by this time he has seen it so much.

The Progressive Income Tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. And who do we have to thank for championing that bit of progressive taxation?

On June 16, 1909, President William Howard Taft, in an address to Congress, proposed a 2% federal income tax on corporations by way of an excise tax and a constitutional amendment to allow the previously enacted income tax.
Upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.[19][20]
An income tax amendment to the Constitution was first proposed by Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. He submitted two proposals, Senate Resolutions Nos. 25 and 39. The amendment proposal finally accepted was Senate Joint Resolution No. 40, introduced by Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Senate majority leader and Finance Committee Chairman.[21]

President Taft was a REPUBLICAN.
Senator Brown was a REPUBLICAN.
Senator Adrich was a REPUBLICAN.

Turtle rants, rails, whines and cries about the Democrats when the Progressive Income tax was sponsored and led by Republicans. He screams and yelps loudly about Democrats and the 47% who pay no federal income tax but 90% of the votes to create that situation came from Republicans and was in fact proposed by a Republican President just like the 16th Amendment was.

Yeah - I know - its a real bitch when the historical record bites you firmly in the backside like this. But reality is reality is reality.

haymarket · Jul 4, 2011

TurtleDude said:
that seems to be true with so many dems.

they forget how the Wilson era government structured the income tax

how the LBJ war on poverty accentuated New Deal handouts

how the New Deal created all sorts of new powers for congress in degradation of the Tenth amendment

When I had a point to make - I went to the historical record and proved it with facts and figures.

I suggest if you want to have even an ounce of credibility for you positions, you do the same.

j-mac · Jul 4, 2011

Thunder said:
yeah, cause' unlike the Republicans, we didn't want to see the govt. shutdown.

unlike the GOP, who saw a govt. shutdown as a campaign strategy. selfish bastards.

Is it selfish to not want to see this country devolve into 190% of GDP spending?

Is it selfish to stand up and say enough is enough when it comes to this reckless administration and their dictates?

I don't think so.

j-mac

Thunder · Jul 4, 2011

haymarket said:
The Progressive Income Tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. And who do we have to thank for championing that bit of progressive taxation?

President Taft was a REPUBLICAN.
Senator Brown was a REPUBLICAN.
Senator Adrich was a REPUBLICAN.

Turtle rants, rails, whines and cries about the Democrats when the Progressive Income tax was sponsored and led by Republicans. He screams and yelps loudly about Democrats and the 47% who pay no federal income tax but 90% of the votes to create that situation came from Republicans and was in fact proposed by a Republican President just like the 16th Amendment was.

great post!!!!!

BDBoop · Jul 4, 2011

TurtleDude said:
that seems to be true with so many dems.

they forget how the Wilson era government structured the income tax

how the LBJ war on poverty accentuated New Deal handouts

how the New Deal created all sorts of new powers for congress in degradation of the Tenth amendment

I'm sorry, but if you expect Obama to carry the entire burden irrespective of Bush, then you can't point out who ****ed up much earlier in the game. Common logic must apply.

apdst · Jul 4, 2011

haymarket said:
No but the 47% malarkey did and I just proved it to you.

And Turtle has been schooled on this many many times and should be able to recite it from memory by this time he has seen it so much.

The Progressive Income Tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. And who do we have to thank for championing that bit of progressive taxation?

President Taft was a REPUBLICAN.
Senator Brown was a REPUBLICAN.
Senator Adrich was a REPUBLICAN.

Turtle rants, rails, whines and cries about the Democrats when the Progressive Income tax was sponsored and led by Republicans. He screams and yelps loudly about Democrats and the 47% who pay no federal income tax but 90% of the votes to create that situation came from Republicans and was in fact proposed by a Republican President just like the 16th Amendment was.

Yeah - I know - its a real bitch when the historical record bites you firmly in the backside like this. But reality is reality is reality.

Republicans were way more Left back then, too.

haymarket · Jul 4, 2011

Thunder said:
great post!!!!!

Aw shucks ...... thank you.

But it will do little good as some here scorn actual evidence and the historical record is routinely ignored in favor of the hysterical.

haymarket · Jul 4, 2011

apdst said:
Republicans were way more Left back then, too.

Compared to 2011, Atilla the Hun was more left.

Thunder · Jul 4, 2011

haymarket said:
Aw shucks ...... thank you.

But it will do little good as some here scorn actual evidence and the historical record is routinely ignored in favor of the hysterical.

"don't confuse me with the facts".

j-mac · Jul 4, 2011

haymarket said:
No but the 47% malarkey did and I just proved it to you.

And Turtle has been schooled on this many many times and should be able to recite it from memory by this time he has seen it so much.

The Progressive Income Tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. And who do we have to thank for championing that bit of progressive taxation?

President Taft was a REPUBLICAN.
Senator Brown was a REPUBLICAN.
Senator Adrich was a REPUBLICAN.

Turtle rants, rails, whines and cries about the Democrats when the Progressive Income tax was sponsored and led by Republicans. He screams and yelps loudly about Democrats and the 47% who pay no federal income tax but 90% of the votes to create that situation came from Republicans and was in fact proposed by a Republican President just like the 16th Amendment was.

Yeah - I know - its a real bitch when the historical record bites you firmly in the backside like this. But reality is reality is reality.

Not a bitch at all. In fact though you have just a little bit off on your actual history....Income tax probably more accurately goes back to Lincoln in the 1860's

But the real bastardization of this system was in history almost always by demo's and "progressives".... Woodrow Wilson is a good example of a real "pregressive" bastard when it came to the course of the corrupt system we have now...FDR another. When asked why Roosevelt would take 99.5% of the nations wealthy income, he responded with an arrogant "Why not"....

In fact, it can probably have a pretty strong case made that the Progressive tax system is closer to a Marx vision than anything else we banter about.

The philosophy underlying the system of progressive taxation is that the income and the wealth of the well-to-do classes can be freely tapped. What the advocates of these tax rates fail to realize is that the greater part of the incomes taxed away would not have been consumed but saved
and invested. In fact, this fiscal policy does not only prevent the further accumulation of new capital. It brings about capital decumulation.

-Ludwig von Mises

Minnesota Family Council: Why Marx liked progressive income tax and inheritance taxes. What's it say about taxation in the US and West.

Another very smart economists is this man...

The principle behind the progressive income tax—which asserts that the more you earn, the larger the percentage of tax you must pay—is not what the nation’s Founders wanted. An attempt by Congress to impose one late in the nineteenth century was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It took a constitutional amendment, ratified in 1913, for such a tax to be legal.

The income tax of 1913 started small, but grew quickly in size and scope. The top rate was first set at a mere 7 percent—and married couples were only taxed on income over $4,000 (equivalent to $80,000 in today’s dollars). During the tax debate, William Shelton, a Georgian, supported the income tax "because none of us here have $4,000 incomes, and somebody else will have to pay the tax." Or, as another wag later said, "Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that man behind the tree." The seeds of class warfare were sown in the strategy of different rates for different incomes.

snip

Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, using the excuses of depression and war, permanently enlarged the income tax. Under Herbert Hoover, the top rate was hiked from 24 to 63 percent. Under Franklin Roosevelt, the top rate was again raised — first to 79 percent and later to 90 percent. In 1941, in fact, Roosevelt proposed a 99.5 percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. "Why not?" he said when an advisor questioned this tactic.

After that proposal failed, Roosevelt issued an executive order to tax all income over $25,000 at the astonishing rate of 100 percent.

What's Wrong with the Progressive Income Tax? [Mackinac Center]

Why is it that you liberals believe that what a man earns is not his?

j-mac

j-mac · Jul 4, 2011

Thunder said:
"don't confuse me with the facts".

You can leave your snide, small minded, conceit at the door please. Address someone, not talk about them.

j-mac

Thunder · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
You can leave your snide, small minded, conceit at the door please. Address someone, not talk about them.

j-mac

wow....you really misinterpreted my comment and ran across state lines with it.

:lol:

Thunder · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
Why is it that you liberals believe that what a man earns is not his?

j-mac

women earn money too, j-mac.

or is your comment a Freudian slip?

haymarket · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
You can leave your snide, small minded, conceit at the door please. Address someone, not talk about them.

j-mac

I thought Thunder it the nail firmly on its head with that observation. And the right wing reaction to the historical data pretty much proves it was a dead on observation.

from jmac

Why is it that you liberals believe that what a man earns is not his?

Who said that?

Thunder · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
Why is it that you liberals believe that what a man earns is not his?

strawman argument.

what a man OR woman earns, in his.

however, society has the right to tax his earnings, in order to fund common needs and the common good.

Boo Radley · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
Why is it that you liberals believe that what a man earns is not his?

j-mac

It's bad enough to use a strawman, but to use a tired, old, unoriginal strawman? Well, that's sillly. :coffeepap

apdst · Jul 4, 2011

What's going to happen when these revenue raiser still don't raise enough revenue to cover the out of control spending?

apdst · Jul 4, 2011

Thunder said:
strawman argument.

what a man OR woman earns, in his.

however, society has the right to tax his earnings, in order to fund common needs and the common good.

Why not make people who pay no taxes, pay taxes? I mean, it's for the common good. Yes?

j-mac · Jul 4, 2011

Thunder said:
wow....you really misinterpreted my comment and ran across state lines with it.

:lol:

I don't think so. Snickering about someone, and making childish observations because you think its funny in an 8th grade sort of way is .... Well.... Childish.

j-mac

j-mac · Jul 4, 2011

Thunder said:
strawman argument.

what a man OR woman earns, in his.

however, society has the right to tax his earnings, in order to fund common needs and the common good.

I thought taxes were voluntary? You think the mob has the right to take what is not theirs huh? To what extent?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
I thought taxes were voluntary? You think the mob has the right to take what is not theirs huh? To what extent?

j-mac

Neither is true. Taxes are not voluntary, and we do not allow mobs to take what isn't theirs. We have representation, which is what we wanted from the British (not no taxes). There are rules and laws to follow, but it is not voluntary.

j-mac · Jul 4, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Neither is true. Taxes are not voluntary, and we do not allow mobs to take what isn't theirs. We have representation, which is what we wanted from the British (not no taxes). There are rules and laws to follow, but it is not voluntary.

Sorry dude, Harry Reid disagrees with you....

Jan Helfeld: …if the government is in the business of forcefully taking money from some people in order to provide welfare benefits to others, how will the people whose money is being taken feel about the government?

Harry Reid: Well, I don’t accept your phraseology. I don’t think we “force” people…

Helfeld: Taxation is not forceful?

Reid: Well, no.

Helfeld: It’s voluntary?

Reid: In fact, quite to the contrary. Our system of government is a voluntary tax system.

Helfeld: Oh… if you don’t want to pay your taxes, you don’t have to?

Reid: Of course you have to pay your taxes, but…

Helfeld: The government will force you to pay, or they’ll fine you or imprison you. Won’t they?

Reid: We have a voluntary system. The fact of the matter is, that if when you pay your taxes — you see, in many other countries, it’s not voluntary. For example, in many countries, the government makes sure that your employer takes out every penny. Many countries don’t file income tax returns. Why?

Are taxes voluntary? Harry Reid says yes! | The Prime Directive

Next!

j-mac

Boo Radley · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
Sorry dude, Harry Reid disagrees with you....

Next!

j-mac

J, not that it would matter one bit if he did disagree (kind of a stupid argument to start with), but you not trying to undersrtand but merely misrepresent an argument doesn't dismiss anything. We elect representatives to represent us, they do, and we pay what they decide. Try not paying your taxes and let me know what happens.

j-mac · Jul 4, 2011

Boo Radley said:
J, not that it would matter one bit if he did disagree (kind of a stupid argument to start with), but you not trying to undersrtand but merely misrepresent an argument doesn't dismiss anything. We elect representatives to represent us, they do, and we pay what they decide. Try not paying your taxes and let me know what happens.

So you agree that government takes your earned money by force, right?

j-mac

randel · Jul 4, 2011

j-mac said:
Is it selfish to not want to see this country devolve into 190% of GDP spending?

Is it selfish to stand up and say enough is enough when it comes to this reckless administration and their dictates?

I don't think so.

j-mac

'this reckless administration and their dictates?'...if you are referring to spending, you should apply this to more than just this administration....