• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guess What was One Of The Drivers For The 16th Amendment Back In The Day?

Luther

Luther

Another California Refugee
DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
20,649
Reaction score
2,465
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Fed Income tax

Anyone want to take a crack at it?
 
Soak the rich.

Although, the mega wealthy put their money in tax exempt shelters and didn't have to pay it so...I guess nothing has changed in over 100 years.
 
CriticalThought said:
Soak the rich.

Although, the mega wealthy put their money in tax exempt shelters and didn't have to pay it so...I guess nothing has changed in over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Although, the mega wealthy put their money in tax exempt shelters
Click to expand...

But... but... isn't it the top 1% who pay about 40% of the Fed income tax pie? Me thinks that's a big piece of pie
 
CriticalThought said:
Soak the rich.

Although, the mega wealthy put their money in tax exempt shelters and didn't have to pay it so...I guess nothing has changed in over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Soak the rich.
Click to expand...

Correct

The same arguments we hear today as well as having a Fed income tax for the middle class. You get a prize(LOL)
 
Luther said:
Fed Income tax

Anyone want to take a crack at it?
Click to expand...

To allow the federal government to target individuals, based on the level of their income from all sources, for unequal (aka previously unconstituional) treatment under the law - progressive taxation (of income), at the federal level, was born. Elizabeth Warren, it seems, wants to take that concept a step (giant leap?) further and allow the (unconstituional?) federal taxation of personal wealth (net worth?).
 
Luther said:
But... but... isn't it the top 1% who pay about 40% of the Fed income tax pie? Me thinks that's a big piece of pie
Click to expand...

I believe the top 1% now pays more total income taxes than the combined bottom 90% does. At this point in history, income and wealth inequality is so staggering, even a flat tax would be extremely regressive.
 
Luther said:
Fed Income tax

Anyone want to take a crack at it?
Click to expand...

Bottom line? Access to a steady stream of income.

Prior to the 16th Amendment, funds were raised via excise taxes, custom duties, land sales, and tariffs.

This wasn't much of a problem pre-agency years as the government wasn't all that big, and it didn't have to deal with expenses like social welfare, social insurance, subsidies, etc.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
To allow the federal government to target individuals, based on the level of their income from all sources, for unequal (aka previously unconstituional) treatment under the law - progressive taxation (of income), at the federal level, was born. Elizabeth Warren, it seems, wants to take that concept a step (giant leap?) further and allow the (unconstituional?) federal taxation of personal wealth (net worth?).
Click to expand...

Correct .....


But before that, the augments were the Rich don't pay their fair share and we needed a stronger Navy
 
CriticalThought said:
Soak the rich.

Although, the mega wealthy put their money in tax exempt shelters and didn't have to pay it so...I guess nothing has changed in over 100 years.
Click to expand...

the mega wealthy put their money in tax exempt shelters
Click to expand...

Just as you would try to do(wink)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
To allow the federal government to target individuals, based on the level of their income from all sources, for unequal (aka previously unconstituional) treatment under the law - progressive taxation (of income), at the federal level, was born. Elizabeth Warren, it seems, wants to take that concept a step (giant leap?) further and allow the (unconstituional?) federal taxation of personal wealth (net worth?).
Click to expand...

Populist sentiment is great until you aren't part of the majority and people realize their "protest" vote actually counted.

But I think we will eventually amend the Constitution to allow for a wealth tax. It became inevitable when we started treating investment capital differently than income. It unintentionally created two classes of society.
 
Luther said:
Just as you would try to do(wink)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I take advantage of every tax break I can. There are loop holes that have saved me tens of thousands of dollars. Of course, taking advantage of them is not the problem. The problem is they exist.
 
Luther said:
Correct .....


But before that, the augments were the Rich don't pay their fair share and we needed a stronger Navy
Click to expand...

That move (forever?) separated the relationship of the cost of federal government from being apportioned (more) equally among the several states. I would like to see a return to that constitutional concept whereby each state must annually pay $X per House member to the US treasury - thus letting we the sheeple see just how much those clowns are actually costing us.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Bottom line? A steady stream of income. Prior to the 16th Amendment, funds were raised via excise taxes, custom duties, land sales, and tariffs.

This wasn't much of a problem pre-agency years as the government wasn't all that big, and it didn't have to deal with expenses like social welfare, social insurance, subsidies, etc.
Click to expand...

Even after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified the federal income tax was capped at 2%. It took the Democratic Party, and FDR, to increase the federal income tax by more than 400% between 1933 and 1940. The massive increase in federal income taxes is one of the reasons why the Democratic Party extended the Great Depression for as long as they did.

The reason a federal income tax was not necessary before the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was because Congress was abiding by the US Constitution. Leaving all social spending to the States, who have exclusive constitutional authority in that regard. Congress stopped abiding by the US Constitution when the Democratic Party began their unconstitutional federal socialist spending spree, and it hasn't stopped in the last 86 years and now has us more than $21 trillion in debt.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Bottom line? Access to a steady stream of income.

Prior to the 16th Amendment, funds were raised via excise taxes, custom duties, land sales, and tariffs.

This wasn't much of a problem pre-agency years as the government wasn't all that big, and it didn't have to deal with expenses like social welfare, social insurance, subsidies, etc.
Click to expand...



Prior to the 16th Amendment, funds were raised via excise taxes, custom duties, land sales, and tariffs.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we had that for about 126 years or so? About 2 lifetimes in those days? Must have worked?
and it didn't have to deal with expenses like social welfare, social insurance, subsidies, etc.
Click to expand...

And because of that the Fed Gov is the Monstrosity in what it is today.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That move (forever?) separated the relationship of the cost of federal government from being apportioned (more) equally among the several states. I would like to see a return to that constitutional concept whereby each state must annually pay $X per House member to the US treasury - thus letting we the sheeple see just how much those clowns are actually costing us.
Click to expand...

Lol. Well that would handedly give the federal government to the leftists. California alone is the 5th largest economy in the world.
 
CriticalThought said:
Absolutely. I take advantage of every tax break I can. There are loop holes that have saved me tens of thousands of dollars. Of course, taking advantage of them is not the problem. The problem is they exist.
Click to expand...

Right.... For the wealthy to the middle class

Loopholes for everyone
 
Luther said:
Fed Income tax

Anyone want to take a crack at it?
Click to expand...

Wasn't this amendment passed in the same general time as the Federal Reserve was born?

Was it an effort to bypass the constitutional provision regarding the taxing scheme for the federal government?

And it was somehow in response to the Pollack case in 1894? And of course the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR case?
 
CriticalThought said:
Lol. Well that would handedly give the federal government to the leftists. California alone is the 5th largest economy in the world.
Click to expand...

Actually, California hasn't been the fifth largest economy in the world since Ronald Reagan was Governor during the 1970s. Currently California's economy ranks 14th in the world, just after Brazil. That is what happens when Democrats take control, they always ruin what was functioning just fine.
 
CriticalThought said:
Populist sentiment is great until you aren't part of the majority and people realize their "protest" vote actually counted.

But I think we will eventually amend the Constitution to allow for a wealth tax. It became inevitable when we started treating investment capital differently than income. It unintentionally created two classes of society.
Click to expand...


But I think we will eventually amend the Constitution to allow for a wealth tax.
Click to expand...

Yes , with this vain and apathetic American citizenry very believable
 
CriticalThought said:
Populist sentiment is great until you aren't part of the majority and people realize their "protest" vote actually counted.

But I think we will eventually amend the Constitution to allow for a wealth tax. It became inevitable when we started treating investment capital differently than income. It unintentionally created two classes of society.
Click to expand...

Investment (long term capital gains) income is different in that a variable (large?) portion of it is simply pure monetary inflation. For example, if one buys land (or share of stock), holds it for 10 years and later sells it then they have gained nothing but the ability to buy (repurchase?) exactly that same land (or share of stock). IMHO, only the portion of that gain (its change in monetary value) which exceeds the CPI inflation rate should be subject to federal income taxation - but that income should be taxed at the same rate as any other income source (interest, short term capital gains or wages).
 
Thoreau72 said:
Wasn't this amendment passed in the same general time as the Federal Reserve was born?

Was it an effort to bypass the constitutional provision regarding the taxing scheme for the federal government?

And it was somehow in response to the Pollack case in 1894? And of course the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR case?
Click to expand...

Wasn't this amendment passed in the same general time as the Federal Reserve was born?
Click to expand...

Yes it was

Coincidence ?
 
Glitch said:
Actually, California hasn't been the fifth largest economy in the world since Ronald Reagan was Governor during the 1970s. Currently California's economy ranks 14th in the world, just after Brazil. That is what happens when Democrats take control, they always ruin what was functioning just fine.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

California economy ranks 5th in the world, beating the UK - Business Insider

California now the world’s 5th largest economy, beating out the UK

How California regained title of world’s 5th largest economy
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Investment (long term capital gains) income is different in that a variable (large?) portion of it is simply pure monetary inflation. For example, if one buys land (or share of stock), holds it for 10 years and later sells it then they have gained nothing but the ability to buy (repurchase?) exactly that same land (or share of stock). IMHO, only the portion of that gain (its change in monetary value) which exceeds the CPI inflation rate should be subject to federal income taxation - but that income should be taxed at the same rate as any other income source (interest, short term capital gains or wages).
Click to expand...

You seem to know your stuff when it comes to economics.
 
Luther said:
But... but... isn't it the top 1% who pay about 40% of the Fed income tax pie? Me thinks that's a big piece of pie
Click to expand...

They hold 50% of the world’s wealth, so seems proportionate to me.

“Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth. The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth, according a Credit Suisse report. The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion, Credit Suisse said.Nov 14, 2017”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom