Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JohnnyYuma]

...so on top of all this other nonsense you're favoring what, a flat or even regressive tax plan?

Who did you get this stuff from, I mean, really, who told you this, can you get a refund?

I am a libertarian and I believe that some taxes might be necessary, but never other than a flat one and definitely not income-based. A property tax would be adequate if we didn't have to fund all that military. America worked quite well before income taxes.

When did we start income taxes? Just wondering from a historical starting point.

Civil War. They were supposed to finance the war and nothing else but ended up enriching the war industrialists. There were quite a few scandals involving corruption back then.

[A Thing]

...so on top of all this other nonsense you're favoring what, a flat or even regressive tax plan?

Who did you get this stuff from, I mean, really, who told you this, can you get a refund?

I am a libertarian and I believe that some taxes might be necessary, but never other than a flat one and definitely not income-based. A property tax would be adequate if we didn't have to fund all that military. America worked quite well before income taxes.

When did we start income taxes? Just wondering from a historical starting point.

1913 apparently. 16th amendment.

[JohnnyYuma]

...so on top of all this other nonsense you're favoring what, a flat or even regressive tax plan?

Who did you get this stuff from, I mean, really, who told you this, can you get a refund?

I am a libertarian and I believe that some taxes might be necessary, but never other than a flat one and definitely not income-based. A property tax would be adequate if we didn't have to fund all that military. America worked quite well before income taxes.

When did we start income taxes? Just wondering from a historical starting point.

1913 apparently. 16th amendment.

Forgetting about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861

And the following ones.

EDIT:
This one introduced progressive taxation:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862

[smjjames]

...so on top of all this other nonsense you're favoring what, a flat or even regressive tax plan?

Who did you get this stuff from, I mean, really, who told you this, can you get a refund?

I am a libertarian and I believe that some taxes might be necessary, but never other than a flat one and definitely not income-based. A property tax would be adequate if we didn't have to fund all that military. America worked quite well before income taxes.

When did we start income taxes? Just wondering from a historical starting point.

1913 apparently. 16th amendment.

So, apparently the income tax then, was an attempt to move the wealth down from the wealthiest Americans.

Also, I thought this thread was on Trump stuff, not general economics. If you want to do the economics discussion on the AmeriPol thread, that's fine, it goes through economics discussions from time to time.

[JohnnyYuma]

The point about Trump and taxation is that nothing really changes in that matter as he accepts the most outrageous forms of taxation such as income tax or VAT. He will not get rid of them and even approves of a progressive form of taxing individuals/corporations.

[Max™]

The economy prior to that point was buoyed by westward expansion, railroads, and the fucking gold rush.

Again, you're getting the wrong lessons from the past, but fun fact, that first income tax was a flat tax!

[smjjames]

He'll just sign whatever Congress sends him, even if it's one that guts his base. Didn't Congress balk on the VAT thing? Or maybe it was the Border Adjusted Tax thing.

[smjjames]

The economy prior to that point was buoyed by westward expansion, railroads, and the fucking gold rush.

TWO gold rushes, California in the 1860's and the Klondike/Yukon near the end of the 19th century, and a bunch of smaller ones and other mineral rushes. California's gold rush actually fast tracked it to statehood.

[JohnnyYuma]

The economy prior to that point was buoyed by westward expansion, railroads, and the fucking gold rush.

Again, you're getting the wrong lessons from the past, but fun fact, that first income tax was a flat tax!

You cannot expand westward without already having decent manufacturing capabilities. US economy was doing really well compared to most European ones prior to the expansion.

Also, it was only able to do it so quickly because there was little taxation which allowed the capital to be accumulated very quickly and invested. Also, the American culture really promoted private initiatives and entrepreneurs were not afraid that their investment would be nationalized. Austrians nationalized everything after a brief period of quasi-free economy when companies still held a royal warrant but were privately owned. The result was a very poor improvement after the free market boom. Read about history of rail in different countries and you will know why private American rail did so well.

Also, when it comes to rail, read some Bastiat and see how statism cannot possibly work.

[smjjames]

The economy prior to that point was buoyed by westward expansion, railroads, and the fucking gold rush.

Again, you're getting the wrong lessons from the past, but fun fact, that first income tax was a flat tax!

You cannot expand westward without already having decent manufacturing capabilities. US economy was doing really well compared to most European ones prior to the expansion.

Which period are you talking about? post-Revolutionary War? We started expaning literally almost immediately after the Revolutionary War was over. Louisiana Purchase was 1803. Not to mention that Europe had all those wars during the 19th century.

[JohnnyYuma]

The economy prior to that point was buoyed by westward expansion, railroads, and the fucking gold rush.

Again, you're getting the wrong lessons from the past, but fun fact, that first income tax was a flat tax!

It doesn't really matter whether it was flat or not, how the money was spent matters. In this case, despite a lot of corruption, it funded something necessary, the military, so the tax was not so wrong from a moral viewpoint, taxes that redistribute wealth constitute legal plunder and are not different from theft.

[JohnnyYuma]

The economy prior to that point was buoyed by westward expansion, railroads, and the fucking gold rush.

Again, you're getting the wrong lessons from the past, but fun fact, that first income tax was a flat tax!

You cannot expand westward without already having decent manufacturing capabilities. US economy was doing really well compared to most European ones prior to the expansion.

Which period are you talking about? post-Revolutionary War? We started expaning literally almost immediately after the Revolutionary War was over. Louisiana Purchase was 1803. Not to mention that Europe had all those wars during the 19th century.

The expansion lasted throughout the 19th century but it already had stable Economy in the Northern States to support it. Note that northern cities were highly industrialized too and provided a lot resources needed for Eastern Coast factories to operate and expand such as metals and coal. There was a reason why they decided to expanded westward and a stable basis to make it possible. But we digress too much I think.

[smjjames]

The economy prior to that point was buoyed by westward expansion, railroads, and the fucking gold rush.

Again, you're getting the wrong lessons from the past, but fun fact, that first income tax was a flat tax!

It doesn't really matter whether it was flat or not, how the money was spent matters. In this case, despite a lot of corruption, it funded something necessary, the military, so the tax was not so wrong from a moral viewpoint, taxes that redistribute wealth constitute legal plunder and are not different from theft.

Do you mean taxes which were intended to redistribute wealth constitutes legal plunder or do you mean any tax that just happens to redistribute wealth, regardless of intent, is legal plunder?

[JohnnyYuma]

The economy prior to that point was buoyed by westward expansion, railroads, and the fucking gold rush.

Again, you're getting the wrong lessons from the past, but fun fact, that first income tax was a flat tax!

It doesn't really matter whether it was flat or not, how the money was spent matters. In this case, despite a lot of corruption, it funded something necessary, the military, so the tax was not so wrong from a moral viewpoint, taxes that redistribute wealth constitute legal plunder and are not different from theft.

Do you mean taxes which were intended to redistribute wealth constitutes legal plunder or do you mean any tax that just happens to redistribute wealth, regardless of intent, is legal plunder?

Whenever the state takes something from one person and gives it to another, apart from the need to fund the police, army, judiciary, basic administration etc. it constitutes a legal theft in my opinion.

[TheDarkStar]

Taxes aren't legal theft because the law says they're OK.

Of course, that's just being pedantic. I assume you mean that taxes take money from people that was fairly earned and aren't needed and hence are immoral (theft)?

I agree with you to an extent on this. It's possible to overtax people and there are definitely unneeded offices in the government. In general, the government should provide the things you listed (basically safety and stability) and if it doesn't then people start taking action against that government. However, I think that the government also has a responsibility to increase the efficiency (aka economic strength/standard of living/etc) of the nation. Basically, there are things like highways and long-distance electrical lines that would be impractical for individual people to create and manage but if you have everyone contribute a bit of money you can run an agency that only focuses on those things. Or there are things like pollution where pure capitalistic forces run counter to the good of the people in a nation so the government works to balance the need to have a good economy with the environmental damage and negative health effects of pollution.

How do you think the ideal government should be structured?