There was some woman on Hardball

raving about how the graduated income tax was "not what America was founded on." I thought it was an odd turn of phrase. I mean, there wasn't any income tax at all until the thirties, right? It's not like the Founding Fathers wrote some kind of tax policy into the constitution. I suppose she means that it goes against the idea that people should be free to pursue happiness, wherever that takes them, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. But I would argue that great personal wealth implies great personal power, which makes it impossible to be "equal before the law." Further, equality of opportunity cannot exist in a society with a very unequal distribution of wealth. One need look no farther than our current president. Can any rational person assert that Dubya would have gotten anywhere near the levers of power if he hadn't been born a Bush? Aristocracy and democracy are opposed principles, and yet these people who pretend to be so into our founding values oppose the estate tax! I just don't get their thinking.

First name Heidi. I forget her last name.

some 70s or 80s child star, although I can't quite put my finger on who. A little Tatum O'Neil, but that's not entirely it.

in a rehab clinic. Or prison.

is why we have income tax and inheritance tax in the first place. We never taxed laborers and never intended to. These people are just fools.

When investors join together and form a society (a corporation) for the purpose of bettering themselves economically, that's called capitalism.

When workers join together and form a society (a union) for the purpose of bettering themselves economically, that's called communism.

When the government helps insolvent corporations stay afloat, it's called a stimulus package.

When the government helps insolvent individuals stay afloat, it's called welfare.

If I follow the flat tax logic to the end, it seems like they are arguing that the person making $250k a year should pay the same amount of taxes as somebody making $25k a year. So the person making $250k a year pays $15,000 and the person making $25,000 a year pays $15,000. This is absurd, but it seems like that's what they'd be arguing for next if the flat percentage tax ever passed.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

McHoover isn't even running on a flat tax. I don't believe I've ever heard him mention such a thing.

Following the (il)logic then McHoover's tax plan is just as "socialist" as Obama's with lower top rates (by three fucking percent).

I can't even understand what argument they are trying to make, they are not in support of a flat rate that (stupidly, in my opinion) has everyone paying the same percentage but are against a progressive tax but then again don't really have a problem with a progressive rate.

They also seem to be arguing that a higher tax rate on top earners is "socialist"/"Communist"/"Marxist" but see Reagan as the paragon of capitalist conservatism but we had a much higher top rate under him than Obama proposes.

Seriously, is there anything approaching even a coherent argument from these folks on this tax issue that they are beating into oblivion?

A few months back Keilor on Prairie Home Companion made a joke about a Church of Christ radio preacher pointing out how an obscure phrase in Deuteronomy shows that the windfall profits tax is an abomination before God.

Lincoln introduced the first income tax (1% and flat).

OK, I just have to jump in here! Republicans and other right-wing zealots are pushing this "redistribution of wealth/socialist" angle and trying to sell it to uninformed people based on the age-old "class warfare" scare tactic. The proper counter-argument (IMHO) is this:

The wealthy have benefited from the government more than the rest of the population. They therefore should pay an amount equal to the benefit they received from the system. It's not unfair at all, you get what you pay for (or you pay for what you get).

You'll sometimes get the counter-argument that their wealth is not a benefit of the government system, they earned it themselves. This is a fallacy; without the military keeping the country safe, the roads and bridges, the justice system and law enforcement protecting your wealth and enforcing contracts, then business cannot be conducted and no wealth can be accumulated. The government provides services essential to civil society, and without that there is no wealth.

I really think that dodging taxation is treason.

4 years ago. He spoke of framing taxes as an investment in the future of the country. He said our parents & grandparents invested in the US & we got interstate highways, schools, universities, fire departments....etc. Shrinking the investment causes all the infrastructure to be neglected and ultimately decay.

I believe if taxation was framed as an investment in the US it would go a long way to get over this publican hurdle that all taxes are bad.

We all pay into this system. All of us. But if the little guy is to get anything back after putting in, it's decried as socialism. Meanwhile, the rich get bailouts and the well-connected are free to loot the Treasury almost at will. The wealthy are used to controlling this country's wealth. Socialism is anything that interferes with that. They don't send their people out to whine when they're in charge.

And our government is basically just a huge fight over who gets to control the Treasury.