Reply With Quote
Your own argument is shat on by glariing realities. The federal income tax amendment wasn't even put in place 'til 1914. And even then, it wasn't even ratified.
This is really the dumbest political talking point of all time and needs to be retired. Unless you're content to be viewed as a re .
Your own argument is shat on by glariing realities. The federal income tax amendment wasn't even put in place 'til 1914. And even then, it wasn't even ratified.
True, CC, but, he said it at the wrong time. Her people had already alerted Media about the trap she'd set up on Biden. He never stood a chance.
When is the next pander to illegals event?
you would know better than anyone, since you're the one who actively looks for such stories on google/twitter
he's 100% got a facebook group started by the russians
Incorrect. The first federal income tax was ins uted by Lincoln and Congress in 1861, under the name Revenue Act, to fund the Civil War (and repealed by Congress in 1871).
But, regardless, different forms of federal taxation existed before then, like tariffs, as already mentioned (The Revenue act also added additional tariffs, BTW). Pretending they didn't exist doesn't make them go away and they hurt the wallet just the same.
Now, if your claim is that the nation was averse to, specifically, a federal income tax, I would tend to agree with that. However, that's quite different from the claim of being a 'largely federal tax averse nation'.
As a matter of fact, there was simply no way to sustain the federal government system created by the US Cons ution without some degree of federal funding. That's why the Cons ution delegated on Congress the ability to:
...shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
The notion that States would sign off on that language and not expect the federal government to do just exactly what they signed off on is on it's face ridiculous.
As I said earlier, this is the problem of picking and choosing what part of history we want to acknowledge. And I understand that people get emotional when they get their dogma challenged. However, that's not my problem.
You're into the minutia of this way more than I am, tbh. Yea, there were tariffs on imports; but those were taxes on outsiders and not a direct tax on citizenry. Fact is the populous was very much against federal overreach in the form of taxation. Washington as much as anyone was keenly aware of that reality. As it is, there were debts to be paid though, and people were not complaining about outsiders paying it.
Still going with that narrative. Prevailing at udes were against a strong federal govt. and direct federal taxation. Were it not for the lingering aftermath of the war and some shifty maneuvering, the Cons ution as we know it would not have been put in place because this was just the general mindset. That's not dogma whatsoever. I've read various histories from the time, and that's a consistent theme.
Tariffs are a tax on the citizenship. This is economics 101. Merchants don't absorb the tariffs, they pass it on to importers, which in turn pass it on to consumers, and are the ones actually paying for them. That's why tariffs are essentially a form of regressive taxation (ie: like a sales tax is).
Which is also why tariffs have been largely shunned in modern open markets, as it affects the poor the most.
If anything, a possible viable argument was that the lack of understanding in macroeconomics worked relatively well to keep people conned.
In the context of the era, I'm fairly certain people were more concerned to make sure the war was won, and the federal govt had enough monies to sustain an army, should they need it again. That's the general theme in the Cons ution (where national defense has somewhat of a privileged position).
I would agree that once the British were dealt with and the country actually had to work within the Union, sentiments against the federal government started to build up, coming to a head with the Civil War. But even then, the country was split basically in two. That's not a majority either.
But they weren't. Soldiers in the continental army habitually weren't paid and requests for money were routinely ignored. 'The Quartet' by Joseph Ellis (link) is a book that candidly do ents that reality. It's been a while, but I actually am fairly certain David McCullough's 1776 (link) addresses that, too.
That's why I spoke in such terminology as direct taxation (consumer/income) vs. indirect taxation (tariffs/etc.).
Frankly, there was no consensus that they were fighting for a federal govt. in the first place. People identified with their state more than the idea of union at that time. Our initial formation as a (loose) confederation reflects that.
Thanks for the links!
That's what I mean by "the federal govt had enough monies to sustain an army". Once the dust settled, the general lack of funding was fairly evident, thus the inclination to make absolutely clear in the US Cons ution that the federal government had the means to impose and collect tariffs, taxes, etc in order to fund it. One could even argue that the 2nd amendment was a derivative of that situation, to ensure people would be armed and ready in case an organized militia couldn't be properly funded (clearly, there was no fears of dem lefties taking away guns at the time).
While it's clearly way more sexy to talk about the birth of the nation in terms of fighting for freedom and independence (and that happened), the utilitarian aspect for generals and politicians was to actually put strength in numbers and have a militia that could defend the Union in multiple fronts (don't forget Pensacola against Spaniards too), and obviously that required funding. On the other hand, once the enemy was defeated, and peace came about, there was this new reality of law and order, and over time, it clearly that didn't sit well with some folks. Over time, that disconnect clearly became more prevalent.
Generally speaking, people don't want to pay taxes. Even when States imposed taxes, people didn't like it. I would argue that even applies to every other country and person in the world. But that doesn't mean that there's no utility on the strength in numbers. In a generally lawless society (much like in many dictatorships), unless you're well connected, the amount of money you would lose is way, way bigger than any taxation imposed in the US.
Point being, that's the kind of insight that should be revered about the forefathers. Even if they were utilitarian, and understood that taxing wasn't popular, they understood it was much more beneficial in the long game.
I'm ok with an argument based loosely on "obviously, the country was founded with taxation in plain sight, people were just too dumb to realize they were taxed"... and, obviously, I don't say that to mock the people at the time.
Contextually, it's probably largely true that they had many more things to worry about than pick up a copy of "The Wealth of Nations" and read through it.
I don't have to, if you prefer I didn't.
These people hate America. That's why they are fine with open borders.
just look at those two "dudes"... they're as beta as they come. that's all you need to know about the hate america crowd; full of straight up pussies!
did you say beta?
Trump is an amazing shape then.
That this thing is polling at any % is a massive problem in this country.
ok, cool? what are you getting at? poking fun at the GOP doesn't phase me one bit because idc either way. have your fun!did you say beta?
It’s just dumb housewives who are on anti-depressants and read her “spirituality” books to cope with the fact they’re husband is ing his secretary.
At some point that support won’t be enough to keep her going
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions