It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I suspect that the problem is two fold but first I have to ask, what was the population at the time that we had this 2 billion dollar debt? Was it 300 million or was it just a fraction of that number. I was under the impression that the first income taxes were actually imposed in order to help fund the Civil War. Furthermore, how much did it cost to put on a war back then and how much does it cost today.
Prior to that, I would just imagine, that at least on a personal level, many used slave labor to keep themselves out of debt. Imagine that!
Anyway, my answer would be that we got in this position by continually engaging our military in foreign wars for various unscrupulous reasons while simultaneously lowering the highest marginal tax rate to near non-existance. On top of that, the epidemic of instituting tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations has virtually made them immune to taxation. Some, like Exxon Mobile pay no taxes at all while at the same time they are somehow privy to government subsidies. Go figure.
Now, maybe you can explain just how further reducing and/or cutting off the government's source of revenue will fix this problem. This one I gotta hear.
"King Cotton" ruined the land through "land butchery" (excessive cultivation). This caused population to travel West and Northwest. Small farmers sold their land to large planters, and the South became monopolistic. Many slave owners went bankrupt because they invested more in land and slaves than they could handle. Slaves were worth around $1200 each in total investment, and they might purposely injure themselves or run away. The South repelled foreign immigration, which accounted for a large part of the North's power (4.4% pop. south was foreign, 18.7% pop. north was foreign).
Furthermore, I never said that tax loopholes were here before income tax.
Tax loopholes, (which came after the institution of the income tax) for those of you too ignorant to figure that out on your own, have completely corrupted the system to the point that it cannot function as designed. In other words, the income tax system was supposed to bring in revenue sufficient to operate our government but because many evade taxation via tax loopholes, it's doomed to fail before it ever gets started. On top of that, money spent on lobbyist to get these loopholes enacted is also, in many cases, tax deductible.
Aside from an attempt to float an income tax to pay for the Spanish-American war, the income tax largely disappeared as a major issue. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party, turning its back on its Jeffersonian heritage, endorsed a constitutional income tax amendment in their party platforms of 1896 and 1908.
In 1908 Theodore Roosevelt endorsed both an income tax and an inheritance tax, becoming the first President of the United States to openly propose that the political power of government be used to redistribute wealth. Meanwhile, factions within the Congress cobbled together a compromise amendment and in 1909, President Taft, known to be favorable to an income tax, if not necessarily an amendment, stated that although ratification may be difficult, he had "become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of vesting the National Government with power to levy an income tax."
I for one can't wait to see you hold back our creditors as you "starve the beast." I'm quite sure that they would be more than willing to wait until your through starving it, to collect their money. I also look forward to the day when I get to carry ten pounds of coins around to pay for anything.
Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You act like the governent never had funding f any kind until the income tax. You act like they worked for free. But they did have funding from the states and the states from the people. Today the state and federal government has reversed with the federal government taking in the money and giving it back to the states. But you hopfully can see why they lost trust in the states to do the right thing.
You act like the governent never had funding f any kind until the income tax.
This is an absurd argument and the issue of slavery has nothing at all to do with income taxation.
If you check out this link here, you can see for yourself that there were more people living in "free states" than "slave states", and of those that did live in "slave states" not all of them were slave holders, so it your imagination is overactive, to put it mildly.