| |
BGonline.org Forums
the question is
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: the question is (Bill Riles)
Date: Saturday, 4 October 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
Bill writes: My thought recognizes the fact that when a majority of the voting citizenry pays no taxes (and we're currently at about 47%) and, thus, in my opinion, has no vested interest in the country
1. Bill, your "fact" that "47%" of the "voting citizenry pays no taxes" is incorrect. Provide a cite if you can, please.
2. I wonder, Bill, if you're aware that the history of tax policies exempting large numbers of citizens from liability dates to the first years of your nation's existence. In the 1790's Congress passed, the President signed, and the Supreme Court upheld taxes on luxury items. Only the rich paid these taxes since only the rich bought the items taxed. In the era before the Civil War, several states instituted income taxes, all of which had progressive rates and huge (for the time) personal exemptions. The federal government first enacted an income tax, with a large personal exemption, during the Civil War. And again in the 1890s. And again (and ever since) in 1913, after the ratification of the 16th amendment, which had earlier been submitted to the states by a Republican-controlled Congress and the Republican President Taft. Would it surprise you to know that in 1913 "less than 1 percent of the population paid federal income tax"?
3. I don't agree with your equation of "being a taxpayer" with "having a vested interest in the country." But it seems to me that if you feel that is is a problem, then two possible solutions should present themselves to you: (1) disenfranchise those who, according to you, have no "vested interest in the country." Or (2) support policies that effectively result in more people having a "vested interest."
"less than 1%" -- http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.