Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Who Needs Federal Income Taxes? (Private Banks) (english)
by Jonathan Rowe
Email: jpchance (nospam) egroups.com
Address: 72 Peterborough Street, Boston MA 02215 USA
25 Oct 2002
Federal income taxes, instituted at the same time as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, are not necessary for efficient government functions. Federal income taxes are an enormous waste that do little more than rob almost everyone for the enrichment of private transnational corporations such as the Federal Reserve Bank and the European Central Bank.
Back to Basics - The Income Tax's Progressive Roots
by Jonathan Rowe
One argument against a tax shift is that the change would violate the
spirit of the progressive income tax. It sounds plausible, but in
reality the opposite is true. If Congress kept the income tax for
higher incomes and shifted part of the rest to polluting natural
resources, the result would be the kind of system that early
advocates of the income tax intended.
The income tax grew out of decades of turmoil as the U.S. evolved
from an agrarian economy to an urban one in the years before World
War I. Robber barons still rode high. The gap between rich and poor
was the widest in American history. And as the country prepared for
the first time to enter a European war, a major new funding source
was needed. President Woodrow Wilson proposed an income tax, but on
whom would it fall?
Business interests and Republicans wanted a broad-based tax that fell
heavily on the masses. This would "bring home to them the
responsibilities of government," and thus ensure less government, as
one editorial writer put it. The Wilson administration basically
shared this view. Populist Democrats, by contrast, thought ordinary
Americans were already paying their fair share--and more--through
excise taxes and tariffs. They saw the European war as a boondoggle
for arms makers and big financial interests, who should pay for their
"Jingoes should pay for jingoism," said Warren Worth Bailey,
congressman from Allentown, Pennsylvania and a former newspaper
editor. If the wealthy had to pay for war, legislators like Bailey
thought, there likely would be less of it.
A number of populist leaders were followers of homegrown economist
Henry George, who argued passionately that the robber barons were
exacting gain from resources nature had created for the common good.
They were reaping what they did not sow, and this "unearned
increment" is what government should tax.
The income tax that Congress enacted was pretty much in this populist
mold. Along with an estate tax and a levy on munition makers, it
aimed squarely at the highest incomes, and at corporate profits
derived from land and natural resources. The new system continued
more or less until World War II, when Congress dipped directly into
the paychecks of working people for the first time.
It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who imposed "precisely the kind of
revenue system that business groups had sought from the Wilson
administration in 1916," says Professor Elliot Brownlee of the
University of California at Santa Barbara. In broad outline, FDR's
system lives on today. Even if Congress were to restore high rates at
the top, as progressives urge, the income tax burden on the working
and middle classes would still be large. Given that history, shifting
part of that burden from work to polluting industries can be seen as
a kind of restoration, a return to something resembling what the
populist framers of the income tax intended.
http://egroups.com/group/jpchance - United States President.
http://egroups.com/group/Time-Energy-Accounting - TEA.
http://bfi.org/grunch_of_giants.htm - R. Buckminster Fuller.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.tk - CENSORED.
http://public-action.com - True or Not? Decide For Yourself.
http://www.awea.org - Prosperity, Not War & Pollution.
http://treasurynet.org - Time + Energy = Wealth.