By: Interested in Illinois (.delete@this..com), February 11, 2003 11:35 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Alejandro Belluscio (baldusi@hotmail.com) on 2/11/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 2/10/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Interested in Illinois (@.com) on 2/10/03 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>
>>>If my HIStory is correct, the federal gov. tried to get income tax from citizens
>>>way before the Great War, and only when the Supreme Court rejected income tax as
>>>unconstitutional did the federal government pass an amendment to the constitution.
>>>And this was in 1913, again before the War To End All Wars.
>>
>>I guess I was thinking of the War Revenue Act(s), rather than the Sixteenth Amendment.
>>After looking about, it turns out that an income tax was imposed during the Civil
>>War (1867 to 1872), and then repealed. Subsequent attempts to reimpose one were
>>rebuffed by the Supreme Court, as you indicated, until ratification in 1913 of the 16th Amendment.
>>
>>Immediately after the 16th Amendment passed, Congress imposed an income tax - but
>>it affected less than 1% of the population. It was the War Revenue Act that brought
>>the graduated income tax that we have come to know and love. In other words, it
>>was a tax imposed to pay for the war, and was simply built upon and never repealed...
>>so I think the original comment still stands. :-)
>Well, I think that the 'problem' you see is on the level of taxation and not on
>the 'method' of taxing. I'd love to explain the economics, but I'll refrain for
>it being OT and quite boring for the general people. But let's just say that very
>efficient (since it get's most of the incentive of the economy intact) and it's
>correctly applicable to the federal government (else you could get your legal address
>to wherever has the lower tax while actually working somewhere else). It's a lot
>better than salary tax, customs tax, public utilities tax, revenue tax and some
>other much worse kludges that I have the pleasure of pay in my not voted goverment
>that we Argentinians happen to enjoy nowadays. And we didn't had a 'no taxation
>without representation' campaign in our history so generaly the people is not aware of this little right we should have.
>Regarding the level of taxation, I'll alse refrain myself because Americans don't
>usually like my views about their government and what I belevie to be it's true interest.
Isn't salary tax equivalent to income tax? And revenue tax similar to sales tax? I assume customs tax is tariffs right?
What do you mean by saying that income tax is very efficient / 'incentive of economy intact'?
The slogan 'No taxation w/o representation' was not actually true in the new Republic since a very small amount of the populace could have their views represented. It was a conflict over competing visions of the 'new continent.
Please do share your views about the level of taxation here and the federal government.
Sincerely,
---------------------------
>Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 2/10/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Interested in Illinois (@.com) on 2/10/03 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>
>>>If my HIStory is correct, the federal gov. tried to get income tax from citizens
>>>way before the Great War, and only when the Supreme Court rejected income tax as
>>>unconstitutional did the federal government pass an amendment to the constitution.
>>>And this was in 1913, again before the War To End All Wars.
>>
>>I guess I was thinking of the War Revenue Act(s), rather than the Sixteenth Amendment.
>>After looking about, it turns out that an income tax was imposed during the Civil
>>War (1867 to 1872), and then repealed. Subsequent attempts to reimpose one were
>>rebuffed by the Supreme Court, as you indicated, until ratification in 1913 of the 16th Amendment.
>>
>>Immediately after the 16th Amendment passed, Congress imposed an income tax - but
>>it affected less than 1% of the population. It was the War Revenue Act that brought
>>the graduated income tax that we have come to know and love. In other words, it
>>was a tax imposed to pay for the war, and was simply built upon and never repealed...
>>so I think the original comment still stands. :-)
>Well, I think that the 'problem' you see is on the level of taxation and not on
>the 'method' of taxing. I'd love to explain the economics, but I'll refrain for
>it being OT and quite boring for the general people. But let's just say that very
>efficient (since it get's most of the incentive of the economy intact) and it's
>correctly applicable to the federal government (else you could get your legal address
>to wherever has the lower tax while actually working somewhere else). It's a lot
>better than salary tax, customs tax, public utilities tax, revenue tax and some
>other much worse kludges that I have the pleasure of pay in my not voted goverment
>that we Argentinians happen to enjoy nowadays. And we didn't had a 'no taxation
>without representation' campaign in our history so generaly the people is not aware of this little right we should have.
>Regarding the level of taxation, I'll alse refrain myself because Americans don't
>usually like my views about their government and what I belevie to be it's true interest.
Isn't salary tax equivalent to income tax? And revenue tax similar to sales tax? I assume customs tax is tariffs right?
What do you mean by saying that income tax is very efficient / 'incentive of economy intact'?
The slogan 'No taxation w/o representation' was not actually true in the new Republic since a very small amount of the populace could have their views represented. It was a conflict over competing visions of the 'new continent.
Please do share your views about the level of taxation here and the federal government.
Sincerely,
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New Article Available | David Kanter | 2003/02/02 02:44 AM |
Excellent Article, Paul (NT) | Arcadian | 2003/02/02 04:57 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/02 07:53 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/03 12:38 AM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 12:53 AM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Anonymous | 2003/02/03 07:03 AM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 09:13 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Peter Gerassimoff | 2003/02/03 01:38 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Bill Todd | 2003/02/03 03:18 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 10:08 AM |
Opteron SPEC Performance | Arcadian | 2003/02/03 12:15 PM |
Opteron SPEC Performance | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 12:18 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/03 01:15 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/05 09:23 AM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 02:50 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | tecate | 2003/02/05 05:09 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 06:36 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | Dean Kent | 2003/02/05 07:03 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | tecate | 2003/02/05 09:27 PM |
well it is all about your viewpoint | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/06 12:44 AM |
well it is all about your viewpoint | doriangrey | 2003/02/07 12:39 AM |
Please be a girl. :p | NIKOLAS | 2003/02/06 06:28 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 08:43 AM |
larger cache for POWER4+? | Anil Maliyekkel | 2003/02/03 05:08 AM |
larger cache for POWER4+? | Thu Nguyen | 2003/02/03 06:35 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 07:41 AM |
well written indeed | tecate | 2003/02/03 09:05 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 09:12 AM |
well written indeed | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 09:15 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 12:04 PM |
well written indeed | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 12:58 PM |
about Jim Keller | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 01:50 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 02:22 PM |
Nope but will now (NT) | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 02:50 PM |
patent info... | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 02:52 PM |
about the article... | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 04:49 PM |
Er, I just have to point something out. | Anonymous | 2003/02/04 10:19 PM |
Next time check the date. | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/05 01:10 AM |
Yes, I know it was written in 2000. | Anonymous | 2003/02/05 12:42 PM |
Yes, I know it was written in 2000. | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/05 01:20 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/09 01:09 PM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/09 01:40 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/09 02:00 PM |
about Jim Keller | David Wang | 2003/02/09 02:18 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/09 03:47 PM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/10 11:11 AM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/10 12:06 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/11 06:53 PM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/11 09:52 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/12 11:06 AM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 04:19 PM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/11 11:35 PM |
about Jim Keller | David Kanter | 2003/02/12 12:24 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/12 10:54 AM |
Taxation systems | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 07:23 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Bellusco | 2003/02/13 10:53 AM |
Taxation systems | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 03:47 PM |
Taxation systems | Aleajdnro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/13 05:56 PM |
Taxation systems | Jouni Osmala | 2003/02/14 08:03 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/14 06:13 PM |
Taxation systems | David Kanter | 2003/02/15 12:18 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/15 08:36 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 02:40 PM |
E8870 Chipset | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/04 03:19 PM |
E8870 Chipset | Arcadian | 2003/02/05 01:54 AM |
E8870 Chipset | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/05 09:13 AM |
E8870 Chipset | Arcadian | 2003/02/05 12:49 PM |
Minor question | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/04 03:24 PM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 09:18 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 09:36 AM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 10:33 AM |
hear hear... | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 12:16 PM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 03:02 PM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 04:48 PM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/04 01:56 PM |
well written indeed | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 10:19 AM |
BTW Paul, it was VERY well written... BUT... =) | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 10:25 AM |
Ditto (NT) | William L. | 2003/02/10 08:28 PM |
New Article Available | JS | 2003/02/05 02:09 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Richard Stacpoole | 2003/02/06 05:46 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/06 10:47 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | doriangrey | 2003/02/07 12:41 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | William L. | 2003/02/10 08:34 PM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/10 10:34 PM |
Watch this | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/10 10:42 PM |
excellent article, just a nit or two | mulp | 2003/02/16 12:11 AM |