Income tax and freedom!

medicineman

New Member
Vi, you might find this interesting, after watching this I can see why you are so against the Income tax. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...dom+to+fascism I agree with the arguements presented here, I just feel there needs to be a citizen funded pool of money to take care of the less fortunate. I'm not in favor of bankers running the country and of the citizens having to pay the bankers interest on the borrowing of the federal government. That is highly oportunistic on the few Bankers whom profit from this arangement. I don't know how to stop or revamp this system but agree that it is out of control. If this makes you feel vindicated, then so be it. I guess I didn't fully understand the scope of the Income tax. Like I said, something needs to replace it for the welfare of the society, but the Bankers need to be shut out of the equation! This is scary stuff!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

The process of becoming a liberty devotee can be swift, like the Hand of God, or it can be slow, like learning to ride a bicycle. It doesn't matter how one gets there, as long as the light bulb goes on. As I've said from the very beginning, there is no place in a free society for a tax on income. A tax on income is a tax on labor ... and when a government taxes a person's labor, the government owns that portion of labor that is taxed. I'm happy you see the situation more clearly now. Oh, and its not a matter of vindication at all ... its a matter of having another devotee in the fold ... and THAT'S exciting.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Oh, and its not a matter of vindication at all ... its a matter of having another devotee in the fold ... and THAT'S exciting.

I'm not sure we're on the same page about a few things, but being free, especially from thieving bankers, that got my attention. I think it was the first time I really understood the American economy. I had my views on it, but that video put some light on it, pretty scary, our government, I'm more afraid now than under any Admin. ever. And the replacements are not any better. I've always been an advocate for individual freedoms, as long as those freedoms do not impose on others. Sometimes they do, and when that happens it creates a dillema! It seems like in the past our government was just kind of guessing about us,but now they're getting serious, No chip for me!
 

ViRedd

New Member
"It seems like in the past our government was just kind of guessing about us,but now they're getting serious..."

There was no "guessing" about it at all on the part of the totalitarians, Med. It started with them back in the days of President Jackson. If you remember from history, he abolished the first central bank. Wilson's administration established the Federal Reserve. Its not a coinsedence that the 16th Amendment (the income tax) and the Federal Reserve were created in the same year ... `1913. FDR completed the job when he outlawed the ownership of gold by U.S. Citizens and created the withholding tax. That took the control of money out of the private hands of the citizens and placed it into the hands of the bankers. Also, as a result, the power brokers in government gained the ability to create the Welfare State, which gave them even greater power over us. The so called War on Drugs has allowed even more of our economic freedom to be eroded with provisions like money laundering laws. What's next? I'd say a cashless society with everything being either an electronic debit or credit. Mark of the Beast time, Med ... no credits? No pin number? Too bad ... you don't eat.

Vi
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
med, IMO, The vast majority of US taxpayers know very little about The Federal Reserve and its machinations. The income tax..... If you look at what is happening with additional encroachment of freedoms....

The entrenched two party system is like a rotten wisdom tooth, screaming for extraction........or, are we just gonna get more sick and dysfunctional?
 

medicineman

New Member
med, IMO, The vast majority of US taxpayers know very little about The Federal Reserve and its machinations. The income tax..... If you look at what is happening with additional encroachment of freedoms....

The entrenched two party system is like a rotten wisdom tooth, screaming for extraction........or, are we just gonna get more sick and dysfunctional?
I've been registered Independent most of my life, I only vote the lessor of the two evils as I see them, I've voted both ways and it made not much difference. The Vote is like a joke played on the American people. There are two people running for the same office that are almost of the same mindset. Sometimes you might as well toss a coin. I know not how to change the system. I will participate in local rallys when possible!
 

ViRedd

New Member
All I'm doing is pointing out that there are better ways of preserving liberty than attending rallies. Jury duty is one of the greatest ways. That's why its a constitutional right. We should have a conversation on the importance of jury duty and how we can overthrow unconstitutional law by being a smart juror sometime.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
All I'm doing is pointing out that there are better ways of preserving liberty than attending rallies. Jury duty is one of the greatest ways. That's why its a constitutional right. We should have a conversation on the importance of jury duty and how we can overthrow unconstitutional law by being a smart juror sometime.

Vi
I've been called 3 times in my life, 2 times, the employer would not pay the difference on the 25.00 a day pay for duty and my normal 200.00 a day so I got a hardship waiver, The time I went, I sat there for 8 hours and then was told they didn't need me. I would love to get on a constitutional case, or a pot case, in fact for the interest, just about any case that didn't last more than a couple of months. I'd sure hate to get hung out on a case like OJs and be sequestered for a year, what a life changing event that would be! Usually you get some dumb criminal case like 7-11 robbers and such, hey Guilty sounds about right!
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Hi Vi, The jury facet is fascinating.
However, in my limited experience (called twice for jury duty, dismissed twice).And in conversing with those more involved in the legal profession than myself, it seems that the selection process is skewed towards the less well informed, if not downright ignorant citizens.
I think the attorneys, as well as the system, prefer more "empty vessels"

ps
med, your new found politeness is quite nice! Thanks!
 

medicineman

New Member
Hi Vi, The jury facet is fascinating.
However, in my limited experience (called twice for jury duty, dismissed twice).And in conversing with those more involved in the legal profession than myself, it seems that the selection process is skewed towards the less well informed, if not downright ignorant citizens.
I think the attorneys, as well as the system, prefer more "empty vessels"

ps
med, your new found politeness is quite nice! Thanks!
+I'll only say this about that, a "jury of your peers"!
 

ViRedd

New Member
I've never actually sat on a jury. Like you guys, I've been called quite a few times, but never selected for a jury. Hell, I never get out of the huge jury pool to even have a chance of being selected. I've never turned down the chance to serve either. In fact, like you Med ... I can hardly wait to get on a jury that has to rule on a NON-violent drug case. If that event ever occurs, the defendant will walk free, I'll guarantee that.

Vi

Vi
 

bleorg

Active Member
I've never actually sat on a jury. Like you guys, I've been called quite a few times, but never selected for a jury. Hell, I never get out of the huge jury pool to even have a chance of being selected. I've never turned down the chance to serve either. In fact, like you Med ... I can hardly wait to get on a jury that has to rule on a NON-violent drug case. If that event ever occurs, the defendant will walk free, I'll guarantee that.

Vi

Vi
I agree that everyone should serve on a jury if called upon to do so.

Unfortunately, you'd have to lie and say you agreed with pot being illegal to serve on the jury for a pot-related case. I was called for jury duty once about 10 years ago, and served on a 4 day child abuse(baby shaking) case. I hope the guy is still away, I hope they managed to nail his wife too. There was a lot of stuff that I heard after the trial was over that wasn't allowed in trial(untreated broken bones from previous injuries among other things).
 

ViRedd

New Member
Wow bleorg ... that must have been an experience! On you lying example ... I'd do it if asked.

Atty: "Sir, do you think marijuana should be legal or illegal?"

Me: "Umm ... quite frankly, I've never held a view on that subject either way."

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Well one thing in Med's favor, Taxes were at their highest percentage wise in the 1950s, in that time there was the highest amount of Ownership and productivity during that period of time in the US.
 

ViRedd

New Member
"in that time there was the highest amount of Ownership and productivity during that period of time in the US."

Really? Do you have any data to back that up? Not dissing you, Dank ... just doubting that that could be true. Today, 68% of Americans are enjoying home ownership. I'd like to see some data comparing the GNP of the 50s, to that of today ... adjusted for inflation, of course.

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Throughout the 1950s tax policy was increasingly seen as a tool for raising revenue and for changing the incentives in the economy, but also as a tool for stabilizing macroeconomic activity. The economy remained subject to frequent boom and bust cycles and many policymakers readily accepted the new economic policy of raising or lowering taxes and spending to adjust aggregate demand and thereby smooth the business cycle. Even so, however, the maximum tax rate in 1954 remained at 87 percent of taxable income. While the income tax underwent some manner of revision or amendment almost every year since the major reorganization of 1954, certain years marked especially significant changes. For example, the Tax Reform Act of 1969 reduced income tax rates for individuals and private foundations.

Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing through the 1970s the United States experienced persistent and rising inflation rates, ultimately reaching 13.3 percent in 1979. Inflation has a deleterious effect on many aspects of an economy, but it also can play havoc with an income tax system unless appropriate precautions are taken. Specifically, unless the tax system's parameters, i.e. its brackets and its fixed exemptions, deductions, and credits, are indexed for inflation, a rising price level will steadily shift taxpayers into ever higher tax brackets by reducing the value of those exemptions and deductions.

During this time, the income tax was not indexed for inflation and so, driven by a rising inflation, and despite repeated legislated tax cuts, the tax burden rose from 19.4 percent of GDP to 20.8 percent of GDP. Combined with high marginal tax rates, rising inflation, and a heavy regulatory burden, this high tax burden caused the economy to under-perform badly, all of which laid the groundwork for the Reagan tax cut, also known as the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

(And yes the time of the Reagan Tax Cuts Were Salad Days I will admit)

The Reagan Tax Cut

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which enjoyed strong bi-partisan support in the Congress, represented a fundamental shift in the course of federal income tax policy. Championed in principle for many years by then-Congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY) and then-Senator Bill Roth (R- DE), it featured a 25 percent reduction in individual tax brackets, phased in over 3 years, and indexed for inflation thereafter. This brought the top tax bracket down to 50 percent.

The 1981 Act also featured a dramatic departure in the treatment of business outlays for plant and equipment, i.e. capital cost recovery, or tax depreciation. Heretofore, capital cost recovery had attempted roughly to follow a concept known as economic depreciation, which refers to the decline in the market value of a producing asset over a specified period of time. The 1981 Act explicitly displaced the notion of economic depreciation, instituting instead the Accelerated Cost Recovery System which greatly reduced the disincentive facing business investment and ultimately prepared the way for the subsequent boom in capital formation. In addition to accelerated cost recovery, the 1981 Act also instituted a 10 percent Investment Tax Credit to spur additional capital formation.

Prior to, and in many circles even after the 1981 tax cut, the prevailing view was that tax policy is most effective in modulating aggregate demand whenever demand and supply become mismatched, i.e. whenever the economy went in to recession or became "over-heated". The 1981 tax cut represented a new way of looking at tax policy, though it was in fact a return to a more traditional, or neoclassical, economic perspective. The essential idea was that taxes have their first and primary effect on the economic incentives facing individuals and businesses. Thus, the tax rate on the last dollar earned, i.e. the marginal dollar, is much more important to economic activity than the tax rate facing the first dollar earned or than the average tax rate. By reducing marginal tax rates it was believed the natural forces of economic growth would be less restrained. The most productive individuals would then shift more of their energies to productive activities rather than leisure and businesses would take advantage of many more now profitable opportunities. It was also thought that reducing marginal tax rates would significantly expand the tax base as individuals shifted more of their income and activities into taxable forms and out of tax-exempt forms.

The 1981 tax cut actually represented two departures from previous tax policy philosophies, one explicit and intended and the second by implication. The first change was the new focus on marginal tax rates and incentives as the key factors in how the tax system affects economic activity. The second policy departure was the de facto shift away from income taxation and toward taxing consumption. Accelerated cost recovery was one manifestation of this shift on the business side, but the individual side also saw a significant shift in the enactment of various provisions to reduce the multiple taxation of individual saving. The Individual Retirement Account, for example, was enacted in 1981.

Simultaneously with the enactment of the tax cuts in 1981 the Federal Reserve Board, with the full support of the Reagan Administration, altered monetary policy so as to bring inflation under control. The Federal Reserve's actions brought inflation down faster and further than was anticipated at the time, and one consequence was that the economy fell into a deep recession in 1982. Another consequence of the collapse in inflation was that federal spending levels, which had been predicated on a higher level of expected inflation, were suddenly much higher in inflation-adjusted terms. The combination of the tax cuts, the recession, and the one-time increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending produced historically high budget deficits which, in turn, led to a tax increase in 1984 that pared back some of the tax cuts enacted in 1981, especially on the business side.

As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. Though the painful medicine of disinflation slowed and initially hid the process, the beneficial effects of marginal rate cuts and reductions in the disincentives to invest took hold as promised.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
The Evolution of Social Security and Medicare

The Social Security system remained essentially unchanged from its enactment until 1956. However, beginning in 1956 Social Security began an almost steady evolution as more and more benefits were added, beginning with the addition of Disability Insurance benefits. In 1958, benefits were extended to dependents of disabled workers. In 1967, disability benefits were extended to widows and widowers. The 1972 amendments provided for automatic cost-of-living benefits.

In 1965, Congress enacted the Medicare program, providing for the medical needs of persons aged 65 or older, regardless of income. The 1965 Social Security Amendments also created the Medicaid programs, which provides medical assistance for persons with low incomes and resources.

Of course, the expansions of Social Security and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid required additional tax revenues, and thus the basic payroll tax was repeatedly increased over the years. Between 1949 and 1962 the payroll tax rate climbed steadily from its initial rate of 2 percent to 6 percent. The expansions in 1965 led to further rate increases, with the combined payroll tax rate climbing to 12.3 percent in 1980. Thus, in 31 years the maximum Social Security tax burden rose from a mere $60 in 1949 to $3,175 in 1980.

Despite the increased payroll tax burden, the benefit expansions Congress enacted in previous years led the Social Security program to an acute funding crises in the early 1980s. Eventually, Congress legislated some minor programmatic changes in Social Security benefits, along with an increase in the payroll tax rate to 15.3 percent by 1990. Between 1980 and 1990, the maximum Social Security payroll tax burden more than doubled to $7,849.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986

Following the enactment of the 1981, 1982, and 1984 tax changes there was a growing sense that the income tax was in need of a more fundamental overhaul. The economic boom following the 1982 recession convinced many political leaders of both parties that lower marginal tax rates were essential to a strong economy, while the constant changing of the law instilled in policy makers an appreciation for the complexity of the tax system. Further, the debates during this period led to a general understanding of the distortions imposed on the economy, and the lost jobs and wages, arising from the many peculiarities in the definition of the tax base. A new and broadly held philosophy of tax policy developed that the income tax would be greatly improved by repealing these various special provisions and lowering tax rates further. Thus, in his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan called for a sweeping reform of the income tax so it would have a broader base and lower rates and would be fairer, simpler, and more consistent with economic efficiency.

The culmination of this effort was the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which brought the top statutory tax rate down from 50 percent to 28 percent while the corporate tax rate was reduced from 50 percent to 35 percent. The number of tax brackets was reduced and the personal exemption and standard deduction amounts were increased and indexed for inflation, thereby relieving millions of taxpayers of any Federal income tax burden. However, the Act also created new personal and corporate Alternative Minimum Taxes, which proved to be overly complicated, unnecessary, and economically harmful.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act was roughly revenue neutral, that is, it was not intended to raise or lower taxes, but it shifted some of the tax burden from individuals to businesses. Much of the increase in the tax on business was the result of an increase in the tax on business capital formation. It achieved some simplifications for individuals through the elimination of such things as income averaging, the deduction for consumer interest, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes. But in many respects the Act greatly added to the complexity of business taxation, especially in the area of international taxation. Some of the over-reaching provisions of the Act also led to a downturn in the real estate markets which played a significant role in the subsequent collapse of the Savings and Loan industry.

Seen in a broader picture, the 1986 tax act represented the penultimate installment of an extraordinary process of tax rate reductions. Over the 22 year period from 1964 to 1986 the top individual tax rate was reduced from 91 to 28 percent. However, because upper-income taxpayers increasingly chose to receive their income in taxable form, and because of the broadening of the tax base, the progressivity of the tax system actually rose during this period.

The 1986 tax act also represented a temporary reversal in the evolution of the tax system. Though called an income tax, the Federal tax system had for many years actually been a hybrid income and consumption tax, with the balance shifting toward or away from a consumption tax with many of the major tax acts. The 1986 tax act shifted the balance once again toward the income tax. Of greatest importance in this regard was the return to references to economic depreciation in the formulation of the capital cost recovery system and the significant new restrictions on the use of Individual Retirement Accounts.

Between 1986 and 1990 the Federal tax burden rose as a share of GDP from 17.5 to 18 percent. Despite this increase in the overall tax burden, persistent budget deficits due to even higher levels of government spending created near constant pressure to increase taxes. Thus, in 1990 the Congress enacted a significant tax increase featuring an increase in the top tax rate to 31 percent. Shortly after his election, President Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly, the trend toward lower marginal tax rates had been reversed, but, as it turns out, only temporarily.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 made additional changes to the tax code providing a modest tax cut. The centerpiece of the 1997 Act was a significant new tax benefit to certain families with children through the Per Child Tax credit. The truly significant feature of this tax relief, however, was that the credit was refundable for many lower-income families. That is, in many cases the family paid a "negative" income tax, or received a credit in excess of their pre-credit tax liability. Though the tax system had provided for individual tax credits before, such as the Earned Income Tax credit, the Per Child Tax credit began a new trend in federal tax policy. Previously tax relief was generally given in the form of lower tax rates or increased deductions or exemptions. The 1997 Act really launched the modern proliferation of individual tax credits and especially refundable credits that are in essence spending programs operating through the tax system.

The years immediately following the 1993 tax increase also saw another trend continue, which was to once again shift the balance of the hybrid income tax-consumption tax toward the consumption tax. The movement in this case was entirely on the individual side in the form of a proliferation of tax vehicles to promote purpose-specific saving. For example, Medical Savings Accounts were enacted to facilitate saving for medical expenses. An Education IRA and the Section 529 Qualified Tuition Program was enacted to help taxpayers pay for future education expenses. In addition, a new form of saving vehicle was enacted, called the Roth IRA, which differed from other retirement savings vehicles like the traditional IRA and employer-based 401(k) plans in that contributions were made in after-tax dollars and distributions were tax free.

Despite the higher tax rates, other economic fundamentals such as low inflation and low interest rates, an improved international picture with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the advent of a qualitatively and quantitatively new information technologies led to a strong economic performance throughout the 1990s. This, in turn, led to an extraordinary increase in the aggregate tax burden, with Federal taxes as a share of GDP reaching a postwar high of 20.8 percent in 2000.
 
Top