Woodrow Wilson signed the Income Tax into law one hundred years ago today. As direct taxation of Americans was prohibited by the Constitution, a constitutional amendment was necessary before what would become the Revenue Act of 1913 could be legally imposed. The income tax, and the enabling amendment, were sold to the voters as necessary for a tax on rich people that would mean lower taxes and cheaper goods (due to lowered tariffs) for everyone else. Only one percent of the population were subject to the tax then, and the tax rate was one percent. The voters need not worry, they were told, because regular people would never ever pay the income tax.
Tell you what, let's cut the DoD's budget to the same as it was in real dollars in 1949 and we can eliminate the income tax entirely on everyone in the bottom 95% of the income distribution. It would be deficit neutral.
Yes, our military has increased its annual budget since 1949 by about the same amount as the income tax on the bottom 95% of income has been generating each year for the past few years. Eisenhower was right.
Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 06:44:21 PM
Tell you what, let's cut the DoD's budget to the same as it was in real dollars in 1949 and we can eliminate the income tax entirely on everyone in the bottom 95% of the income distribution. It would be deficit neutral.
Yes, our military has increased its annual budget since 1949 by about the same amount as the income tax on the bottom 95% of income has been generating each year for the past few years. Eisenhower was right.
And the fact you don't speak Russian or Arabic is likely owed to quite a bit of that investment in the military. It's also been a major driver of the private sector economy as well as helping to provide many high-paying engineering jobs. I guess we could have done without all that and everyone could have worked in shoelace factories for $1 a day.
Some of it, I'm sure. That's not even the point, though. The point is that the application of income tax to everyone is largely attributable to us never getting out of the war mindset after WWII, not due to some vast socialist state.
Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 06:44:21 PM
Tell you what, let's cut the DoD's budget to the same as it was in real dollars in 1949 and we can eliminate the income tax entirely on everyone in the bottom 95% of the income distribution. It would be deficit neutral.
Yes, our military has increased its annual budget since 1949 by about the same amount as the income tax on the bottom 95% of income has been generating each year for the past few years. Eisenhower was right.
While we're cutting let's go ahead and cut Medicare, Medic aid and Social Security to those levels as well.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 02:33:54 PM
Woodrow Wilson signed the Income Tax into law one hundred years ago today. As direct taxation of Americans was prohibited by the Constitution, a constitutional amendment was necessary before what would become the Revenue Act of 1913 could be legally imposed. The income tax, and the enabling amendment, were sold to the voters as necessary for a tax on rich people that would mean lower taxes and cheaper goods (due to lowered tariffs) for everyone else. Only one percent of the population were subject to the tax then, and the tax rate was one percent. The voters need not worry, they were told, because regular people would never ever pay the income tax.
The regular people today making the same thing in non-adjusted dollars still don't pay federal income tax. (I am aware that the Payroll (Social Security/Medicare) tax is on the same income but it is a different subject.)
Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 07:54:17 PM
Some of it, I'm sure. That's not even the point, though. The point is that the application of income tax to everyone is largely attributable to us never getting out of the war mindset after WWII, not due to some vast socialist state.
I believe you underestimate the cost of social programs.
Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 07:54:17 PM
Some of it, I'm sure. That's not even the point, though. The point is that the application of income tax to everyone is largely attributable to us never getting out of the war mindset after WWII, not due to some vast socialist state.
Ironic you say that since the legacy of socialist programs just barely pre-dates WWII.
We have had a "war mindset" even before the Revolutionary War if you study the various conflicts prior to 1776. Since then War of 1812, war on Indians, Mexican American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Viet Nam (if not Viet Nam, it could have just as easily been Cuba), etc. ad nauseum. It's been a part of our fabric, like it or not. Granted, ever since WWII it's not been near as much about protecting our own sovereignty, with the arguable exception of retribution for the attacks of 9/11/01.
Let's face it, the government spends a smile-load of money, entirely too much. Take money from defense and government will find somewhere else to spend it. Right now we are sitting around watching politicians argue over who of their protected donors are still going to get their largesse from the treasury. That is what the whole "shut-down" is all about. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thinking cutting defense spending significantly will really impact the debt and deficit is like the alcoholic who finally has that moment of clarity and realizes how much money he's pissed down a urinal the last 20 years. He quits drinking and takes up gambling because it's less harmful.
Quote from: TeeDub on October 03, 2013, 08:07:19 PM
While we're cutting let's go ahead and cut Medicare, Medic aid and Social Security to those levels as well.
One of those is not like the other. What do Medicare and Social Security have to do with income tax? By the way, the federal government spent less than half of what it spent on the security state on Medicaid in 2011, if you really do want to compare things that are funded from income tax. Between the wars and the normal security spending, we spent $933 billion dollars last year. That includes the $139 billion the VA spent, but not interest attributable to past borrowing for defense and homeland security. By contrast, the entirety of the federal nondefense discretionary spending last year was at most $600 billion. (a couple hundred billion of security spending is buried in the budget in places like the Department of Energy, so exact numbers are difficult)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 06:54:48 PM
And the fact you don't speak Russian or Arabic is likely owed to quite a bit of that investment in the military. It's also been a major driver of the private sector economy as well as helping to provide many high-paying engineering jobs. I guess we could have done without all that and everyone could have worked in shoelace factories for $1 a day.
Oh, puuuullllleeeaaaazzzzeeee....now you are trying to make the Populist argument?
We didn't get to the point of speaking Russian or Arabic (western society) for hundreds of years WITHOUT what Eisenhower was warning us about.
No matter the justification for spending, or where the money flows the amount will always increase, and the need for more funding will always increase. It's the natural order of things. It's just fun to look back at how the government has justified taxation and spending in the past, and see what that has become over time.
We gain an understanding when we apply the stated "intensions" of past legislation with the stated "intensions" of current legislation. It is then easy to forecast the results with a high degree of certainty, because the language and mechanics never change. Waste is inherent in government, like incandescent lighting, it produces far more heat than light. Growth and preservation of the machine is far more important than process improvement or economy, because government enjoys little competitive pressure. This is also the same reason that quality decreases as funding increases, but that's a different conversation.
Last week the feds (BLM) spent $98,670 on a single hole outhouse on a trail in the middle of the wilderness. Of course we can spend all day citing examples of government waste, as people have done for decades, but the point is, no one in government has any interest in reducing it, and never will except in a campaign soundbite.
(http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/images/A1-1011-OR-ShedRoof1-204x153.jpg?1380635091)
In the end the only process capable of producing economy and innovation in government is starvation. Its amazing how states and federal government entities all of a sudden discover economy, and even produce innovative ways of doing things (typically common sense to private sector business) when starving.
About 9 months ago we heard President Obama bleating about how Sequester would result in a deep depression, and veterans would lose benefits, and the economy would lose more jobs, and we wouldn't' be able to support our military, and first responders would lose their jobs, and the earth would fall into the sun. Fast forward to today and we find that government was forced to innovate and find economy. Unemployment decreased. . .and just Monday the president proudly touted HIS revolutionary reduction in the deficit, but oddly failed to give any credit to the sequester cuts?
The point is that currently we have a new government program of regulation and taxation that puts over 7% of our economy under federal regulation. Some of us love the idea, some hate it. The important thing is that we have an understanding of the language and the mechanisms through the filter of history so that we can realistically forecast the product.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 11:15:12 AM
Last week the feds (BLM) spent $98,670 on a single hole outhouse on a trail in the middle of the wilderness.
Did that $98K include the planning, permits, ecological impact study......?
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 04, 2013, 12:24:47 PM
Did that $98K include the planning, permits, ecological impact study......?
Apparently the toilet itself cost about $9,000 direct from the manufacturer, and the gov reports spending $98k on the toilet and structure, so I would expect the actual expenditure includes imbedded costs and is well over $100-$120k. ;)
I don't think that the $98 thousand to build a bathroom in the backwoods in Alaska is out of whack.
Here is a map of the area...
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files.Par.12713.File.dat/05TLAD_trails_brochure.pdf
These materials had to be shipped a long distance and assembly meant a contractor had to get crews off the highway to work as well. They had to level ground, pour a pad and build a bathroom that could withstand the harsh weather conditions.
These trails are supposed to be unbelievable scenery and some of them allow four-wheelers. The tourism is picking up and they needed a bathroom in the park.
But I am sure you heard about this outhouse on hate talk radio yesterday and just felt it important enough to express your new outrage for us.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 04, 2013, 12:45:52 PM
I don't think that the $98 thousand to build a bathroom in the backwoods in Alaska is out of whack.
Here is a map of the area...
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files.Par.12713.File.dat/05TLAD_trails_brochure.pdf
These materials had to be shipped a long distance and assembly meant a contractor had to get crews off the highway to work as well. They had to level ground, pour a pad and build a bathroom that could withstand the harsh weather conditions.
These trails are supposed to be unbelievable scenery and some of them allow four-wheelers. The tourism is picking up and they needed a bathroom in the park.
But I am sure you heard about this outhouse on hate talk radio yesterday and just felt it important enough to express your new outrage for us.
It is 1/4 of a mile off the highway next to the trailhead. That area is closed for half the year. I am willing to bet the funds could have been spent on a portable outhouse that could be towed away in the winter. Perhaps take the same $9,000 toilet and install it in a nice wooden building with skids that could be loaded up and hauled to another site in the off-season. Gosh, it only took me about two minutes to think up that innovative solution that would likely save about $80K.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/10088193756_0893b0ccd5_n.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 12:39:15 PM
Apparently the toilet itself cost about $9,000 direct from the manufacturer, and the gov reports spending $98k on the toilet and structure, so I would expect the actual expenditure includes imbedded costs and is well over $100-$120k. ;)
A couple of reports mention that the toilets START at $9K but there's no indication of the price of this one. Additionally, it has to be shipped from the lower 48 and the construction company that won the bid is 3 hours away from the site.
But a real eye-opener is the BLM impact statement that has to cover all the bases, environmental, geologic, wildlife, aesthetic, and even treaty obligations as well as relevant state laws. Someone has to do the reviews and that's undoubtedly another big expense. Here's the link to the study, good reading if you have insomnia:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files/2012_BLM-GFO_NEPA_Documents.Par.67560.File.dat/0019_SWEDE_LAKE_EA_DECISION_508_Web_Ready.pdf (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files/2012_BLM-GFO_NEPA_Documents.Par.67560.File.dat/0019_SWEDE_LAKE_EA_DECISION_508_Web_Ready.pdf)
But there's something here that I don't understand. I take it that the original idea was that income tax wouldn't have an impact on the poor, and that was a good idea. However, we've had a long thread recently on how the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes. Now, if your ideal is to return to pre-WW1 taxation levels, the tax situation for the poorest Americans doesn't change. (We'll ignore that income taxes were implemented largely as a substitute for liquor taxes as Prohibition loomed on the horizon.) So it seems that our conservative friends should applaud the fact that the poorest among us are still adhering to pre-WW1 taxation.
I'm mystified by the scrutiny of something as miniscule in the federal budget as this outhouse. And I know it's only provided as an example we're supposed to use as the basis for a much larger generalization - accepted wisdom among our conservative friends - that all government spending is wasteful. Yet when asked to cut those programs they believed were a waste of taxpayer's money, the Republicans couldn't agree on how to do so. It's easy to use a broad brush and pontificate about government waste. It's much harder to do the nuts and bolts details.
If you want to question government waste, ask why we spend as much on the military as the next 5 largest countries combined. Like any other bureaucracy, the military has to justify it's existence in order to keep receiving funds. Ask why we have draconian drug laws that incarcerate non-violent offenders rather than put them through treatment. We need more prisons and jail more of our citizens than any other so-called enlightened nation.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 01:23:09 PM
It is 1/4 of a mile off the highway next to the trailhead. That area is closed for half the year. I am willing to bet the funds could have been spent on a portable outhouse that could be towed away in the winter. Perhaps take the same $9,000 toilet and install it in a nice wooden building with skids that could be loaded up and hauled to another site in the off-season. Gosh, it only took me about two minutes to think up that innovative solution that would likely save about $80K.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/10088193756_0893b0ccd5_n.jpg)
I'll call that bet and raise you that is was probably done that way for several decades, and over time (probably a very short time) it was found that rental/maintenance ending up costing much more than the cost and maintenance of this thing.
Quote from: Ed W on October 04, 2013, 01:27:53 PM
But there's something here that I don't understand. I take it that the original idea was that income tax wouldn't have an impact on the poor, and that was a good idea. However, we've had a long thread recently on how the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes. Now, if your ideal is to return to pre-WW1 taxation levels, the tax situation for the poorest Americans doesn't change. (We'll ignore that income taxes were implemented largely as a substitute for liquor taxes as Prohibition loomed on the horizon.) So it seems that our conservative friends should applaud the fact that the poorest among us are still adhering to pre-WW1 taxation.
I'm mystified by the scrutiny of something as miniscule in the federal budget as this outhouse. And I know it's only provided as an example we're supposed to use as the basis for a much larger generalization - accepted wisdom among our conservative friends - that all government spending is wasteful. Yet when asked to cut those programs they believed were a waste of taxpayer's money, the Republicans couldn't agree on how to do so. It's easy to use a broad brush and pontificate about government waste. It's much harder to do the nuts and bolts details.
Bet they don't though...the basic philosophy promoted is that even though the poorest people have taken a 30% or so real cut in pay since 1968, they should be hit some more by eliminating 100 years of tax policy.
As for the scrutiny - well, you know that once again goes back to perspective. They would rather whine about $500 million to a failed solar company than look with any kind of serious intent at an extremely successful company that got $90 billion (with a b) in no-bid contracts just because their CEO happened to be Vice President of the nation. Or whining about tens of billions being given to those poor people in food stamps, when almost a Trillion was given to their Big Pharma buddies. Or dozens of other examples of that hypocrisy that are rife through the Fox News World. Their indignation is false as well as disingenuous.
Oh, and don't ya just love the "cost of waste at all levels" argument?? Yeah, we should be worried about dozens of pennies when thousands of dollars are slipping through are fingers like sand through an hourglass. (Which soap opera did that come from??)
Quote from: Ed W on October 04, 2013, 01:27:53 PM
A couple of reports mention that the toilets START at $9K but there's no indication of the price of this one. Additionally, it has to be shipped from the lower 48 and the construction company that won the bid is 3 hours away from the site.
But a real eye-opener is the BLM impact statement that has to cover all the bases, environmental, geologic, wildlife, aesthetic, and even treaty obligations as well as relevant state laws. Someone has to do the reviews and that's undoubtedly another big expense. Here's the link to the study, good reading if you have insomnia:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files/2012_BLM-GFO_NEPA_Documents.Par.67560.File.dat/0019_SWEDE_LAKE_EA_DECISION_508_Web_Ready.pdf (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files/2012_BLM-GFO_NEPA_Documents.Par.67560.File.dat/0019_SWEDE_LAKE_EA_DECISION_508_Web_Ready.pdf)
But there's something here that I don't understand. I take it that the original idea was that income tax wouldn't have an impact on the poor, and that was a good idea. However, we've had a long thread recently on how the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes. Now, if your ideal is to return to pre-WW1 taxation levels, the tax situation for the poorest Americans doesn't change. (We'll ignore that income taxes were implemented largely as a substitute for liquor taxes as Prohibition loomed on the horizon.) So it seems that our conservative friends should applaud the fact that the poorest among us are still adhering to pre-WW1 taxation.
I'm mystified by the scrutiny of something as miniscule in the federal budget as this outhouse. And I know it's only provided as an example we're supposed to use as the basis for a much larger generalization - accepted wisdom among our conservative friends - that all government spending is wasteful. Yet when asked to cut those programs they believed were a waste of taxpayer's money, the Republicans couldn't agree on how to do so. It's easy to use a broad brush and pontificate about government waste. It's much harder to do the nuts and bolts details.
If you want to question government waste, ask why we spend as much on the military as the next 5 largest countries combined. Like any other bureaucracy, the military has to justify it's existence in order to keep receiving funds. Ask why we have draconian drug laws that incarcerate non-violent offenders rather than put them through treatment. We need more prisons and jail more of our citizens than any other so-called enlightened nation.
Good points, but the idea behind the thread was to provide a basis and filter, if you will, for viewing current new programs. More precisely, looking at what will essentially be the largest government program ever attempted, and the way it is/has been sold to the American people. There are these claims that ACA would lower the deficit, and that it would create more competition in the marketplace, as well as many other claims, most of which are standard with the introduction of new government programs. The logical path is to take those claims and compare them to the claims made for programs of the past. This provides a roadmap to anticipate how ACA will look in the future. Pointing out incidents of government waste simply provides example of how government solves problems, and every new program is going to be packed with new problems.
As for:
QuoteIf you want to question government waste, ask why we spend as much on the military as the next 5 largest countries combined. Like any other bureaucracy, the military has to justify it's existence in order to keep receiving funds. Ask why we have draconian drug laws that incarcerate non-violent offenders rather than put them through treatment. We need more prisons and jail more of our citizens than any other so-called enlightened nation.
We are 100% on the same page. In the early 70s when Nixon coined the phrase War on Drugs and signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act we saw the birth of a new government program, and the exact same mechanism of expansion brings us to the same results. Initially it had noble goals too:
increased research, into, and prevention of, drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse.
But the mechanism of government works the same every time so we saw the birth of new bureaucracies (DEA, BNDD, ODALE) and new authorities were awarded to law enforcement. Each requiring additional funding "for the public good." This program with a humble beginning and a noble goal has now cost well over a trillion dollars and puts 1.6 million people in jail a year, yet the problems it was created to solve have gotten worse? I wonder if ACA will increase the quality of healthcare?
I favor free trade in drugs for the same reason the Founding Fathers favored free trade in ideas: in a free society it is none of the government's business what ideas a man puts into his mind; likewise, it should be none of its business what drugs he puts into his body. – Thomas Szasz
I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control. – George L. Roman
First Law of Government: All government programs accomplish the opposite of what they are designed to achieve. – John Pugsley
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. – Ronald Reagan
Whenever there is some trouble in any area of the economy, the simplest solution to many people is "Let the government fix it." Yet ... every time the government uses its money or its power to favor this group or that ... the net result is such a web of supports, subsidies, interventions and controls that it is almost impossible for a nation to find its way back into a dynamic system of really free enterprise. – Lawrence Fertig
National Health Insurance means combining the efficiency of the Postal Service with the compassion of the I.R.S. ... and the cost accounting of the Pentagon. – Louis Sullivan
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 02:31:57 PM
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. – Ronald Reagan
Prophetic quote from the guy who initiated the largest escalation and growth spurt in government spending and more particularly, government debt that the country has ever seen. Yay, team!!
Reagan took office - debt about $900 billion. Took 200+ years to get there...
Reagan left office - debt about $ 2.9 trillion. And his successors just took that ball and ran with it! At the same time, accusing Democrats of being "tax and spenders"...which was of course, just as untrue then as it is today!
End of the fiscal years for each.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 04, 2013, 12:45:52 PM
I don't think that the $98 thousand to build a bathroom in the backwoods in Alaska is out of whack.
Here is a map of the area...
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files.Par.12713.File.dat/05TLAD_trails_brochure.pdf
These materials had to be shipped a long distance and assembly meant a contractor had to get crews off the highway to work as well. They had to level ground, pour a pad and build a bathroom that could withstand the harsh weather conditions.
These trails are supposed to be unbelievable scenery and some of them allow four-wheelers. The tourism is picking up and they needed a bathroom in the park.
But I am sure you heard about this outhouse on hate talk radio yesterday and just felt it important enough to express your new outrage for us.
People can do what I do when I ride my mountain bike on remote BLM or Forrest Service property: bring their own tp and cover it up.
Aside from that, I've seen quite a few trailheads with porta-potties, and very high traffic ones like the base of Mount Evans near Leadville, Colorado which has no facilities at all at the base.
$98K seems pretty extravagant for a smile hole with a shed over it. But that's just me.
$98K doesn't sound like a lot but once you add up a thousand or two $98K smile holes, it becomes significant.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 04, 2013, 03:18:04 PM
$98K seems pretty extravagant for a Smoot hole with a shed over it. But that's just me.
Remember the new terminology. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 03:34:21 PM
Remember the new terminology. ;)
Think of all the worthless smoot holes all level of government throws money into. Including the Oklahoma ABLE Commission!
Quote from: Conan71 on October 04, 2013, 03:55:13 PM
Think of all the worthless smoot holes all level of government throws money into. Including the Oklahoma ABLE Commission!
Spent the evening with a local brewer last night and was amazed at all of the Smoot he has to jump through. I also learned something interesting about 3.2 beer that I never realized.
Alc in most beer is measured by volume. For instance, if you buy a Boulevard Wheat at the liquor store, you are enjoying 4.4% alc by volume beer. If you buy that same Boulevard wheat at the grocery store, you are enjoying a 3.2 alc by WEIGHT beer (equals 4%-+ by volume depending on other ingredients). For many of the big breweries, a label change is all that is required.
Basically for most beers (highpoint not included) 3.2 is an engineered illusion created through collusion with the big breweries to shut out the little guys from competing due to the expense of creating multiple packages.
An illustration for highpint beer would be If you drink a 6pack of OK beer it would be the same as drinking 5 highpoints (5%-6% ABV).
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PYhrzREL3-0/TfkWAGmMZ6I/AAAAAAAAMUc/ySW5olR-AKc/s400/and%2Bnow%2Byou%2Bknow.jpg)
Can't win an argument, so you bring up toilets? Good one.
By the way, if you really think you can divine people's inner motivations, you may want to see a psychiatrist. They have meds for that. They also have computer programs that will help you not write "intension" repeatedly.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
... you are enjoying a 3.2 alc by WEIGHT beer
I try to keep my personal alcohol levels to always be less than 3.2% by weight.
Thank goodness for my size for it allows me to drink a lot.
Done to keep you in rigor. Have a super weekend. :)
Quote from: nathanm on October 04, 2013, 05:08:35 PM
They also have computer programs that will help you not write "intension" repeatedly.
I think intension is a state of stress. It's the inverse of in-compression.
;D
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 04, 2013, 05:21:28 PM
I try to keep my personal alcohol levels to always be less than 3.2% by weight.
Thank goodness for my size for it allows me to drink a lot.
Dang.... I knew I shouldn't have shed 25 Lb.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
Alc in most beer is measured by volume. For instance, if you buy a Boulevard Wheat at the liquor store, you are enjoying 4.4% alc by volume beer. If you buy that same Boulevard wheat at the grocery store, you are enjoying a 3.2 alc by WEIGHT beer (equals 4%-+ by volume depending on other ingredients). For many of the big breweries, a label change is all that is required.
Basically for most beers (highpoint not included) 3.2 is an engineered illusion created through collusion with the big breweries to shut out the little guys from competing due to the expense of creating multiple packages.
Your brewer friend should have also told you that normal ABV is different for different styles. Most American Pilsners will be about 5% to 5.5% ABV, so more than a label change is required. Wheat beer is one of the styles that will be easy to qualify as 3.2% Alc by weight. Others, maybe not so much.
Quote from: Ed W on October 04, 2013, 01:27:53 PM
If you want to question government waste, ask why we spend as much on the military as the next 5 largest countries combined.
I guess when you figure in slave wages and/or low pay, that accounts for the fact that China has an army roughly twice our size? (That and it's cheaper to steal the technology than research it themselves.)
About a 1/2 to 1 beer difference when comparing sixpaks.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 04, 2013, 05:21:28 PM
I try to keep my personal alcohol levels to always be less than 3.2% by weight.
Thank goodness for my size for it allows me to drink a lot.
Better than 7 lbs alcohol!! About a gallon. Is that per day? Or per drink?
Quote from: TeeDub on October 06, 2013, 07:29:20 AM
I guess when you figure in slave wages and/or low pay, that accounts for the fact that China has an army roughly twice our size? (That and it's cheaper to steal the technology than research it themselves.)
Stealing the technology does not make it any cheaper to manufacture. If anything it makes it more expensive and leaves you with worse quality.
Perhaps it has more to do with us having literally half the world fleet of aircraft carriers (at about $5 or $6 billion a pop in today's dollars), more than half the world fleet of nuclear submarines, again at multiple billions per boat, a third of the world's destroyers, 75% of all the world's attack helicopters, and about half the world's nuclear arms, which represent better than a trillion dollars of investment (and cost a smile ton in upkeep and security). Plus over a thousand military bases in more than 60 countries with the better part of half a million buildings on around 30 million acres of land.
It's a wonder our military doesn't suck up even more spending than they do.
Quote from: nathanm on October 06, 2013, 10:40:09 PM
It's a wonder our military doesn't suck up even more spending than they do.
They do - it's just on other budgets.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2013, 10:44:06 AM
They do - it's just on other budgets.
The $933 billion figure I posted earlier in the thread counts that, or at least tries to as much as possible. The only thing that isn't counted is the interest on past defense spending, which would put the total between $1 and $1.1 trillion a year if I remember correctly.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 01:23:09 PM
It is 1/4 of a mile off the highway next to the trailhead. That area is closed for half the year. I am willing to bet the funds could have been spent on a portable outhouse that could be towed away in the winter. Perhaps take the same $9,000 toilet and install it in a nice wooden building with skids that could be loaded up and hauled to another site in the off-season. Gosh, it only took me about two minutes to think up that innovative solution that would likely save about $80K.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/10088193756_0893b0ccd5_n.jpg)
Where are you going to store it? It's 300 miles to Anchorage from there, about the same to Fairbanks. You would need land to store the outhouse. And a building to store it in. And some way to secure the new building. And need to pay to move it back and forth each year. How much does all of that cost?
Quote from: Ed W on October 04, 2013, 01:27:53 PM
If you want to question government waste, ask why we spend as much on the military as the next 5 largest countries combined. Like any other bureaucracy, the military has to justify it's existence in order to keep receiving funds.
It's not really the next five, it's the next
16 countries.
Quote from: swake on October 08, 2013, 09:59:20 AM
It's not really the next five, it's the next 16 countries.
Eh, we'll split the difference. Let's throw in a graph to make it pretty:
(http://pgpf.org/sites/default/files/sitecore/media%20library/PGPF/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison-crop.gif)
SOURCE: Data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute - See more at: http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison#sthash.Wu71hWem.dpuf
QuoteThe U.S. spent more on defense in 2012 than did the countries with the next 10 highest defense budgets combined - See more at: http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison#sthash.Wu71hWem.dpuf
Quote from: swake on October 08, 2013, 09:49:39 AM
Where are you going to store it? It's 300 miles to Anchorage from there, about the same to Fairbanks. You would need land to store the outhouse. And a building to store it in. And some way to secure the new building. And need to pay to move it back and forth each year. How much does all of that cost?
Excellent point! That would be like storing a Tulsa toilet down in Texas.
Of course you could always store it just 3 miles up the road at the Tangle River Inn.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7390/10156409446_5389db869f.jpg)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3677/10156409756_5f3eb6cf73.jpg)
I mean it's no $100K Smooter, but you can get a nice room, and there is also a gas station and restaurant. I bet they would be happy to store a porta-smooter in one of the sheds in the off season.
Ok, here's the silly little capitalist in me agan. . .perhaps you could not buy a $100K smooter, and instead, sell a small sign in the trailhead parking lot to Nadine at the Tangle River that advertises clean restrooms, a cafe, and lodging just three miles up the road? You could charge her say $25 a month. How about that?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 08, 2013, 10:27:51 AM
Excellent point! That would be like storing a Tulsa toilet down in Texas.
Of course you could always store it just 3 miles up the road at the Tangle River Inn.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7390/10156409446_5389db869f.jpg)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3677/10156409756_5f3eb6cf73.jpg)
I mean it's no $100K Smooter, but you can get a nice room, and there is also a gas station and restaurant. I bet they would be happy to store a porta-smooter in one of the sheds in the off season.
Ok, here's the silly little capitalist in me agan. . .perhaps you could not buy a $100K smooter, and instead, sell a small sign in the trailhead parking lot to Nadine at the Tangle River that advertises clean restrooms, a cafe, and lodging just three miles up the road? You could charge her say $25 a month. How about that?
If you store it three miles away that changes the calculation very little. You still have to have land to store it on, a building to store it in, and to secure said building. And doing all that in such a remote location drives up the construction cost of said storage building, a lot.
Look, you are worried about an isolated toilet. How about we not build more of these $13 billion aircraft carriers? Then you could save as much as not building 130,000 of these overpriced toilets. And that's not even counting the even larger cost to equip the carrier, man it and run it
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/aircraft-carrier-uss-gerald-ford-plagued-glitches-cost-overruns
Or what about the F-35? We are spending $1.5 TRILLION for a plane plagued by problems that we would not use much even if it did work in our current wars. That would buy 15 million outhouses. That's more money than Russia would spend on its entire military for 15 years.
Quote from: swake on October 08, 2013, 10:47:15 AM
If you store it three miles away that changes the calculation very little. You still have to have land to store it on, a building to store it in, and to secure said building. And doing all that in such a remote location drives up the construction cost of said storage building, a lot.
Look, you are worried about an isolated toilet. How about we not build more of these $13 billion aircraft carriers? Then you could save as much as not building 130,000 of these overpriced toilets. And that's not even counting the even larger cost to equip the carrier, man it and run it
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/aircraft-carrier-uss-gerald-ford-plagued-glitches-cost-overruns
Or what about the F-35? We are spending $1.5 TRILLION for a plane plagued by problems that we would not use much even if it did work in our current wars. That would buy 15 million outhouses. That's more money than Russia would spend on its entire military for 15 years.
Ok! Deal! Oh, wait, I don't have that kind of authority. :)
I think both of your examples and my example are all excellent case studies for government waste. One does not justify the other.
Yeah, but if you are going to diet, it's more rational to focus on eliminating the Big Mac and large fries, and worrying a little less about switching to diet Coke.
Quote from: rebound on October 08, 2013, 12:54:14 PM
Yeah, but if you are going to diet, it's more rational to focus on eliminating the Big Mac and large fries, and worrying a little less about switching to diet Coke.
Sure. Priorities are important, but too often people use such examples as justification or distraction. The point is that spending $100k on a toilet, 3 miles away from a gas station with a lodge, toilets and restaurant is not a justified expense. Regardless of what is happening elsewhere, it is not justified.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 08, 2013, 12:59:18 PM
Sure. Priorities are important, but too often people use such examples as justification or distraction. The point is that spending $100k on a toilet, 3 miles away from a gas station with a lodge, toilets and restaurant is not a justified expense. Regardless of what is happening elsewhere, it is not justified.
In your mind a toilet in a place you've never seen and know nothing about other than what you saw in Google Earth is the waste. Yes, the obscure thing you can't even get reliable information on because its cost was .000000083% of the federal budget is a good example of waste. Why don't you come back with information about how the toilet was authorized and the paperwork involved in it and tell us why the government thought they needed to build a toilet. I would understand your complaint better if we were in the midst of some massive toilet building program and were building 100,000 of these things a year or something.
Let's not forget that if the government told people "go up the road 3 miles and use the toilet at the gas station" you'd be complaining about the evil government driving up the cost of business by telling people to use their toilets. Of course, the only reason you're talking about toilets at all is as a distraction from spending that you like that not only would add up to something if we were doing a lot of it but actually does make up a significant fraction of the budget.
Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2013, 02:05:13 PM
In your mind a toilet in a place you've never seen and know nothing about other than what you saw in Google Earth is the waste. Yes, the obscure thing you can't even get reliable information on because its cost was .000000083% of the federal budget is a good example of waste. Why don't you come back with information about how the toilet was authorized and the paperwork involved in it and tell us why the government thought they needed to build a toilet. I would understand your complaint better if we were in the midst of some massive toilet building program and were building 100,000 of these things a year or something.
Let's not forget that if the government told people "go up the road 3 miles and use the toilet at the gas station" you'd be complaining about the evil government driving up the cost of business by telling people to use their toilets. Of course, the only reason you're talking about toilets at all is as a distraction from spending that you like that not only would add up to something if we were doing a lot of it but actually does make up a significant fraction of the budget.
(http://static4.fjcdn.com/comments/Somebody+call+the+sWAT+team+someone+just+broke+the+law+_ee96a5b72089d1478b85c02ec7d1451b.jpg)
I don't really care about toilets Nate. I just get a kick out of the folks that are willing to defend anything government does as justified. Absolutely love it!
The 100th anniversary of the income tax is a messianic holiday for some. It represented the birth of the Progressive movement. Celebrate it. Light a candle.
You mistake my laughing at your unwillingness to actually understand the issues about which you complain for defending government spending. Like your complaints, it's about you, not the government.
Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2013, 02:05:13 PM
In your mind a toilet in a place you've never seen and know nothing about other than what you saw in Google Earth is the waste. Yes, the obscure thing you can't even get reliable information on because its cost was .000000083% of the federal budget is a good example of waste. Why don't you come back with information about how the toilet was authorized and the paperwork involved in it and tell us why the government thought they needed to build a toilet. I would understand your complaint better if we were in the midst of some massive toilet building program and were building 100,000 of these things a year or something.
Let's not forget that if the government told people "go up the road 3 miles and use the toilet at the gas station" you'd be complaining about the evil government driving up the cost of business by telling people to use their toilets. Of course, the only reason you're talking about toilets at all is as a distraction from spending that you like that not only would add up to something if we were doing a lot of it but actually does make up a significant fraction of the budget.
Bears and humans have shat and pissed in the woods around there for centuries. Who needs a smoothouse in Alaska anyhow?
Of course everyone has latched onto this one incident completely forgetting it's representative of 1000's of other $98,000 "smoothouses" the government wastes money on every year. That's how you run up a $16 trillion dollar debt.
It takes a lazy mindset to believe that
all government over-spending is in the defense budget just as much as it takes a lazy mindset to cop the idea that the only logical way to dry up the debt and deficit is by raising taxes. Those are simpleton approaches when it's clear the government is far bigger than it needs to be and spends far too much money on things it doesn't need.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2013, 03:05:15 PM
It takes a lazy mindset to believe that all government over-spending is in the defense budget just as much as it takes a lazy mindset to cop the idea that the only logical way to dry up the debt and deficit is by raising taxes. Those are simpleton approaches when it's clear the government is far bigger than it needs to be and spends far too much money on things it doesn't need.
I have never said that the only waste in Government is in defense. Being the largest part of the discretionary budget and known to contain much waste, it is the place to look for the greatest savings. After we have done that, it will be appropriate to examine the rest of the budget. To use a household analogy, if you're spending 30% more than you make, you can either cut out gas, food, and everything else and basically be breaking even but starving to death or you can move into a smaller house and only cut part of the gas, food, and everything else budget.
And it's just as lazy for the Tea Partyists to only approach the deficit from the spending side as it would be for Democrats to approach it only from the tax side. Only one group is refusing to consider both, however.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 08, 2013, 02:12:46 PM
The 100th anniversary of the income tax is a messianic holiday for some. It represented the birth of the Progressive movement. Celebrate it. Light a candle.
What the heck, light two.
;D
Unfortunately, Gas's info is not correct. It was neither the birth of progressivism nor was it 100 years ago. Even the 16th Amendment merely somewhat coincided with the beginning of the progressive movement which would be more accurately placed 20 years earlier.
History of the Income Tax in the United States
Source: Tax Foundation.
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.
The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945
Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz2hB67KtLn
Quote from: AquaMan on October 08, 2013, 06:58:37 PM
Unfortunately, Gas's info is not correct. It was neither the birth of progressivism nor was it 100 years ago. Even the 16th Amendment merely somewhat coincided with the beginning of the progressive movement which would be more accurately placed 20 years earlier.
History of the Income Tax in the United States
Source: Tax Foundation.
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.
The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945
Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz2hB67KtLn
All movements have their roots. The creation of a tax levied on one group of people to provide for another represented the birth of Progressivism as a legitimate movement, just as the discovery of Big Foot would make the North American Wood Ape Conservancy a legitimate organization. Certainly open to interpretation though. :D
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QzQ-dq8XbYI/UXXVsANsfZI/AAAAAAAAnks/GaTwJjtiRiY/s1600/30351_10200172400205695_164758008_n.jpg)
You would have a decidedly minority view on that topic. I hardly think the Civil War funding through income taxation was the dawn of progressivism. War is anything but a progressive tenet.
And its very revealing that you would consider an income tax that was levied to fight a war as "levied against one group of people to provide for another". It circumvents the idea of a smaller group (working people) supporting the interests of a larger group (working people, non working people, plus soldiers).
But, like you say, people see what they want and interpret as they find necessary.
Quote from: AquaMan on October 09, 2013, 09:44:59 AM
You would have a decidedly minority view on that topic. I hardly think the Civil War funding through income taxation was the dawn of progressivism. War is anything but a progressive tenet.
And its very revealing that you would consider an income tax that was levied to fight a war as "levied against one group of people to provide for another". It circumvents the idea of a smaller group (working people) supporting the interests of a larger group (working people, non working people, plus soldiers).
But, like you say, people see what they want and interpret as they find necessary.
I think you just made my point. Progressivism grew out of the desire to fight economic inequality. Before the income tax, there was little or no mechanism within our government for the progressive movement to use.
The income tax had a singular purpose and a very narrow scope. Before it's institution the progressive movement struggled to find a foothold, because the concept of redistribution would have been viewed as outright Communistic (still is to most). A tax on income once established, like any government mechanism, was sure to grow, and offered the missing tool for redistribution and future progressive policy. i.e. the baby was born.
The income tax was initially viewed as an innocent tax on the wealthy with a very narrow scope, of course, when a child is born, you have no way of knowing if he/she will be a great scientist or a serial killer. The best you can do at that point is give the kid a good name.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2013, 10:34:31 AM
The income tax had a singular purpose and a very narrow scope. Before it's institution the progressive movement struggled to find a foothold, because the concept of redistribution would have been viewed as outright Communistic (still is to most).
The idea of redistribution is as old as the nation. Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and Thomas Paine wanted a 100% inheritance tax. No transmission of wealth between generations in order to solve the problem of wealth inequality.
Who's your avatar right now again?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers
Quote from: swake on October 09, 2013, 11:03:16 AM
Who's your avatar right now again?
I think that is his mother.
Its obvious you didn't read the link, don't believe it or simply choose to make up stuff as you go. Hard to even respond when that happens.
Just a note. The income tax that the republican president instituted died out in 1872 before the beginning of the progressive movement and wasn't re-born until 1894. It then died again when during the "golden age" the wealthy barons of industry killed it off rather than give up any of their loot. It wasn't till the Progressive Movement was well under way that it became an amendment to the constitution in 1913.
Perhaps you are mistaking the progressive movement for the beginnings of the Liberal movement which began in the late 1700's in Europe and resulted in many elements of our constitution.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 08, 2013, 12:01:18 PM
Ok! Deal! Oh, wait, I don't have that kind of authority. :)
I think both of your examples and my example are all excellent case studies for government waste. One does not justify the other.
Can't believe how often we have to revisit the concept of "perspective" with you...concentrating continuously - obsessively - on the minutia while letting the really big stuff slide....or get a pass because it wasn't Obama.
Quote from: swake on October 09, 2013, 11:03:16 AM
The idea of redistribution is as old as the nation. Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and Thomas Paine wanted a 100% inheritance tax. No transmission of wealth between generations in order to solve the problem of wealth inequality.
Who's your avatar right now again?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers
Not arguing that. Arguing that the progressive movement had no foothold in our capitalist system until the mechanism of income tax was established.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2013, 11:41:14 AM
Not arguing that. Arguing that the progressive movement had no foothold in our capitalist system until the mechanism of income tax was established.
It had no foothold because it didn't exist at that time. So, I guess you win on semantics.
Quote from: swake on October 09, 2013, 11:03:16 AM
The idea of redistribution is as old as the nation. Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and Thomas Paine wanted a 100% inheritance tax. No transmission of wealth between generations in order to solve the problem of wealth inequality.
Who's your avatar right now again?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers
I don't pretend to be a scholar on the Founding Fathers but Jefferson's views must have evolved over time:
Quote"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'"
-Thomas Jefferson
Today is the 268th birthday of one of America's most well-known Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson. While Thomas Jefferson is well-known for his many contributions to America's political culture, few may realize that he repealed America's first death tax.
In 1797 President John Adams imposed a stamp act on wills and estates to help pay the military costs for countering French shipping attacks. After Jefferson was elected President and the conflict ended, he signed legislation to repeal the tax.
This was no small matter for Jefferson. As he made clear in his writings, government had no business using tax policy to redistribute the property of America's citizens. Indeed, he believed that taxing estates or otherwise preventing inheritances was immoral and economically and socially disastrous.
In his second inaugural address, he expressed: "Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers." Jefferson did not believe that inequality was an excuse for government to plunder the fruits of one generation's labor when they were bequeathed to the next.
In fact, he appealed to the "laws of civil society" and "the encouragement of industry" as justifications for protecting the right to leave the "property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases."
Jefferson left a great legacy with America – the legacy of death tax repeal. Jefferson articulated the moral case against the death tax with clarity and force. It is time for America to take his lesson to heart and permanently repeal the Federal Estate Tax.
http://nodeathtax.org/happy-birthday-thomas-jefferson--hero-of-death-tax-repeal
That's good stuff. And likely he did change his views over time as the country changed from one dependent on import taxes and low cost labor to a more complex system.
He was no saint you know. He also didn't think women or non landowners should be able to vote. Shall we take that lesson to heart and repeal women and minority rights to vote?
Quote from: AquaMan on October 09, 2013, 12:18:43 PM
That's good stuff. And likely he did change his views over time as the country changed from one dependent on import taxes and low cost labor to a more complex system.
He was no saint you know. He also didn't think women or non landowners should be able to vote. Shall we take that lesson to heart and repeal women and minority rights to vote?
Don't we all!
25 years ago you and I would have likely agreed on most points. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2013, 11:51:52 AM
I don't pretend to be a scholar on the Founding Fathers but Jefferson's views must have evolved over time:
If it evolved, it happened over several seconds.
Your quote
QuoteTo take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--"the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
is followed by this sentence in the same letter:
Quote
If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.
Text of the entire letter here:
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2190/default.asp
Its interesting to see how they wrestled with these issues even in the 18th century. To extract any one sentence without wading through their complex thoughts is truly a disservice to them.
Its humbling to see how coarse and shallow our level of discourse and analysis has become.
Quote from: AquaMan on October 09, 2013, 12:51:39 PM
Its interesting to see how they wrestled with these issues even in the 18th century. To extract any one sentence without wading through their complex thoughts is truly a disservice to them.
Its humbling to see how coarse and shallow our level of discourse and analysis has become.
Context is everything.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2013, 10:34:31 AM
I think you just made my point. Progressivism grew out of the desire to fight economic inequality. Before the income tax, there was little or no mechanism within our government for the progressive movement to use.
The income tax had a singular purpose and a very narrow scope. Before it's institution the progressive movement struggled to find a foothold, because the concept of redistribution would have been viewed as outright Communistic (still is to most). A tax on income once established, like any government mechanism, was sure to grow, and offered the missing tool for redistribution and future progressive policy. i.e. the baby was born.
The income tax was initially viewed as an innocent tax on the wealthy with a very narrow scope, of course, when a child is born, you have no way of knowing if he/she will be a great scientist or a serial killer. The best you can do at that point is give the kid a good name.
And an income tax was not, by the definition of the time, a direct tax, i.e. being laid upon a person by reason the person's very life or existence - like a poll tax or head tax, so NOT, therefore unconstitutional. Since there was a whole lot of confusion, and some serious redefinition of language over time (as shown in microcosm by encrease versus increase) the 16th amendment was deemed necessary to mostly allow the Fed to collect money without having to redistribute equally between the states.
All from one of those "reactionary" judicial rulings....
Quote from: swake on October 09, 2013, 12:38:55 PMTo take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--"the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
is followed by this sentence in the same letter:
If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.
That still says nothing about Jefferson favoring a 100% inheritance tax unless I don't know how to read post colonial-era English. That's always a distinct possibility. ;D