Is it really possible to have no federal income tax?

[eauclaireliberal]

Is it really possible to have no federal income tax?
by "Downsize DC"

We had no income tax prior to 1913, so it is possible.

Before 1913 the federal government was able to fulfill its constitutional functions using only excise taxes and tariffs. That could still work, if government was legally limited and decentralized, as it was intended to be.

But since 1913 the income tax has enabled the federal government to grow and grow. And government power has become more and more centralized. No one -- not even the biggest of big government liberals -- should be pleased with the outcome.

Liberals should favor decentralized power. And liberals should care what programs actually accomplish, not merely what they intend to accomplish. We will show that government programs are almost always harmful, and will always be so because of the very nature of government. But even if we don't convince you of this, you should still favor downsizing DC, decentralizing government, and ending the federal personal income tax...

Why? Because anything that doesn't have to be done at the federal level, shouldn't be.

When you grant the federal government the power to hand out goodies, you are letting the fox into the hen house. The rich and powerful will always have the most ability to win government favors, and they will do so at the expense of the poor and the middle class (as we will show). This problem exists at the state level too, but it is more limited there. We must place limits on the power of government to do harm.<<<

[unblock]

1. oh please

yes, we could REPLACE the income tax with a property, sales, vat, or wealth tax, or perhaps all of them.

so what? as odious as the income tax appears, people will hate ANY tax that seems large, especially in relation to the perceived benefits.

would would you rather pay $10,000 income tax or $10,000 in sales tax?

oh, and about that decentralized government thing, that's what corporatist love, because local/state governments are (a) more readily and cheaply corrupted and (b) easy to play off each other.

if you want to have any semblance of a fair marketplace, you cannot allow the corporations to simply choose a more favorable jurisdiction.

[La_Serpiente]

2. We don't live in a tarriff world anymore

This is the land of globalization and free trade now although I don't really agree with some things about free trade.

[NoMoreRedInk]

3. You got it****

nm

[Maple]

4. Sure it is....

what services and infrastructure are you willing to give up?

[pasadenaboy]

5. Do you really want a rational response?

Or are you just a freeper in disguise?

Federal Income tax is the only progressive tax we have. If you get rid of that, the rich pay no more in taxes than the poor, and on a percentage basis, pay less.

If you went to a national sales tax, for example, you would have the poor paying a much higher percentage of their income into federal taxes than the poor. How is that fair?

If you think its better on the state level, check out what just happened with the Alabama tax code. One of the poorest states in the union has one of the most regressive tax structures, forever condemning the poor to remian poor as resources like public schools and public libraries are starved for funds.

[eauclaireliberal]

6. RE: Do you really want a rational response?

What is stated in this article is what Constitutionalists warned us about: That big government is going to be our ultimate downfall. The BFEE is the most prime example of what happens when you let special interests overide Constitutional principles.

Contrary to what the RW wants all their minions to believe, the Clinton administration was NOWHERE NEAR violating the personal and property rights as these thugs.

The BFEE is not pro-business, the are pro take-over artists. Forget about mom-n-pop stores that several generations have sweated for to make a living: If your'e not a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, you are toast.

Or are you just a freeper in disguise?

Last time I checked, no.

I do, however, embrace a lot of libertarian beliefs: Principles over special interests. Too bad neither side wants to do it for the purpose of their freedoms; They'd rather be suckers for the next thing that comes along promising to make them feel good quickly.

[maha]

11. Giving up the income tax!

If you are willing to go back to the way people lived in 1910, giving up air travel entirely, giving up automobiles except for very limited use (we won't be able to maintain gasoline delivery for the number of cars we have now), and give up most electrical power except for some indoor lights, and go back to the military we had in 1910, horse cavalry included, and give up most environmental oversight (some parts of the environment were MORE polluted then than now, believe it or not), etc. etc., then, by golly, maybe we could do it!

You first.

[eauclaireliberal]

7. Besides...

If I'm going to be taxed, I'd rather my moeny going to the state of Wisconsin. Jim Doyle will do some actual good, whereas Dumbass Jr. will piss it all away on some corporate c*cks*cker.

[coda]

8. "We had no income tax prior to 1913, so it is possible."

We had one from the 1860's to the early 1870's and then one in the 1890's that spurred a lawsuit that ended it (until 1913).

[HereSince1628]

9. really, it would just shift to another form of taxation

It would generate a variety of tax plans, but I don't see it as changing much in the way leaving common people with money in their pockets.

[maha]

10. How about the same military we had in 1910?

Just consider the difference number of troops and weaponry.