# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  How Was Government Funded before 1913 and IRS?

## marhlfld

I guess I've never really understood how the government was funded before the Fed and IRS was implemented. I haven't had much of a chance to research it.  I don't want to make assumptions.  Help me out here.  Thanks.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> I guess I've never really understood how the government was funded before the Fed and IRS was implemented. I haven't had much of a chance to research it.  I don't want to make assumptions.  Help me out here.  Thanks.


It was funded with tariffs (taxes on foreign producers who raised their prices), which is a big reason why the North did not want to let the South become independent in 1860s considering the South paid close to 80% of all Federal Taxes, and excise taxes (taxes from the sale of certain goods). The government got a tremendous amount of money from a sales tax on liquor. Before 1913 *40%* of the government was funded by a tax on *booze*. The income tax was pushed by prohibitionists who wanted to make up for the revenue that government would lose when liquor was illegal. With an income tax, the prohibitionists could finally right the wrongs of society and implement their grand vision of utopia.

----------


## Aratus

tariffs. high, intermediate and low tariffs. period.
the civil war and the spanish-american war had 
personal income taxes before wilson did in 1913.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Tariffs, which are the only constitutional form of taxes and one reason why the US became a mighty engine of industry and innovation.

Lack thereof now is one of the reasons we are becoming a bankrupt, third world, ghetto.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> Tariffs, *which are the only constitutional form of taxes* and one reason why the US became a mighty engine of industry and innovation.
> 
> Lack thereof now is one of the reasons we are becoming a bankrupt, third world, ghetto.


I agree with your overall sentiment Anti-Federalist, but I must disagree. Tariffs, if I suspend the belief that a form of taxation is necessary, _should_ be the only way the central government collects revenue but tariffs are not the only Constitutional form of taxation. Article One Sections Eight of the Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and *Excises*, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Excise taxes are Constitutional as well. Granted, you do call yourself Anti-Federalist so I can say with a great deal of certainty that you support the old fashioned way the central government was funded, through donations .

----------


## Becker

what kind of life did people live before 1913?

Did women work? How many cars did each family have?
What size were their houses? What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?
How much time did women spend on cooking?
How many children did a family have on average?
How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?

*Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> *Did women work?* Single Ones *How many cars did each family have?* They didn't have any iPads either!!! What animals.
> *What size were their houses?* They varied. *What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?* More and local options.
> *How much time did women spend on cooking?* More.
> *How many children did a family have on average?* More.
> *How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?* Each person has inalienable natural Rights. Government did a poor job protecting them.
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*


The free market isn't a real tangible thing. The free market doesn't do anything by itself. The free market is a way of explaining how freedom works. When I can trade freely with anyone I want there is a free market. Do I deny the Rights of Black individuals when I trade freely? No. Do I stop women from working when I trade freely? No. Do I change the size of persons home when I trade freely? If I make exceptional homes for low prices, yes. Do I enable people to spend less money on food when I trade freely? If I sell them more food for lower prices, yes. Do I enable women to spend less time cooking when I trade freely? If I invent new home appliances, yes. Free trade betters the world. In a free society the only way to better yourself is to serve your fellow man (or woman).

----------


## Lafayette

> How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*


Government didn't fix racism or sexism, it still exists.  Brave men and women who saw injustice took action and in some cases risked their life to change Americas culture and beliefs.  That is why these groups were able to reclaim their god given rights.

I think the better question is, how many blacks and gays stood and fought for their rights and succeeded in spite of a magical government who used its monopoly of force to suppress those rights.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> Did women work? How many cars did each family have?
> What size were their houses? What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?
> How much time did women spend on cooking?
> How many children did a family have on average?
> How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*


All that stuff was a result of cultural norms that developed over a long period of time.  They didn't magically improve.  It took a lot of work to overcome these social problems/issues.  Just as the free market of ideas allowed men to rid themselves of the perceived "need" for a monarch.  

The free market is not "magical".  It is the result of people freely exchanging things.  Prior to the concept of individual liberty, laissez faire, and industrial revolution, most humans lived very short, miserable lives.  There was no time or incentive to think about lofty concepts of liberty and such, as that was mostly taken up by the daily struggle for survival.

----------


## donnay

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> Did women work? How many cars did each family have?
> What size were their houses? What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?
> How much time did women spend on cooking?
> How many children did a family have on average?
> How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*


We are not in a free market--it is the mere illusion of a free market.  In a truly free market government would not be involved in it.  The regulators would be the people.  The only role the government would have in a free market is collecting, Duties, Imposts and Excises from foreigners.

----------


## cindy25

taxes on alcohol were hugely important; 1/2 of Fed and state budgets. this is why the income tax was needed before they could impose prohibition, and why conservative religious supported the income tax

----------


## cindy25

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> Did women work? How many cars did each family have?
> What size were their houses? What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?
> How much time did women spend on cooking?
> How many children did a family have on average?
> How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*


houses were not small; look at those big Victorian homes in the inner cities.
people had larger families and could support them on 1 income, as few women worked
it took 5 years to pay off the average mortgage
far more people could afford private schools; not just Catholic but Lutheran and other churches had day schools. 
Churches took care of orphans, hospitals, old age homes

----------


## Tod

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> Did women work? How many cars did each family have?
> What size were their houses? What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?
> How much time did women spend on cooking?
> How many children did a family have on average?
> How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*



Remember, early on our nation was largely agrarian.  My grandparents lived on a farm, with my grandfather supplementing the income with odd jobs such as helping to build a nearby flood-control lake and driving a school bus.  My grandmother worked on the farm and one of her "pet projects" was raising turkeys.

Here are somethings you might like to check out, a timeline of the industrial revolution in america:

http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/timeline1.html
http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/timeline2.htm

----------


## Lafayette

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> Did women work?




Pay no attention to the women working in 1890, in fact women never ever worked pre-1913...  ever.
Though women throughout history tired to break free market "no women in the work place" laws they were often caught and promptly burned as witches.







> How many cars did each family have?


The first automobile as we know it today was invented by an evil free market capitalist named Karl Benz in 1879, he only sold them to his rich friends at his country club.

Look at him all smug driving around in his horse less buggy while others had to walk 


It wasn't until after the 1920's that federal agents finally tracked down Benz's secret auto plant and stole the plans for the good of the American people. Thanks to those brave federal agents no American will have to ride a horse ever again.

----------


## Becker

> The free market isn't a real tangible thing. The free market doesn't do anything by itself.


Oh sorry, Conza made me think its some magical system that not only does things, but does things best and right.




> The free market is a way of explaining how freedom works.


you mean it's a theory or perspective like Marxism and conflict theory?




> When I can trade freely with anyone I want there is a free market.


But when corporations are not allowed to bribe the government, or when the government refuses to be bribed, what is that called?
What is it called when corporations establish truces among each other and agree not to compete?





> Do I deny the Rights of Black individuals when I trade freely? No. Do I stop women from working when I trade freely? No.


Inaction = innocence? 

You might've not actually ACTIVELy caused anybody harm , but nor has the market provided a mechanism (or if it did, it didnt happen) which "solves" the "problems" (I suppose these are not problems to you).




> Do I change the size of persons home when I trade freely? If I make exceptional homes for low prices, yes. Do I enable people to spend less money on food when I trade freely? If I sell them more food for lower prices, yes. Do I enable women to spend less time cooking when I trade freely? If I invent new home appliances, yes. Free trade betters the world. In a free society the only way to better yourself is to serve your fellow man (or woman).

----------


## Becker

> Government didn't fix racism or sexism, it still exists.


It's largely illegal as practice, legal in speech and thought.




> Brave men and women who saw injustice took action and in some cases risked their life to change Americas culture and beliefs.


In disrespect of the free market/




> That is why these groups were able to reclaim their god given rights.


Reclaim the rights they said they had but never had until they used violence to get them?




> I think the better question is, how many blacks and gays stood and fought for their rights and succeeded in spite of a magical government who used its monopoly of force to suppress those rights.


The government used monopoly to prevent civil rights? You don't mean the great government our founding fathers gave us, do you? Or was it perfect until somebody infiltrated them? Was the civil rights movement a return to some founding father's era that was destroyed sometime after 1800?

----------


## Becker

> Pay no attention to the women working in 1890, in fact women never ever worked pre-1913...  ever.
> Though women throughout history tired to break free market "no women in the work place" laws they were often caught and promptly burned as witches.


Can you be more specific? How much did women work?
What percentage of women worked? How much of a family's income came from the woman?

----------


## Becker

> The first automobile as we know it today was invented by an evil free market capitalist named Karl Benz in 1879, he only sold them to his rich friends at his country club.
> 
> Look at him all smug driving around in his horse less buggy while others had to walk 
> 
> It wasn't until after the 1920's that federal agents finally tracked down Benz's secret auto plant and stole the plans for the good of the American people. Thanks to those brave federal agents no American will have to ride a horse ever again.


So before 1920, there was no automotive industry, and we're surprised we didn't need the IRS to fund government?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You might've not actually ACTIVELy caused anybody harm , but nor has the market provided a mechanism (or if it did, it didnt happen) which "solves" the "problems" (I suppose these are not problems to you).


3rd party arbitrators have existed for decades.  If you happen to need one, you can find one here: http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/11disputeres/index.html

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So before 1920, there was no automotive industry, and we're surprised we didn't need the IRS to fund government?

----------


## Pericles

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?


A damn sight better than 98% of the rest of the world.

----------


## pcosmar

> Can you be more specific? How much did women work?
> What percentage of women worked?










Of course Women worked

----------


## pcosmar

> So before 1920, there was no automotive industry, and we're surprised we didn't need the IRS to fund government?


Nope no streets or business either. 



The city was rebuilt without FEMA too.

----------


## Becker

> Nope no streets or business either.


what percentage of population had cars? 
you want your streets and busineses to be like those of the time? 




> The city was rebuilt without FEMA too.


you want your cities "built" to standards of those days?

oh, you notice how many (few) people are walking in those films? How many of them are immigrants?

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> Nope no streets or business either. 
> 
> 
> 
> The city was rebuilt without FEMA too.






BTW, weren't there like 20 million Ford Model Ts built?

----------


## pcosmar

> How many of them are immigrants?


Just guessing. Quite a few.. Most possibly.

Give it up Glen,, you're trolling.

----------


## Becker

> BTW, weren't there like 20 million Ford Model Ts built?


was there? oh, you mean prior to competition, right?

----------


## Becker

> Just guessing. Quite a few.. Most possibly.
> 
> Give it up Glen,, you're trolling.


'

you don't know, because the context of population destroys your comparison. 

there's plenty of underdeveloped and underpopulated US cities and counties that'll give you the 1910 experience.

Perhaps you can tell me what is so admirable and desireable of the 1906 lifestyle depicted in the film? Slow cars? Everybody wearing suits? Wide streets? What exactly am I missing today that's available on the film?

----------


## pcosmar

> '
>  What exactly am I missing today that's available on the film?


Liberty.

----------


## Becker

> Liberty.


I knew you had no specific answer, sorry, I must be blind, I'm not seeing it. If that's liberty, I'm glad I don't have it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> '
> 
> you don't know, because the context of population destroys your comparison. 
> 
> there's plenty of underdeveloped and underpopulated US cities and counties that'll give you the 1910 experience.
> 
> *Perhaps you can tell me what is so admirable and desireable of the 1906 lifestyle depicted in the film? Slow cars? Everybody wearing suits? Wide streets? What exactly am I missing today that's available on the film*?


The ability to walk down that street without 1,000,000 replicas of that camera watching your every move.

I'd trade all the "convenience" of modern life to have that back.

That which was lost just in my own lifetime.

The ability to *live* without being under 24/7 surveillance.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I knew you had no specific answer, sorry, I must be blind, I'm not seeing it. If that's liberty, I'm glad I don't have it.


Well, that's how most people think.

The question is: by what authority do you claim to have, to make that decision for me?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The city was rebuilt without FEMA too.


So was Galveston.

And Chicago.

And Anchorage.

----------


## Anti Federalist

14,689,520

That's the total number of Model Ts produced.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I knew you had no specific answer, sorry, I must be blind, I'm not seeing it. If that's liberty, I'm glad I don't have it.


 Liberty is inconvenient sometimes, and you have to put up with a lot of nonsense, but it's better than being a slave.

----------


## Lafayette

> 


lol

----------


## Becker

> The ability to walk down that street without 1,000,000 replicas of that camera watching your every move.


oh, so the LACK of people being able to afford cameras is what you call "liberty" and "prosperity"?




> I'd trade all the "convenience" of modern life to have that back.


What 3rd world country doesnt allow you to?




> That which was lost just in my own lifetime.
> 
> The ability to *live* without being under 24/7 surveillance.


I beg to differ, there are plenty of cities, even in the US, where electricity is too expensive to have surveillance. You said you'd trade the convenience for that? Nothing is stopping you from living in an city where electricity is used for other purposes. (just ask the Amish)

I don't live under surveillance, the few hours of the day where I am seen, is of my own choosing.

----------


## Becker

> Liberty is inconvenient sometimes, and you have to put up with a lot of nonsense, but it's better than being a slave.


ok then, you take liberty, I'll take convenience, and safety.

----------


## Becker

> Well, that's how most people think.
> 
> The question is: by what authority do you claim to have, to make that decision for me?


What decision did I make for you or am stopping you from making?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ok then, you take liberty, I'll take convenience, and safety.


If you prefer the comfort of slavery and tyranny to the animating contest of liberty, why are you on RPFs?  You are directly at odds with RP's philosophy.

----------


## Lafayette

> '
> 
> you don't know, because the context of population destroys your comparison. 
> 
> there's plenty of underdeveloped and underpopulated US cities and counties that'll give you the 1910 experience.
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me what is so admirable and desireable of the 1906 lifestyle depicted in the film? Slow cars? Everybody wearing suits? Wide streets? What exactly am I missing today that's available on the film?


I just got off the phone with Doc Brown, he was surprised to hear that all his work on the DeLorean was for naught.

Limited government and no Income tax ... THE KEY TO TIME TRAVEL!

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> ok then, you take liberty, I'll take convenience, and safety.


How are you a Ron Paul supporter?

----------


## Becker

> I just got off the phone with Doc Brown, he was surprised to hear that all his work on the DeLorean was for naught.
> 
> Limited government and no Income tax ... THE KEY TO TIME TRAVEL!


I can't see that from the film. Sounds like you'll trade limited government and income tax for anything at any era, there's a few African countries that'll do that for you.

----------


## Lafayette

> I can't see that from the film. Sounds like you'll trade limited government and income tax for anything at any era, there's a few African countries that'll do that for you.


Limited government and no income tax its like and EMP that wipes out all technology, the desire to better yourself and your surroundings and it fits into a 1980's sports car with wing doors.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Limited government and no income tax its like and EMP that wipes out all technology, the desire to better yourself and your surroundings and it fits into a 1980's sports car with wing doors.


IIRC, in all 3 BTTF films, Doc Brown went to periods and places with little to no government regulation.  (like that bar scene in part III-no regulations of sanitation, guns, or anything except the owner's rules, but it was still a successful bar)

----------


## Becker

> Limited government and no income tax its like and EMP that wipes out all technology, the desire to better yourself and your surroundings and it fits into a 1980's sports car with wing doors.


I'll take technology, convenience, and surveillance cameras, you enjoy your Delorean (deluded) ride, keep in mind, the EMP might disable your way back.

----------


## Becker

> IIRC, in all 3 BTTF films, Doc Brown went to periods and places with little to no government regulation.  (like that bar scene in part III-no regulations of sanitation, guns, or anything except the owner's rules, but it was still a successful bar)


why did he come back it life was so good in the past?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> why did he come back it life was so good in the past?


Let me ask you a question. Have you ever had day better than today? Or will continue to insist that today is the best da of your life merely because it's today?

----------


## Becker

> Let me ask you a question. Have you ever had day better than today? Or will continue to insist that today is the best da of your life merely because it's today?


I think I've had better days. But I've learned to love life every step of the way, and deal with what I dislike. I understand I can never go back, but I can always make tomorrow more like a day that I remember as good. I don't ever believe one day is best based on WHEN.

----------


## Lafayette

I just can't get over the fact Mr Becker here thinks that without a strong oppressive government we instantly time travel to a past were dinosaurs eat babies and rock and stick are our only technology.

Its an amazing way of thinking, can you do some Youtube videos of yourself  discussing the role of government and its effects on quantum mechanics? I'm really interested in your theories, maybe you can touch briefly on the grandfather paradox. If  Ron Paul goes back to 47 million BC an steps on a butterfly will the TSA still keep us safe from 8 year old girls in 2011?

----------


## Xenophage

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> Did women work? How many cars did each family have?
> What size were their houses? What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?
> How much time did women spend on cooking?
> How many children did a family have on average?
> How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*


All of these things improved via a direct result of free market workings.  The increases in productivity and technological advancement, which began happening at an ever increasing rate during the industrial revolution, were only made possible by a free market economy.

----------


## Diurdi

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> Did women work? How many cars did each family have?
> What size were their houses? What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?
> How much time did women spend on cooking?
> How many children did a family have on average?
> How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*


 The market did all this stuff. One only has to look at the explosive increase in the living standards of the average American from 1800 -> 1913.

You can't honestly expect that if a free market was implemented in the 1500's, that suddenly we would have skyscrapers and high-tech brain surgeries.

Human society is a story of progress, and the free-er the market, the faster it does that. If the market is $#@!ed up enough, the progress may stop and possibily revert.

----------


## WIRP

> what kind of life did people live before 1913?
> 
> Did women work? How many cars did each family have?
> What size were their houses? What percentage of income was spent on food, and how many options did they have to eat?
> How much time did women spend on cooking?
> How many children did a family have on average?
> How rights did gay people and black people have in those great days?
> 
> *Why didn't the magical "free market" do all this good stuff?*


Seriously guys, how could we do any of these things without our magical government?  Since we don't live in the past, and we have a government, I will now conclude that it is because of government that things are better today than in the past.

Please ignore any ideas you may have about the exponential acceleration of technology in improving our lives.  It couldn't be that, it's government!  We thank our government for giving us our wonderful life, and the North Koreans thank Kim Jong Il for giving them rice.  Seriously, they would starve without him.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I just got off the phone with Doc Brown, he was surprised to hear that all his work on the DeLorean was for naught.
> 
> Limited government and no Income tax ... THE KEY TO TIME TRAVEL!


I thought the flux capacitor and the ability to reach 88 mph was the key to time travel.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> I thought the flux capacitor and the ability to reach 88 mph was the key to time travel.


Only if you have a magical free market car.

----------


## susano

> It was funded with tariffs (taxes on foreign producers who raised their prices), which is a big reason why the North did not want to let the South become independent in 1860s considering the South paid close to 80% of all Federal Taxes, and excise taxes (taxes from the sale of certain goods). The government got a tremendous amount of money from a sales tax on liquor. Before 1913 *40%* of the government was funded by a tax on *booze*. The income tax was pushed by prohibitionists who wanted to make up for the revenue that government would lose when liquor was illegal. With an income tax, the prohibitionists could finally right the wrongs of society and implement their grand vision of utopia.



Always the control freaks wrecking everything.

That 80% of the taxes that the south was a source of - are you saying that the south imported enough products that they collected that much revenue?

----------


## Becker

> I just can't get over the fact Mr Becker here thinks that without a strong oppressive government we instantly time travel to a past were dinosaurs eat babies and rock and stick are our only technology.
> 
> Its an amazing way of thinking, can you do some Youtube videos of yourself  discussing the role of government and its effects on quantum mechanics? I'm really interested in your theories, maybe you can touch briefly on the grandfather paradox. If  Ron Paul goes back to 47 million BC an steps on a butterfly will the TSA still keep us safe from 8 year old girls in 2011?


what place in the world today lacks oppressive government? Dubai? Somalia? Egypt? Amish country? China?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What decision did I make for you or am stopping you from making?





> ok then, you take liberty, I'll take convenience, and safety.


You just answered yourself.

When you, and millions that think just like you, take conveince and safety over freedom, you take my liberty away.

It is from such self justifications that PATRIOT Acts, TSA, roadside checkpoints, and all the rest are born.

----------


## Becker

> You just answered yourself.
> 
> When you, and millions that think just like you, take conveince and safety over freedom, you take my liberty away.


No, I am not forcing you to live in a system where I am in harmony with. I am not stopping you from moving away. The system landed on me, and it did on you, I am happy to stay and perpetuate it, you are free to change it or move away, whatever works for you. 




> It is from such self justifications that PATRIOT Acts, TSA, roadside checkpoints, and all the rest are born.


I call that "market demand". If the market demanded otherwise, why isn't it otherwise? You think politicians can't be bribed to do things your way if you had enough money?

----------


## Working Poor

Technologically speaking we are probably 100 years behind because of what JP Morgan did to Nicola Tesla in wireless technology during the 20's. Morgan messed with the free market bad and so did WR Hearst.

----------


## vodalian

I'm completely shocked that there's people out there who believe that the government is responsible for peaceful technological advances in the market, and I thought I heard it all. I really hope this guy is trolling.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ok then, you take liberty, I'll take convenience, and safety.


Oh boy....

And we wonder why we are headfirst into tyranny and bankruptcy when we have people like this in the country.^^^

You have to really congratulate the state-educators.  They have done a bang up job for many many years.

----------


## susano

> tariffs. high, intermediate and low tariffs. period.
> the civil war and the spanish-american war had 
> personal income taxes before wilson did in 1913.


Who was taxed and how? Were those income taxes short term?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> ok then, you take liberty, I'll take convenience, and safety.





> What decision did I make for you or am stopping you from making?





> No, I am not forcing you to live in a system where I am in harmony with. I am not stopping you from moving away. The system landed on me, and it did on you, I am happy to stay and perpetuate it, you are free to change it or move away, whatever works for you.


I can't change it when too many people think like you.

Exactly my point: who the $#@! are you to tell me to GTFO?

I just want to be left alone.

YOU are the one supporting a system that feels the need to all up in my $#@! 24/7.




> I call that "market demand". If the market demanded otherwise, why isn't it otherwise? You think politicians can't be bribed to do things your way if you had enough money?


Which is why I don't necessarily agree with the "pure democracy" of the market.

Nor do I believe that just because an organization may be private, does not mean that it cannot be tyrannical.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Alcohol taxes accounted for 70% of federal revenues before the income tax

source-Ken Burns prohibition documentary

----------


## DamianTV

> I guess I've never really understood how the government was funded before the Fed and IRS was implemented. I haven't had much of a chance to research it.  I don't want to make assumptions.  Help me out here.  Thanks.


Prior to 1913 and Income Tax and Prohibition, the Federal Govt got 1/3rd of its funds from taxes on Alcohol.  Keep in mind the Federal Govt was very small in comparison to what it is today with every alpabet soup bureacracy and countless employees and contractors.  Basically, teh way it should have stayed.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> Always the control freaks wrecking everything.
> 
> That 80% of the taxes that the south was a source of - are you saying that the south imported enough products that they collected that much revenue?


Yes. The South imported physical capital _from_ Europe while the North exported their finished goods _to_ Europe. The South paid 4/5ths of all tariffs during a time when tariffs were the only source of Federal Revenue. Add to the situation the explosive population growth in the North, The newly founded Republican Party's objection to the expansion of slavery, and the growing irrelevance of the Federal Government in the eyes of the American people, it comes as no surprise that the South wanted to part ways. But what the new Republican Party really wanted when they nominated Lincoln in 1860 was what Henry Clay, a disciple of Alexander Hamilton and hero of Abraham Lincoln, wanted when he called for "The American System". High Tariffs, Internal Improvements (Federal Subsides), and a National (Central) Bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...economic_plan)

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> I can't change it when too many people think like you.
> 
> Exactly my point: who the $#@! are you to tell me to GTFO?
> 
> I just want to be left alone.
> 
> YOU are the one supporting a system that feels the need to all up in my $#@! 24/7.
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm...


"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.The former are idealists acting from highest motives for﻿ the greatest good of the greatest number.The latter are surly curmudgeons,suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -Robert A. Heinlein

----------


## susano

> We are not in a free market--it is the mere illusion of a free market.  In a truly free market government would not be involved in it.  The regulators would be the people.  The only role the government would have in a free market is collecting, Duties, Imposts and Excises from foreigners.


Help me out here. A duty is on an imported item, paid by the end user/retail buyer, where a tariff is collected from the importer? On a tariff, is it billed and collected at the entry points, such as a shipyard or airport? 

What is an impost?

Excise is a sales tax, right - like on gasoline? Or can a sales tax be applied on top of the excise tax?

----------


## susano

> Remember, early on our nation was largely agrarian.  My grandparents lived on a farm, with my grandfather supplementing the income with odd jobs such as helping to build a nearby flood-control lake and driving a school bus.  My grandmother worked on the farm and one of her "pet projects" was raising turkeys.
> 
> Here are somethings you might like to check out, a timeline of the industrial revolution in america:
> 
> http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/timeline1.html
> http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/timeline2.htm



Your mentioning the industrial revolution reminded me of something. About a year ago, I saw a site that had photos of people in Halloween costumes, at the turn of the century. In the text, it mentioned that people really got into the costumes that were old fashioned because many were upset and depressed about the industrial revolution. It was sort of how people, now, get into vintage clothing and appliances, trying to preserve something from a time when life was simpler. It really struck me as very sad. In many ways, it must have been terrible time as industry trashed nature. 

I just ran across this interesting link, last night. Haven't read much of it but I think you may like it:

http://thedeliberateagrarian.blogspo...me-things.html

----------


## susano

> Of course Women worked


And were full time mothers and homemakers which progressives denigrated as somehow not counting.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Help me out here. A duty is on an imported item, paid by the end user/retail buyer, where a tariff is collected from the importer? On a tariff, is it billed and collected at the entry points, such as a shipyard or airport? 
> 
> What is an impost?
> 
> Excise is a sales tax, right - like on gasoline? Or can a sales tax be applied on top of the excise tax?


Duties:

Customs duty is a kind of indirect tax which is realized on goods of international trade. In economic sense, it is also a kind of consumption tax. Duties levied by the government in relation to imported items is referred to as import duty. In the same vein, duties realized on export consignments is called export duty. Tariff which is actually a list of commodities along with the leviable rate (amount) of Customs duty is popularly understood as Customs duty.

Excises:

Unlike an ad valorem, an excise is not a function of the value of the product being taxed. Excise taxes are based on the quantity, not the value, of product purchased. For example, in the United States, the Federal government imposes an excise tax of 18.4 cents per U.S. gallon (4.86¢/L) of gasoline, while state governments levy an additional 8 to 28 cents per U.S. gallon.

Imposts are just another term for tariffs, either import or export.

----------


## susano

> I'll take technology, convenience, and surveillance cameras, you enjoy your Delorean (deluded) ride, keep in mind, the EMP might disable your way back.


That world that you want exists, right now, in Singapore. I have a friend who just spent several months there. It's extremely modern, spic and span clean, and very controlled. Get out of line and the consequences are harsh. It's very safe. It's a perfect Stepford world. She said it has a beautiful veneer. Kind of like the Truman Show. Sounds like you would love it. What are you waiting for?

----------


## susano

> I think I've had better days. But I've learned to love life every step of the way, and deal with what I dislike. I understand I can never go back, but I can always make tomorrow more like a day that I remember as good. I don't ever believe one day is best based on WHEN.



Odd because you sound so bitter.

----------


## susano

> Alcohol taxes accounted for 70% of federal revenues before the income tax
> 
> source-Ken Burns prohibition documentary


That is astounding!

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> That is astounding!


Your astonishment is based on fiction. Liquor taxes were 30 to 40% of Federal Revenue.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Hmm...
> 
> 
> *"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.The former are idealists acting from highest motives for﻿ the greatest good of the greatest number.The latter are surly curmudgeons,suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -Robert A. Heinlein*


Awesome.

+rep

And that makes me a *perfect* neighbor.

----------


## susano

> Yes. The South imported physical capital _from_ Europe while the North exported their finished goods _to_ Europe. The South paid 4/5ths of all tariffs during a time when tariffs were the only source of Federal Revenue. Add to the situation the explosive population growth in the North, The newly founded Republican Party's objection to the expansion of slavery, and the growing irrelevance of the Federal Government in the eyes of the American people, it comes as no surprise that the South wanted to part ways. But what the new Republican Party really wanted when they nominated Lincoln in 1860 was what Henry Clay, a disciple of Alexander Hamilton and hero of Abraham Lincoln, wanted when he called for "The American System". High Tariffs, Internal Improvements (Federal Subsides), and a National (Central) Bank.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...economic_plan)




Annual Message of 1815 (Seven Points)

    * Funds for national defense
    * Frigates for the Navy
    * A standing army and federal control of the militia
    * Federal aid for building roads and canals
    * A protective tariff to encourage manufacturers
    * Re-establishing the National Bank
    * Federal assumption of some state debt

Wow, talk about a serious detour from the constitution! I admit to being a protectionist, at heart, but I can see where these policies were a beginning on our road to hell.

----------


## susano

> Hmm...
> 
> 
> "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.The former are idealists acting from highest motives for﻿ the greatest good of the greatest number.The latter are surly curmudgeons,suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -Robert A. Heinlein


I would take issue with what Heinlein said. It's always in cities where people stand by by while someone gets stabbed to death. City people are the most "domesticated", if you will. In the country, get stuck in a ditch and some redneck with a tow rope and a truck will always stop and pull you out.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I would take issue with what Heinlein said. It's always in cities where people stand by by while someone gets stabbed to death. City people are the most "domesticated", if you will. In the country, get stuck in a ditch and some redneck with a tow rope and a truck will always stop and pull you out.


It's those same city folk that will stand by that are full of "big ideas" and smarmy, glad handing, $#@! eating grin, platitudes.

----------


## susano

> Duties:
> 
> Customs duty is a kind of indirect tax which is realized on goods of international trade. In economic sense, it is also a kind of consumption tax. Duties levied by the government in relation to imported items is referred to as import duty. In the same vein, duties realized on export consignments is called export duty. Tariff which is actually a list of commodities along with the leviable rate (amount) of Customs duty is popularly understood as Customs duty.
> 
> Excises:
> 
> Unlike an ad valorem, an excise is not a function of the value of the product being taxed. Excise taxes are based on the quantity, not the value, of product purchased. For example, in the United States, the Federal government imposes an excise tax of 18.4 cents per U.S. gallon (4.86¢/L) of gasoline, while state governments levy an additional 8 to 28 cents per U.S. gallon.
> 
> Imposts are just another term for tariffs, either import or export.


Thanks. Because it's a forum, I prefer to ask and talk about it rather than just Google.

AF, IIRC, you support tariffs as means of revenue, especially with abolishing the income tax, right? I do and I know that doesn't fully square with some truly free market ideas. I wonder if there's a part of the argument that I missed. Meaning, without tariffs, aren't we were we are now, with globalization which is, obviously, death for anyone who doesn't want to race to the bottom.

----------


## susano

> Your astonishment is based on fiction. Liquor taxes were 30 to 40% of Federal Revenue.


I noticed that there was a discrepancy in the answers on this. I thought it may be due to exactly which years are being talked about. I find hard to believe that that much booze was consumed, lol.

----------


## susano

> Awesome.
> 
> +rep
> 
> And that makes me a *perfect* neighbor.



But I've never perceived you as a curmudgeon. Quite the opposite, in fact.

----------


## susano

> It's those same city folk that will stand by that are full of "big ideas" and smarmy, glad handing, $#@! eating grin, platitudes.


Agreed. As you said, all up in your $#@! and so willing to tell you how to live your life. That may be due to physical proximity and the need to be sane while living too close. No doubt, Jefferson understood it because of his comments about cities.

----------


## Becker

> I can't change it when too many people think like you.


Understood, sounds familiar. 




> Exactly my point: who the $#@! are you to tell me to GTFO?
> 
> I just want to be left alone.


You just answered your own question above, because I am in the majority and its always easier to move the small number.

You just want to be left alone, that's nice, luckily just in case you don't, we have safeguards against it too.




> YOU are the one supporting a system that feels the need to all up in my $#@! 24/7.


Not quite, I'm just OK with it enough that I won't fight for your rights unless it benefits me. (first they came for these guys, and I didn't speak up, then they came for me, sorry, I got better things to worry about sometimes)




> Which is why I don't necessarily agree with the "pure democracy" of the market.
> 
> Nor do I believe that just because an organization may be private, does not mean that it cannot be tyrannical.


Glad we agree there.

----------


## Becker

> That world that you want exists, right now, in Singapore.


Ok. Good to know. A little more crowded and smaller than I wanted, but not bad. Luckily I am willing to give up chewing gum and already support death penalty.




> I have a friend who just spent several months there. It's extremely modern, spic and span clean, and very controlled. Get out of line and the consequences are harsh.


How welcome are they to westerners becoming citizens or permanent residents? 




> It's very safe. It's a perfect Stepford world. She said it has a beautiful veneer. Kind of like the Truman Show. Sounds like you would love it. What are you waiting for?


I'm not exactly complaining about the country I live in. It can be better and can be worse.

----------


## susano

Becker, you sound very totalitarian and sociopathic in your preferences. Singapore was a British colony so it might be a good fit, lol.

I don't know what the requirements are to becoming a citizen or permanent residency, but you'll need a job with an industry that's big there - big oil, mining, big pharma, international finance. It is a corporate state, 100%. Good luck!

----------


## Becker

> Becker, you sound very totalitarian and sociopathic in your preferences. Singapore was a British colony so it might be a good fit, lol.


I am not totalitarian, I am however practical, and I do not unconditionally support or oppose the government. 




> I don't know what the requirements are to becoming a citizen or permanent residency, but you'll need a job with an industry that's big there - big oil, mining, big pharma, international finance. It is a corporate state, 100%. Good luck!


 now you know what's stopping me.

----------


## moderate libertarian

There was too much human exploitation in America back then, I personally won't be taking notes from that era for good governance examples.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I guess I've never really understood how the government was funded before the Fed and IRS was implemented. I haven't had much of a chance to research it.  I don't want to make assumptions.  Help me out here.  Thanks.


Sure, man.  It's pretty simple really.  Today it's something along the lines of...



Back then it was more like...

----------


## Zippyjuan

Tarrifs are a form of protectionism. They are basically govenment subsidies for domestic industry-shielding them from competition from other countries. 

Suppose you wanted to go back to using tarrifs instead of income taxes to pay for the government. In 2009 (Wiki doesn't have such figures for 2010 so that is why I chose this year), government got its revenues from the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget



> Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are $2.7 trillion (+7.1%).
>  $1.21 trillion - Individual income tax
>  $949.4 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
>  $339.2 billion - Corporate income tax
>  $68.9 billion - Excise taxes
>  $29.1 billion - Customs duties
>  $26.3 billion - Estate and gift taxes
>  $47.9 billion - Other


Customs duties and Excise taxes (excise taxes are not necessarily just on imports but for this exercise I will include them).  That means that $98 billion out of $2.7 trillion or 3.6% of total government revenue came from such taxes. 

We also need a figure for total US imports- to know what our base being taxed is. Again going with Wiki, US imports in 2010 totaled $1.9 trillion.  That includes things like energy (oil) and foods as well as other goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy..._United_States

So now let us see what rate we need to set our tarrifs to in order to pay our bills.  So now we need a figure for spending.  Since we are using 2009 revenues it would only be fair to use 2009 expenditures as well.  

Total spending according to the US budget for 2009 was $3.1 trillion. (see earlier link).  If we wanted to cover the entire thing via tarrifs (achieving a balanced budget) on everything we import, you would have to impose a duty of 190% which means that everything we import would cost nearly three times as much.  That $90 a barrel of oil would suddenly be $260 a barrel.  Everything imported.  Domesticaly produced goods would rise in price too- those which rely on imported imputs or even just those in competition with imports could now raise their prices since they are not competiing against the imported ones. The level of tarrifs would increase by 3,163% from what they are today (about 32 times higher).

Well, what if we just replaced the income tax then.  Should we incude Social Security taxes since they are a payroll tax as well?  We can do it both ways.  In this case, I will not assume a balanced budget and only consider the revenue generated in 2009 via those forms of taxation. Income taxes totaled $1.21 trillion Taxing every item imported to get rid of the income tax would only require a 63% duty.   Adding in Social Security taxes and you would be replacing $2.16 trillion in revenues so that would require a 113% levy so prices of imports would more than double. 

Other factors would be set in motion.  First, US imports would greatly decline- meaning a large loss of revenue from this source.  So in order to maintain the same levels of income for the government, these rates would have to be even higher.  Second, in reponce, the countries we import from would impose their own tarrifs on things they buy from us- meaning job losses to those who export.

----------


## CCTelander

> Sure, man.  It's pretty simple really.  Today it's something along the lines of...
> 
> 
> 
> Back then it was more like...



LOL!

Exactly. It's always been funded through theft.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thanks. Because it's a forum, I prefer to ask and talk about it rather than just Google.
> 
> AF, IIRC, you support tariffs as means of revenue, especially with abolishing the income tax, right? I do and I know that doesn't fully square with some truly free market ideas. I wonder if there's a part of the argument that I missed. Meaning, without tariffs, aren't we were we are now, with globalization which is, obviously, death for anyone who doesn't want to race to the bottom.


Yes, I do, and yes, it does not square at all with "wide open free market" ideals.

I maintain that there is no business model that can compete with, what amounts to, a prison economy.

It's bad enough we have the largest prison population making critical electronics parts for the military industrial complex, it is economic and national suicide, or, as you rightly noted, a "race to the bottom" to do it on an international scale.

I also maintain that a nation that cannot do for itself as much as possible, just like a person who cannot, will not remain free and independent.

The proof of that is all around us as we get sucked further and further into the globalist "Borg hive".

Therefore I think tariffs play a crucial role in both funding a very limited central government *and* maintaining economic independence.

Thus the reason that they are the only specific taxes named in the Constitution.

----------


## Anti Federalist

All that is based on a false assumption:

That a $3.1 trillion dollar budget is needed, justified or wanted.




> Tarrifs are a form of protectionism. They are basically govenment subsidies for domestic industry-shielding them from competition from other countries. 
> 
> Suppose you wanted to go back to using tarrifs instead of income taxes to pay for the government. In 2009 (Wiki doesn't have such figures for 2010 so that is why I chose this year), government got its revenues from the following:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget
> 
> 
> Customs duties and Excise taxes (excise taxes are not necessarily just on imports but for this exercise I will include them).  That means that $98 billion out of $2.7 trillion or 3.6% of total government revenue came from such taxes. 
> 
> We also need a figure for total US imports- to know what our base being taxed is. Again going with Wiki, US imports in 2010 totaled $1.9 trillion.  That includes things like energy (oil) and foods as well as other goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy..._United_States
> ...

----------


## Zippyjuan

What budget level would you suggest we start at? We have to begin with some assumptions. We could assume zero goverment spending and say we need zero taxes but that is not going to happen."What would things look like now if we did ... under current conditions" is a good place to start.  Obvously a smaller budget does mean you can get by with lower tax rates.

Cut the budget in half and you could fund it with "only" a 100% tarrif on all imports. That would only be sixteen times the current average rate.  And that still assumes that imports don't tank requiring a higher rate.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Tell you what, let's roll it back fifteen years, which is less than half the 2012 budget, and start with a base line of $1.6 trillion.

That would be reduced enough to be paid for by corporate taxes, excises and tariffs.

You could easily eliminate the $890 billion collected from personal income taxation.




> What budget level would you suggest we start at? We have to begin with some assumptions. We could assume zero goverment spending and say we need zero taxes but that is not going to happen."What would things look like now if we did ... under current conditions" is a good place to start.  Obvously a smaller budget does mean you can get by with lower tax rates.
> 
> Cut the budget in half and you could fund it with "only" a 100% tarrif on all imports.  And that still assumes that imports don't tank requiring a higher rate.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Your astonishment is based on fiction. Liquor taxes were 30 to 40% of Federal Revenue.


I better contact Ken

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Tell you what, let's roll it back fifteen years, which is less than half the 2012 budget, and start with a base line of $1.6 trillion.
> 
> That would be reduced enough to be paid for by corporate taxes, excises and tariffs.
> 
> You could easily eliminate the $890 billion collected from personal income taxation.


Nice in theory. Tough in reality.  "Mandatory spending" alone is currently $2.2 trillion. Zero everything else out (including defense spending) and take another $600 billion out of this. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget



> Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%) 
> 
> $695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
>  $571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
>  $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
>  $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
>  $164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt


But if you could, then yes, you could come pretty close to balancing and get rid of the income tax. 
That would give you about $1.5 trillion in revenue. (actually personal income tax collections are $1.2 trillion though, not $890 billion). There would of course still be the Social Security taxes too. 




> Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are $2.7 trillion (+7.1%).
>  $1.21 trillion - Individual income tax
>  $949.4 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
>  $339.2 billion - Corporate income tax
>  $68.9 billion - Excise taxes
>  $29.1 billion - Customs duties
>  $26.3 billion - Estate and gift taxes
>  $47.9 billion - Other

----------


## Lisle16

> I guess I've never really understood how the government was funded before the Fed and IRS was implemented. I haven't had much of a chance to research it.  I don't want to make assumptions.  Help me out here.  Thanks.


Tariffs were the main way. Of course, a tariff can't be too big or it discourages imports, but that's part of the point-it kept government more or less within its Constitutional limits.

----------


## Becker

> Yes, I do, and yes, it does not square at all with "wide open free market" ideals.
> 
> I maintain that there is no business model that can compete with, what amounts to, a prison economy.
> 
> It's bad enough we have the largest prison population making critical electronics parts for the military industrial complex, it is economic and national suicide, or, as you rightly noted, a "race to the bottom" to do it on an international scale.
> 
> I also maintain that a nation that cannot do for itself as much as possible, just like a person who cannot, will not remain free and independent.
> 
> The proof of that is all around us as we get sucked further and further into the globalist "Borg hive".
> ...


good to know I'm not alone on this.

----------

