Sunday, February 14, 2010


The first federal statutes imposing the legal obligation to pay a federal income tax were adopted by congress in 1861 and 1862 to pay for the Civil War. The 1862 law levied a 3% tax on incomes above $800, rising to 5% for incomes above $10000. Rates were raised in 1864. This income tax was repealed in 1872, but a new tax ststute was enacted as part of the Wilson/Gorman Tariff Act of 1894.
In fact, the taxed levied seemed terribly socialist in nature as at that time, the average income was anywhere from $80 a year to $100 a year. It was just past what was one of the most hardest depressions to hit America, a time when some called the 1890s the GAY 90s, but, only the rich.
The working class were considered slaves, swept aside by those with money if they got in the way.

The apportionment requirement made income taxes on property practically impossible, and congress did not want to limit the income tax solely on wages. Therefore, in 1909 congress proposed the 16th Amendment, which became part of the constitution in 1913 when it was ratified by the required number of states. The Amendment modified the requirement for apportionment of direct taxes by exempting all income taxes (whether considered direct or indirect) from the apportionment requirement.
Congress re-adopted the income tax that same year, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3000, with a surtax on incomes above $500000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% on incomes over $1 MILLION , basically to finance World War One.
The average American income in 1910 was around $750 per year.
The top tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, 25% in 1925, and finally 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% on income OVER $200000 in 1945.
Top marginal rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964, under Johnson, it was lowered to 70%, and again in 1982 under Reagan to 50% and in 1988 to 28%. However, in 1990 under Read my Lips-No New Taxes Bush senior, the top rate was raised to 31% and again in 1993 (Clinton) to 39%. bush junior lowered the top rate to 35% prior to the attacks that eventually led the USA into a war with Iraq, although no real cause is yet to be found in going to war, except to enrich that president's pockets (and that of his family and generations to come)...but that is a political discourse that does not concern us with this topic.
Now, Aunties e-mail points to numerous other taxes, some of which are ludicrous to be sure, but most of which are local taxes. Her intent to draw in the entire country to a battle with her state is nothing less than misdirection. Local taxes may be unfair, but, they must be battled on a local basis.

She would have us believe that ALL taxes are unfair, and without regard to their purpose or intent, she lays them out as nothing less than theft. In doing the research for this article, I have discovered several points in which I have been wrong about. Hated that NASA had free reign to shoot crap up into the sky for what seemed to be a lot of money. I, too, thought that the actual physical cost of the government was enormous and unwieldy.
Some are theft, I'll give her that, but, strangely, the ones that are theft are the ones that lobbyists have PAID legislators for, but then she (or her mystery e-mailer) denies the culpability of the lobbyists. Just because the senate and congress is wrong in taking the money doesn't let the ones who PAY them the money off the hook.
Could it be that she is a lobbyist?
"Everyone else is a sinner but me?"

Of those pointed out are taxes on vehicles and licenses for drivers...yet no regard for who pays for roads. Unemployment taxes are a bitter pill, to be sure, but then had the companies that employed workers and then laid off or out right fired them for little or no reason (other than retain their obscene profit margins) it wouldn't be so needed, would it?
Truly, if their income is created from the direct work of others, whether by crook or sheer weaseling, shouldn't that tax be levied and given back to the workers who were cast aside? After all, there is still the filthy lucre gained from the sweat and toil of the working class, there is still the advantages of income without work by the upper class who wield law to eliminate tax burden on themselves while continuing a high society attitude themselves, there are still the extremely comfortable housing, the elaborate cars and SUVs, and visits to exotic  lands...say like Italy (just like Pelosi, although they seem quick to point out her trips as sinful and laid upon the backs of workers...)

Other taxes pointed out are like the DNR taxes, usually more state driven than federally mandated, but the long war with those who would rape our lands is well documented.
Taxes on natural resources are placed as much to restrict mass removal of wildlife and land and growth from the clutches of more despicable characters as anything else. Taxes pay for the DNR and without the DNR there are those who would drop fifty foot nets in our lakes streams and rivers stripping them of all fish and life, rendering them stagnant pools of water. Some have found ways to do just that as it is, and have created those very pools. Strip mining, land clearing, animal removal, to no other end than to enrich themselves, and once the lands are stripped of anything other than bare, dredged dirt, they leave.
Consider Palin's goal of eliminating wolves from the Alaskan plains. Is that for good? Or is she merely deciding that God didn't do things proper and she'll fix it all right? Her attitude was to bully the legislature and the law to let her deal with it as she pleased without ant scientific proof or declaration from the population. (Perhaps she is the illegitimate daughter of Harry J. Anslinger? That was his method.)

Telephone taxes are a different story altogether. They are an example of a good idea taken to the extreme and then beyond. The taxes were first placed to get telephone lines everywhere there were people. Rural ares in particular had no way to afford running lines to their were left with no communication at all. Then taxes were levied to get those lines out there. To establish basic services to those who feed us. Thing is, the rates went up, the taxes paid back down to the phone companies stayed up, the maintenance WAS a thing that had to be dealt with, however a popular stunt pulled by companies and government alike is to keep their budgets inflated...never give way to using less. That only drew attention to the lessor need and that in itself may bring less budget money in.
USING UP THE BUDGET...geez. What a crock of poop.

Now, there is a movement in our country to point out the government's own fat intake.
Things like junkets around the world by both Republicans AND Democrats always draw attention because not everyone can afford such a thing.
I personally get a vacation about every seven years or so. To see Pelosi or McCain jaunt off to Hawaii or Italy or anywhere sometimes really gets my feathers up.
But, let's look at something here...

Funny how things get blown out of proportion, isn't it?
See that near Fifty Billion Dollars for the Justice Department? 9-12 Billion dollars is to keep marijuana illegal. That's what we got from the knee-jerk reaction designed and caused by Harry J. Anslinger.
Health and Human Resources is right up there with a huge amount, and guess what? Since the original Health Care Package first got watered down by both sides of the aisle then dropped altogether by the Republican lock step mentality, those costs are going to rise. You see, the idea was to LOWER health costs, not to be a nanny state as so many lobbyists advertised. By reducing costs to Americans, we could actually afford our health care...but, not one week after the complete collapse of the package, what do companies like Well Point do?
They raise their rate three time.
What will happen now?
Well, duh. More people will have to drop their coverage, whether or not they work, and then when emergencies arise, what happens? The government will cover those costs.

Again, this is slightly off topic, as i have called out a Young Lady from the South as misdirecting us from the essence, lying to make her point.
But what point is it?
What is it that she is trying to do?

A clue can be found in her statement, which may or may not have come in the e-mail she cited.

"Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous nation in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids."

Well, as seen, the bit about the taxes was a blatant lie. So also is the "no national debt" statement, as in 1910 our national debt was $1.15 BILLION. In a nation of some 92 million people, 2 million were unemployed, the average salary was around $750 per year (even though the Ziegfeld Girls made around $75 per week)...the national debt was about to rise quickly over the course of a few years (World War One and Two)....
Women didn't vote.
(oh...but surely she didn't mean to suggest to go back to not letting women vote?)
There were 76 known lynchings in the USA, mostly blacks or homosexuals. (has she bought rope stocks?)
Divorces were 1/1000 now a days it's closer to 50%, at least the last time I looked.
So...things aren't as 'hunky dorie' as we're being led to believe. In 1910 we were climbing out of  one depression, and walking into a situation of isolationism that would cast the world into a great war and another world depression.

So, what else is occurring?
Modernism is occurring, that's what. When mankind is beginning to realize that the bible isn't the word of God...that most was written by well meaning people with too much creative energy. And the Holy Roman Catholic Church was going to war with those individuals in the worse of ways.

"A great heresy gnaws at the roots of the Catholic faith in America. An insidious movement threatens to pull apart the Church from both the inside and outside. This is the infamous heresy of modernism and its spawn, post-modernism."
S.M. Miranda....

However, this is backwards as the world is beginning to understand, for it should be the ascent of the Modernists.
And more so, the falling away from religious fanaticism and fantasy, and getting on with what is important.Not that sciences are so much better, the seeds already planted and growing the break apart its foundation.
So, what was learned?
First, that there are some tax issues, government restrictive measures, an unwillingness to address what is important to individuals.


Jean said...

wow. You put some effort into researching that.

boneman said...

yes mam, and, had to write it twice by hand because blogger didn't accept some of the fonts I used in the first version.

boneman said...

however, it looks like work for nothing as I haven't seen any other comments here about it.

Funny, though.
When I make a mistake, and I see where someone has gone to the trouble to show me the mistake, I admit up to it, and even thank them.
Just seems the proper way to be.
But...I'm a relic.

friendly wanderers

Internal News

Internal News
(did he say 'internal news'?....well, no. He wrote 'internal news'....Well, what does that mean?....I dunno. Let's go look, shall we?)

Yeah....I know....