Time for Another Tax Revolution: ABOLISH the INCOME TAX and the IRS WITH IT! | Eastern North Carolina Now

    The debate in Congress was whether to include the income tax provision (Bailey-Cummins amendment) or the corporate tax provision in the tariff bill. This was June. Progressive Republicans (also known as "insurgent" Republicans) were joining the Democratic block in support of the income tax. Their position on income tax was summed up by comments made by Rep. William Sulzer (D-NY) on the House floor:

    "I am now, always have been, and always will be in favor of an income tax, because, in my opinion, an income tax is the fairest, the most just, the most honest, the most democratic, and the most equitable tax ever devised by the genius of statesmanship. . . . At the present time nearly all the taxes raised for the support of the Government are levied on consumption - on what the people need to eat and to wear and to live: on the necessities of life; and the consequence is that the poor man, indirectly, but surely in the end, pays practically as much to support the Government as the rich man - regardless of the difference of incomes. This system of tariff tax on consumption, by which the consumers are saddled with all the burdens of Government, is an unjust system of taxation, and the only way to remedy the injustice and destroy the inequality is by a graduated income tax that will make idle wealth as well as honest toil pay its share of the taxes needed to administer the National Government."

    The showdown by Democrats and Progressives regarding the Bailey amendment was perhaps intentionally orchestrated. The theory was that after the regular Republicans rejected the bill, the Democrats could then point a finger at them and claim, for political purposes, that Republicans rejected the Bailey bill to protect their corrupt wealthy corporate friends. They would use the rejection as proof of such an alignment between Republicans and the wealthy.

    The conservative Republicans knew what the Democrats were up to and they launched a counter move. Facing an embarrassing loss on the income tax issue, regular Republicans in the Senate decided to make a political maneuver, capitalizing on the endorsement of a constitutional amendment made by President Taft. They proposed a constitutional amendment that would impose an income tax on the rich. The theory behind their plan was that when the States refused to ratify the amendment, the Republicans could use that failure as proof that the people, through their State legislatures, were against the idea of a new income tax. They could then use that argument to defeat the Bailey Bill, for how could Congress approve an income tax against the rich after the people, through their state legislatures, had spoken on the issue. Conservative Republicans were sure they did their homework. They were most certain that it could and would be defeated when it went to the states for ratification. They calculated that there were more than enough conservative states to defeat the 3/4 majority that were required under Article V to approve an amendment.

    Senator Norris Brown (R-NE) was the first to propose an income-tax amendment to the Constitution, on June 17, 1909, but it was rejected. On June 28, Senator Aldrich submitted a proposal (Senate Joint Resolution 40). It authorized Congress to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration." It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 0, with 15 members abstaining. On July 12, the proposal passed in the house, by a vote of 318 to 14. The resolution proposing the 16th Amendment therefore passed the 61st Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures.

    Once the amendment was submitted, it was clear that it had more support than was anticipated. Rep. Sereno Payne, a conservative Republican, was so concerned and was so convinced that their plan would backfire that he took to the House floor, denounced the resolution that he himself introduced in the House, and made a last-ditch effort to appeal to Congress:

    "As to the general policy of an income tax, I am utterly opposed to it. I believe with William Gladstone that it tends to make a nation of liars. I believe it is the most easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the hardest to collect; that it is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of rascals; and so I am opposed to any income tax in time of peace...I hope that if the Constitution is amended in this way the time will not come when the American people will ever want to enact an income tax except in time of war."

    Not all states were initially in favor of an amendment. The gamble that the conservative Republicans were taking at first seemed to pay off. Many states realized that the imposition of a federal income tax would mean the rise of a federal revenue bureaucracy that extended from Washington, D.C., throughout the country and into the personal and business transactions of every American and every business. Private transactions would no longer be private; government would be able to monitor what everyone was doing.

    Richard E. Byrd, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, voiced his concerns on March 3, 1910, during the debate on whether to ratify the 16th Amendment:

    "It means that the state must give up a legitimate and long established source of revenue and yield it to the Federal government. It means that the state actually invited the Federal government to invade its territory, to oust its jurisdiction and to establish Federal dominion within the innermost citadel of reserved rights of the Commonwealth. This amendment will do what even the 14th and 15th Amendments did not do - it will extend the Federal power so as to reach the citizens in the ordinary business of life. A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of a Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house.

    The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will create a complicated machinery. Under it, businessmen will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines, imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals, will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits. On the one hand the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other, he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor.

    When the Federal government gets a strangle hold on the individual businessman, state lines will exist nowhere but on the maps. Its agents will everywhere supervise the commercial life of the states.... I am not willing by any voluntary act to give up revenue which the State of Virginia herself needs, nor to surrender that measure of state's rights which was, and the construction of the Federal courts have permitted to remain."

    Much to everyone's surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox (Woodrow Wilson had just taken office), the Sixteenth amendment took effect. "Soaking the Rich" was clearly a popular policy. "Shifting the growing burden of federal finance to the wealthy" make a lot of sense to those who, at the time, were sure they weren't in the income bracket that would be targeted. The end run of the Republican leadership did indeed backfire.

    As James Madison had feared, the seeds of class warfare were sown in the strategy of different rates for different incomes.

    Not only were conservative Republicans burned by their attempt to end Congress' scheming for a progressive income tax by in fact ensuring that such a tax would become the law of the land, but the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 was also passed and signed by President Taft on August 5, 1909. (The corporate tax was reduced to 1% by the time the bill was signed)

    [As a side note, the bill hurt Taft greatly, and in fact, would have disastrous consequences for the Republican Party in general. Lowering the tariff caused a big split in the party by pitting producers (manufacturers and farmers) against merchants and consumers. Failure to address tax reform was another sore spot. The debate split the Republican Party into Progressives and Old Guards and led the split party to lose the 1910 congressional election. Two years later, with the 1912 presidential election, the tariff issue continued to split votes amongst Republicans in most states, resulting in Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson being elected. That was the election where Teddy Roosevelt returned to politics to "save the Republican party from Taft" by running for president under the new political party he created, the Progressive Party - commonly called the "Bull Moose." He had entered the race too late and Taft has already secured the GOP nomination].

    It turns out that Sixteenth Amendment was Congress' way to get around the Pollock decision (much the way the 14th Amendment got around the Dred Scott decision) and enact an income tax, progressive in nature, without having to worry about whether the tax is classified as "direct" or not and whether it needs to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.

    It should be noted that there is credible evidence to suggest that the 16th Amendment was not properly and legally ratified pursuant to the requirements set out in Article V of the US Constitution (the "Amendment Process"). See the Appendix for a summary of this evidence, as researched by Bill Benson.

    How the Income Tax Grew --

    On April 21, 1913, the House Committee on Ways and Means, chaired by Rep. Oscar W. Underwood (D-AL), took up consideration of a revenue bill, which included tariff reductions as well as an income tax. The Underwood bill (H.R. 3321) was heartily approved by the Democratic-controlled House but reached opposition in the Senate. While the bill was clearly a Democratic bill, it was the Democrats and regular Republicans that wanted the most modest progressive tax rates. It was the progressives, on the other hand, that wanted higher rates. For the conservative (regular) Republicans and the vast majority of Democrats, wealth redistribution of any significance was not among the sanctioned uses. When Robert La Follette, the progressive Republican from Wisconsin proposed a maximum individual income tax of 10% and an inheritance tax reaching 75%, John Sharp Williams (D-MS) protested that "the object of taxation is not to leave men with equal incomes after

    you have taxed them." Explaining that the Democrats had no such radical intentions for the power to impose an income tax, Williams declared:

    "No honest man can wage war upon great fortunes, per se. The Democratic party never has done it, and when the Democratic party begins to do it, it will cease to be the Democratic party and become the Socialistic party of the United States; or better expressed, the Communistic Party of the United States."

    Neither traditional Democrats nor regular Republicans were willing to use income taxation to redistribute wealth. Such a radical policy was repudiated by all but a handful of Progressives and Populists on the fringe. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) warned that "it will be an evil day for us when we enter on confiscation of property under the guise of taxation." The income tax of 1913 was intended to raise revenue to finance tariff reduction and not to level incomes or to destroy the wealthy as a class. According to those representatives who looked at the income tax objectively, they believed it was only fair that the wealthy pay the bulk of the income tax because they benefited most from the high tariffs. In other words, they felt it was only "equitable" that they should contribute their "fair share" of the cost of government via the federal income tax.

    On October 3, the Underwood bill was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. It enacted the first income tax - a minor income tax - under the authority of the new constitutional amendment. After decades of political controversy and conflict, the federal government once again had an income tax. To be sure, this was a minor levy. Most federal revenue still came from the tariff and federal excise taxes (especially those on alcohol and tobacco products). Corporations were subject to a flat tax of 1%, with no exemption allowed and for individuals, a tax of 1% was imposed on income above $3,000 for single taxpayers (and above $4,000 for married couples). Those were very generous exemptions, as fewer than 4% of families had an annual income

    of $3,000 in 1913. As a result, less than 1% of the population (or 2% of households) was subject to income taxation the first year of the new tax regime. With regard to the progressive aspect of the tax, there was a surtax of 1% imposed on income above $20,000 and 6% on incomes above $500,000. Thus, the maximum marginal rate reached 7% on income above $500,000. In 1913, there were very few taxpayers in that upper bracket. The tax provided for only a handful of exemptions, exclusions, and deductions, and the same tax rate applied to both earned and unearned income.

    All that would change over the next 100 years. Even more dramatically, it would require only a few years for the federal income tax to become the chief source of income for the government, far outdistancing tariff revenues. The age of big government had officially begun.

    The Underwood Act defined taxable income as:

    "..... subject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, businesses, trade, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property, also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any lawful business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever..."

    And the Act then provided, in part:

    • An income tax of 1% on individual income over $3,000 (or $4,000 for married couples), up to incomes of $20,000.

    • A progressive surtax ranging from 1% to 6%, depending on income.

    • Returns for the new tax were to be kept secret

    • Exemptions for charitable organizations (using language from the 1894 and 1909 tariff bills with regard to charitable purpose - Under these statutes, tax exemption was granted to "any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes..." In other words, these organizations were to be considered "non-profits"; Under the 1913 bill, tax-exempt organizations could earn tax-free income from both mission-related activities and commercial business activities that were unrelated to the purpose for which they were exempt, as long as they used the net profits for exempt purposes. That would change with the Revenue Act of 1950)

    • Income taxes to be collected at the source, meaning that some kinds of income would be taxed before it reached the taxpayer, as with the modern system of tax withholding.

    • The Bureau of Internal Revenue established a Personal Income Tax Division to collect the new tax. (Recall that the IRS has its roots in the Lincoln administration. The position of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, within the Treasury Department, was created by the Revenue Act of 1862).

    • In general, it established the modern federal income tax system

    When the Act was passed and sent out to the people, Congress predicted confidently that "all good citizen will willingly and cheerfully support and sustain this, the fairest and cheapest of all taxes." And indeed it was harmless at first. The first tax ranged from merely 1% on the first $20,000 of taxable income and was only 7% on incomes over $500,000. Who could complain? (How harmless was this tax? Famed author, Cleon Skousen, put it this way: "If the tax was expressed in 1994 dollars, this sentence (above) would read, 'the first tax ranged from merely 1% on the first $298,000 of taxable income and was only 7% on incomes above $7,460,000.'")

    In the beginning, hardly anyone had to file a tax return because the tax did not apply to the vast majority of America's work-a-day citizens. As mentioned above, when the tax was first imposed, only 1% of the population was subject to a federal income tax. In 1939, twenty-six years after the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, only 5% of the population, counting both taxpayers and their dependents, was required to file returns. In 1994, more than 80% of the population were required to file and pay. Today, it is 50% of the population.

    Those who support this scheme of taxation are exactly what our Founders warned us about. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "To take from one, because it is thought 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 everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

    Today, it is still a popular idea to tax the wealthy so that the less fortunate can live easier and more comfortably with their more modest salaries and without having any income tax liability. For example, 82% of Democrats polled in 2011 supported raising taxes on millionaires (compared to 54% of Republicans). In 2008, 58% of Americans (mind you, 48-49% weren't required to pay income taxes) thought it was a good idea to raise taxes for the wealthy (by wealthy, they meant those who have an income in excess of $250,000) in order to pay for "new government programs and tax cuts for those making less money," as well as to help lower the nation's deficit.

    As our Founders would frown upon that mindset if they were here today, they would surely comment: Those who don't respect the rights of others don't deserve it for themselves.

    American economist Thomas Sowell has written quite a lot about this mindset of allowing the government to arbitrarily decide what is considered "poverty" and what is considered "wealth." When that happens, of course, classes of people are treated differently. Different sets of standards and rules apply, which is not what "Equal Protection of Laws" is all about. Even worse, Sowell writes, is allowing the people themselves to decide when others should be taxed. That is exactly what Founders like James Madison labored to avoid. He referred to a democracy as "mob rule." He, as well as the other Founders, understood that individual rights could never be secure in a pure democracy. A republic - a constitutional republic - would be the system of choice.

    A republic is representative government ruled by law (specifically, the US Constitution). That's why we say that we are a nation of laws and not of men. A democracy, on the other hand, is government ruled by the will of the majority (mob rule; "mobocracy"). Benjamin Franklin defined it as: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" And Thomas Jefferson defined: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

    A republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals (which no majority rule can violate) while democracies are only concerned with the wants or needs of a majority group. Social justice is easier to pursue when there is mob rule or when the rule of law disintegrates.

    In a constitutional republic as ours, lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process, requiring approval (and surviving scrutiny) from all three branches of government, in order that cool heads prevail and the fairest laws are produced. In a democracy, laws are passed by majority polls or voter referendums. 50% plus 1 vote (ie, the majority) is enough to take away anything away from the 50% minus 1 vote (ie, the minority). For purposes of this article, a perfect example would be this: If 51% of the people don't pay taxes and want to keep up that lifestyle or even want more from those 49% that pay taxes, they can easily vote a tax increase. Income is no longer a protected property right in the United States, thanks to the Sixteenth Amendment, so in effect, taxation is subject to mob rule. And to the conscience of every elected official in Washington DC.

    History records that democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. These candidates, in order to remain popular, must adopt ever-increasing tax and spend policies to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, the incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy inevitably collapses due to economic depression and chaos, and almost always, it is followed by some sort of dictatorship or socialist/communist regime. Prior to its decline (around 100-44 BC), Roman emperors couldn't meet the demands of its poor They taxed heavily to provide "bread and circuses" (free grain, gladiator games) to the poor and the disillusioned - those who no longer valued historic Roman civic virtues. This system of state bribery worked for awhile; it placated them so that they wouldn't riot and cause problems for the Emperor. "For the People who once upon a time took an interest in military command, high civil office, the legions, and the state of the republic, they now restrain themselves and anxiously hope for just two things: bread and circuses." But in the end, the policies disillusioned too many Romans and the empire simply wasn't worth fighting for any longer.

    Back to Thomas Sowell and his views regarding the government's power to arbitrarily decide what is considered "poverty" and what is considered "wealth" for purposes of re-distribution... On that subject, he wrote:

    "Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty. But that raises a fundamental question: Just who are 'the poor'? ... 'Poverty' once had some concrete meaning -- not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. ... Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money. This kind of 'poverty' can easily become a way of life, not only for today's 'poor,' but for their children and grandchildren. Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit 'tax' on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire. If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it? In short, the political left's welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty."

    "Soaking the Rich" or Re-distribution of Wealth? -

    So, did the income tax actually "soak the rich" as the slogan described? The wealthy, especially the super-wealthy, had anticipated the adoption of a progressive federal income tax and had created a clever device to protect their riches. It was called a "charitable foundation." The idea was to co-sign the ownership of wealth, including stocks and securities, to a foundation and then get Congress and the state legislatures to declare all such charitable institutions exempt from taxes. By setting up boards which were under the control of these wealthy benefactors they could escape the tax and still maintain control over the disposition of their fabulous fortunes.