How did taxes work before the 16th Amendment?

Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 8 months ago to Government
57 comments | Share | Flag

I've been reading this graphic novel about the U.S. Constitution:

The United States Constitution: A Graphic Adaptation
Written by Jonathan Hennessey
Art by Aaron McConnell

Anyway, on page 50, it talks about how Article I of the Constitution originally stopped Congress from collecting property or income tax. But in 1913, the 16th Amendment was passed, giving Congress the power to do just that.

So the question I have is what kind of taxes were there before 1913, and what was Congress's primary method of raising money?


All Comments

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Mephesdus,
    I already have. I have acknowledged that it happens on both sides. But, I will tell you what was reported locally. I am from this area and the local news reports on channel 2 reported that there was no power failure, but there was an overheating cable under ground about to fail if the load was not reduced. Due to a crumbling infrastructure which has dilapidated without concern under the many decades of Democratic mismanagement of the city it is no wonder these things happen. There are street lights out, fire departments without toilet paper or working plumbing, broken fire trucks and ambulances, potholes, collapsing/abandoned buildings, water main breaks, and general disrepair throughout. If you are familiar with recent Detroit history then you should understand that over the years many times Detroit officials in many of the departments have been under investigation and some like Monica Conyers and Kwami Kilpatrick as well as other underlings at the various departments have been fired, fined, and/or incarcerated for malfeasance and outright theft of taxpayer monies. If this were not so Detroit would not be in the place it is now and the state would not be involved. Who is to blame? I think it was a hasty action, but it was reported on the local stations, the buildings in question were notified, but I too feel they should have been given a bit more consideration and if truly necessary they should have entered the buildings and evacuated before cutting the power. Having said that, I live outside of the city and we experience power outages routinely that last much longer and nobody even reports it on the News... But when it happens in the city, even if it is for less than 24 hours, the media make a mountain of it.

    The answer is to privatize the utilities in the city. They no longer have the money or the confidence of the people to competently provide necessary services.

    I do not support or denounce all the actions of republicans or democrats. Neither party is satisfactory to me, but today one stands out as especially fiscally irresponsible... I abhor taxpayer abuse regardless of source, reason, local or national.

    Just like Detroit, our greatest long term threat to our constitution and our nation is bankruptcy from our burgeoning debt and unfunded liabilities. Ask yourself why the Democrat controlled Senate has refused to pass a budget for the last five years; a circumstance which heretofore has never occurred. Continuing resolutions are not a budget.

    Would it make you feel better if I listed all the names of republicans I have previously expressed disapproval? Would that change the present circumstances of liberal democrats trying to run our lives, force us to buy o-care, invading our privacy, limit our soft drink sizes, salt intake, public smoking, revising our children's text books with histrionics, teaching our youth to be statist progressives etc... ? I do not approve of this any more than I do the over zealous conservatives who wish to legislate what we do behind closed doors in our own homes.

    Again I ask you; are we keeping score? Is this that important to you? If so, then I must ask you to try seeing past partisanship and address all that is happening now regardless of source?

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm relatively satisfied with the education system we currently have in place (though admittedly Michio Kaku has expressed the opinion that it doesn't focus on math and science as much as it should). I don't advocate taking choice away from anyone. Private schools still exist, and parents are free to enroll their children in such schools if they desire. I just think public education is generally superior in most cases (at least that's been my experience).

    You do make some good points about welfare, though.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    hey Maphedsdus.
    1. Mit Romney is a moderate. He just played a Conservative on TV.
    2. In the US private K-12 schools are overwhelmingly progressive. Yes, this includes catholic schools. The idea that private schools are fundamentalist, homophobic etc. -well, I'm sure there are such, but do I detect you like the idea of taking education decisions out of the hands of parents for the common good?
    3.welfare. Since we started this massive redistribution program almost 70 years ago, we are no closer to winning the "war on poverty" -as a matter of fact we are alot worse off. so the program is a Fail. Transfer payments do not stimulate the economy. No wealth is created by SNAP recipients using their cards.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I support public education for two reasons: (1) not everyone can afford to send their kids to a private school, and (2) I've noticed that many private schools tend to promote religious agendas and encourage homophobia. Having a vast majority of the population receiving their education from a strictly secular source is ideal in my book.

    Concerning public healthcare, given that Mitt Romney implemented a public healthcare system in Massachusetts back in 2006, I would hesitate to label public healthcare as being an exclusively liberal idea. Mitt Romney is, after all, a far-right conservative. I suppose we would need to look at how well the system in Massachusetts is working before we decide whether public healthcare is a good idea or not.

    As for government welfare, I dunno. There's so much misinformation being flung around by both sides on that subject that I don't know who to believe. Liberals obviously say that welfare helps the poor at the expense of the rich, but then there are people like Milton Friedman who say that welfare actually helps the middle class at the expense of the poor, which obviously flips the morality of it around completely if that's true. Separating fact from fiction is incredibly difficult on this issue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    why not vouchers?
    For many families yes. But our govt has set things up nicely for statist rule and indoctrination. If both parents need to work in order to make up for a 35-45% or larger income tax rate," home environment" has less time to countermand school indoctrination. Common Core represents more of indoctrination, less the education. The overall literacy rate in the US was higher before we had DOE. Wonder why?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps, though I'd say the home environment counts for more than the education system does. Besides, public education is important for people who can't afford private education.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    People always say that the mainstream media is controlled by liberals, but I have my doubts as to whether that's actually true or not. Here's a list of "The Big Six" media conglomerates in the United States:

    Comcast/NBC
    News Corp.
    Walt Disney
    CBS/Viacom
    Time Warner
    Sony of America

    For the purposes of this discussion, lets limit the term "mainstream media" so that it refers only to media outlets controlled by one these six companies. So of these six major media companies, which ones would you consider to be predominantly liberal, which ones predominantly conservative, and which ones politically mixed or balanced?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gblaze47 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Even if it's true, which I don't believe it is, people aren't that simple, MSM is pretty much owned by liberals, unfortunately and since they really only televise what supports their ideology, I would worry less about FOX and more about the blatant disregard to the whole truth by Mainstream Media.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Personally, I consider myself to be either a Constitutionalist or a Libertarian, and I don't strictly identify as either conservative or liberal. On some issues (like civil rights and religious freedom) I tend to lean more to the left, and on other issues (like economics) I lean more to the right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps, but people aren't born liberal or conservative. They become that way by what they see, read, experience, and learn. News media plays a big part in that.

    Also, there are a ton of moderates (most Americans, actually) who aren't dead set one way or the other, and who can certainly be swayed based on the information and political messages being presented to them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gblaze47 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To be honest the only way to sway someones vote is if they fundamentally agree with the one trying to do the swaying, so nothing really changes. Ie.No liberal could sway my vote nor could a conservative sway that of a liberal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1.a) tariffs were easy to collect, you had limited ports. This later became a problem due to trade between the south and England, as they had negotiated treaties between each other to keep those taxes lower, the North disagreed, so the South paid higher tariffs for their exported goods.
    b) Poll taxes. Also easy to collect.
    c)the other types of taxation were harder to collect.
    d)before 1913, they instituted an income tax just for the civil war.


    2. tariffs were number 1. three were set in short order following the Revolution 2.Taxes on whiskey and glass windows(short in duration on the second).3. poll taxes-you paid to vote 4. property taxes on land and commercial bldgs 5. eventually broadened to excise tax (sales) and starting in 1900, 6. Inheritance tax
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Fox News pundits may not have direct power, but they do have the ability to sway voters, which can potentially cause harm if they are able to get voters to support and pass unconstitutional laws.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    nit. a nit is a louse larva and tiny; so, if you are picking the nits out of your hair, you are being very careful and thorough so that they will all be gone and not grow up to be lice.
    -- from your friendly neighborhood word geek
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Maphesdus,

    Perhaps you are not getting both sides… John Stewart has taken several hyperbolic out of context comments and made the most of them. He is right on some of his points as far as it goes. The problem with this assertion is those conservative talking heads have no power, so they can talk all they want but they can’t actually affect us. Having said that, the liberals are not only saying asinine unconstitutional things they are actively seeking and passing legislation contrary to our constitution. When they are not succeeding our POTUS is acting in contradiction to our constitution with executive orders. The de-facto institution of the Dream Act in contradiction to congress…The bombing of Libya without congressional approval…The NLRB board appointments made during a “recess” were ruled unconstitutional. The two liberal legislators in Colorado have found out the hard way that infringing the second amendment rights of constituents has consequences. The Obama care law violates the rights of the religious by forcing them to pay for abortions contrary to their beliefs which is a violation of their right of conscience. The NDAA is a violation of due process. The patriot act has unconstitutional aspects yet this administration has not let it sunset and in fact has expanded it. The NSA is collecting data contrary to your 4th amendment rights. It is unconstitutional for the president to exempt some from aspects of the Obamacare law, since the law is supposed to apply equally. Spying on reporters without due process and seizure of the AP phone records… The liberals are trying to pass the small arms treaty with the U.N. that despite the MSM spin is selling our sovereignty and rights wholesale… You say the martial law in Boston was an act of the city government, but how many of the city councilmen/women are conservative? The list goes on and on.

    The conservatives are not in power and do not hold majority.

    These following blog sites have as much legitimacy as does Mr. Stewart…
    http://libertycounselaction.org/content/...

    http://evilofindifference.wordpress.com/...

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blog...

    http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-...


    The most salient point is that, yes, there are conservative voices and religious zealots making noise, but they are not in power and can actually do nothing to us, while those in control are whitewashing all they are up to.
    Are we keeping score? Or are we going to fight these abuses regardless of source?
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    sorry for the typo. I was reading about Justice Marshall.
    "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
    in relation to 16th Amendment.
    My point was I didn't hear any liberals crying foul over Martial Law. hey, why wouldn't you overlook the misspelling? Have I given you reason to believe I am ignorant about such?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo