How did taxes work before the 16th Amendment?

Posted by Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month 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

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    not the same. Maphesdus has been around longer. Conservatives and Objectivists disagree occasionally. But Objectivists and liberals disagree alot.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I also found this article to at least put into question murder rate and firearm ownership comparisons.
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/im-glad-that-i-d...
    at the end of the article, it was mentioned that social issues are never discussed, and his comparisons between bordering states and provinces, bear this out,
    1. number of unemployed on welfare
    2. crime related to border (even thought the US/Canada border is the longest border between two countries, almost all enforcement effort is dedicated to US/Mexico border. Crime rates in the Southern border states is markedly higher than in the northern border states (exempting major cities). I believe this is in part due to
    3. Drug laws and enforcement artificially creating black markets.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Being in Arizona they FORCE the state to do things contrary to its wishes, particularly when it comes to stemming illegal immigration. 10th Amendment. The 9th circus is notorious for its agenda.

    I expect a circuit judge and law professor to adhere to the Constitution. The second amendment is quite clear. It is only muddied by those who seek to promote an agenda.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree that Stewart had some points. I'll also agree that of the 3 links given only the reason article was compelling but only in such a way to point out hypocrisy from either side of the isle. The first was a jaded book by someone who, while being a professor, can hardly be called a Constitutionalist based on his personal views. The second came from a liberal website which doesn't present anything except a targeted argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Erwin Chemerinsky is a lawyer. Lawyers frequently represent people who are suspected of being criminals. That's their job.

    Also, what's wrong with being on the Ninth Circuit?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Ann Coulter or any of the Fox news pundits have no ability to harm the U.S, no matter what they say, since we are talking about 'destroying freedom'. The Democrats and Progressives have done nothing but harm to the U.S by using every tactic from from "rules for radicals" to 'nudging' people to do what they want. To not doing anything and blaming everyone else for the problems they created.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    looking at the first link, off the top of my head I know that Professor Chemerinsky is pro-gun control and represents one of the suspected terrorists in Guantanimo bay. He's also on the 9th Circuit court of appeals, no?

    Me thinks that guy ISN"T much of an objective Constitutionalist and more agenda driven. Not a good reference.

    I'll check the others.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Cheme...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I assume you mean Martial Law, and not Marshall Law, but I'll overlook that misspelling and just say that the Martial Law was an action taken by the city's government, and not an action taken by liberals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    So are you saying that Ann Coulter and those other Fox News pundits DIDN'T actually say the things John Stewart showed them saying? Even if John Stewart is a comedian, those are still actual things that actual conservatives actually said.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    actually a good one. what about the elephant in the room, Marshall Law for Boston in the wake of the bombing? Jon Stewart does not mention that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, AJ. I forgot to put a comma after (Whiskey Rebellion). I saw it but figured no one would be as picky as I about it. (on knees, hands clasped to heaven, sobbing) Please forgive me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, I can't attribute actual journalism to John Stewart. He's a comedian. Have anything else?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    LOL you quote John Stewart, ya that's real journalism. I don't know if I should laugh my ass off or feel so sorry for you that you see a satirical comedian as the best source of information to support your world view.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    interesting...explain? The left, the D's in the senate, recently voted to give control of the US's 2nd Amendment right to the UN. It failed, but the tally was 46D's and 2 I's voting to giveaway our right with not a single R vote.

    There is a long list of things to be named just like this one.

    Please explain.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo