From: Chris Townsend <townsend@smokin.fly.net>
To: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
Message Hash: 2eb7ce2678253667dd9de048c0fbd9f01ad8fb2fbba2b4a660544ad7a5836a9b
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960126222944.12401B-100000@smokin.fly.net>
Reply To: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960126211149.24886C-100000@larry.infi.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-27 04:56:13 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:56:13 +0800
From: Chris Townsend <townsend@smokin.fly.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:56:13 +0800
To: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
Subject: [MORE IRRELEVANCE] Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960126211149.24886C-100000@larry.infi.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960126222944.12401B-100000@smokin.fly.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Gawd, I hoped this would die but I just have to get a dog in on
this now....please excuse
On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
>
> > In fact, before FDR, wage income was taxed; however, it was one large
> > check at the end of the yeraar (or the beginning of the next, really).
>
> I think this wrong. Read the definition of "income" before the WWII.
> Wages were considered to be an equal exchange for labor services
> rendered, not a "gain" (income).
Sixteenth Amnendment, ratified 1913. I believe it was introduced
as the Simmons Tarriff? 1% on incomes over a few k, incremental
to 7% for something like 500k. One big check. And income meant
the same thing it does now, you know, the numbers without the
minus signs:
Funk & Wagnalls, 1913 (sorry, no URL)
1. The amount of money coming to a person or corporation within a
specified time or regularly (when unqualified, annually), whether
as payment for services, interest, or profit from investment;
revenue.
Webster's 2nd International, 1954 (still no URL, not for the 2nd...)
4. That gain or recurrent benefit (usually measured in money) which
proceeds from labor, business, or property; commercial revenue or
receipts of any kind....
Now, granted, Funk & Wagnalls went to press before there was such
a thing as an income tax...so it's possible that for thirty two
years income meant something different, and reverted....
>
> > The high cost of WW II made it a necessity for the gvm't to have more
> > money at a particular moment, and not wait for year-end.
>
> Not so. Govt has been able to print fiat money at will since the Fed
> Reserve was founded in 1913.
Actually, no, they could print fiat money whenever they damn well
pleased, same as ever. Reserve notes were originally 60/40 third
party (paper) loans to federal gold. True, all of a sudden it
was Uncle Sam's name on the notes, but it wasn't just ink.
> Technically, the income tax is an excise, not a tax. They aren't the
> same.
>
!!!?? Aren't they? Maybe a little bit of squares-rectangles business,
but, if so, all excises are taxes....
Websters:
ex'cise
2. An inland duty or impost levied upon the manufacture, sale, or
consumption of commodities within the country. [...] In the United
States the usual <i>excise</i> is a tax on the inland manufacture, sale,
or consumption of commodities or for licenses to follow certain
occupations, and these taxes are usually called <i>internal
revenue taxes</i>
wheee,
cpt
townsend@fly.net
Return to January 1996
Return to “Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>”