Wilson and Obama … 100 years apart, but so alike

The Washington Times ^ | 4/15/2014 | Charles Hurt

[SeeSharp]

When Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Revenue Act of 1913, it probably sounded like a good idea.

It was sold as a replacement for the hated protective tariff. Within a few years we had both the income tax and a protective tariff.

[jospehm20]

Was Wilson a muslim homo too?

[Mouton]

Probably not but he was from New Jersey so that may say it all.

[jospehm20]

I always thought he was from the South.

[Alberta's Child]

I don’t know where he was born, but he’s always been affiliated with New Jersey because I think he was a Princeton University graduate.

[central_va]

By 1920 tariffs represented 13% of revenue, by 1940 6% so your post is inaccurate. The income tax killed tariff revenue. Now we depend on ChiComs to make our crap.

[Jack Hammer]

“And the rich would — finally! — start paying their fair share.”

We often hear this phrase uttered by quasi-Marxists and hordes of the perpetually and chronically jealous, but what does it mean, really?

Somehow, because some individuals are economically successful, they’re expected to pay FAR MORE than everyone else.

What, precisely, are they receiving from the government which is supposedly in excess of everyone else?

Nothing.

In point of fact, those who are self-reliant and earn more on the basis of their efforts on behalf of themselves and their familioes, tend to take less from government and get less from government than anyone else.

And yet, we hear this phrase “fair share” as if it were written in stone that successful people somehow owed the government more than anyone else.

It is pure bunk, utter Marxism, Newspeak contrary to reality, and the product of nothing more than jealousy and covetousness of the property of others - some of the worst traits of a human race which can be very evil, indeed.

[fieldmarshaldj]

He was born in Staunton, Virginia.

[SeeSharp]

By 1920 tariffs represented 13% of revenue, by 1940 6%

Why select those two years? And what does it matter what percentage of the government's revenue comes from one tax or the other? I think you are missing my point. The income tax was enacted in 1913 and was sold as a replacement for the burden on ordinary Americans from the protective tariff. It was a lie. The tariff came back right after the income tax was enacted and we wound up with both taxes. In 1922 the dutiable tariff rate was 39%. By 1930 it was 59%.

[jospehm20]

I remember one of my teachers saying he was southern. I guess Va. fits that.

[Mouton]

Yes, he was born in Virginia but spent his political life in NJ as governor and president of Princeton U.

[laweeks]

Yeah but, wasn’t Wilson a U.S. citizen? Makes a big difference.

[central_va]

Why select those two years? And what does it matter what percentage of the government's revenue comes from one tax or the other? I think you are missing my point. The income tax was enacted in 1913 and was sold as a replacement for the burden on ordinary Americans from the protective tariff. It was a lie. The tariff came back right after the income tax was enacted and we wound up with both taxes. In 1922 the dutiable tariff rate was 39%. By 1930 it was 59%.

Here is the link, YOU ARE INCORRECT. Tariffs revenues were almost ZERO in the 1940's.

Click here history of tariffs

You stand corrected. The actual revenue collected is what is important. Back then WE MADE OUR OWN STUFF.

[bert]

In your analysis you always overlooks one important point that is central in America........ we the people don’t want tariff’s .

We like the efficiency that allow purchase of imported goods at a price below those produced domestically. We live in a global market and take advantage of buying what we please.

[central_va]

Marx was for "Free Trade". You are for "Free Trade". Both political parties are for "Free Trade".

The biggest threat to America are myopic people like you. Losing our industrial base to save few pennies on the dollar has to go down as one of the stupidest things ever done. See we could survive the coming economic collapse if we still HAD an industrial base. We could actually win another world war. BUT FREE TRAITORS have off shored out prosperity and security.

[SeeSharp]

Here is the link, YOU ARE INCORRECT. Tariffs revenues were almost ZERO in the 1940's.

You link doesn't support that claim. Where does it say we had a near zero tariff in 1940?. Under Roosevelt? Really? The US has never had a zero tariff rate.

Here is a link to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff wiki page. Check under the "Tariff levels" section. For the 1920's see Fordney–McCumber. The average dutiable rate was 59% under SMT.

And you are still missing the point. What does the average American care about the percentage of revenue the government gets from the tariff vs. the income tax? What Americans were promised was that costs to themselves would go down because the tax burden would be shifted to the wealthy. Instead, the average American saw no change in the tariff and got a new tax on top of it.

[SeeSharp]

Marx was for "Free Trade".

In what universe? Marx was for central economic planning - the exact opposite of free trade.

[central_va]

Smoot Hawley was irrelevant to the great depression. Why? Because trade wa ONLY 5% of the economy back then. Even if Smoot Hawley stopped ALL TRADE it would have only had a marginal impact.

Look at my link, and look at the charts. Look at INCOME from tariffs not the rates. TRY TO OPEN YOUR MIND AND LEARN.

[central_va]

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

-- Karl Marx

On the Question of Free Trade - Link