In defense of income tax

By Scott Mooneyham | Sep 09, 2013

 

RALEIGH -- If you read much about the history of taxation in the United States, you begin to realize that a driving force behind tax policy has been the idea of creating fairness between different classes of taxpayers.

Americans have never liked taxes, but they have always been with us.

While the history of federal taxation grabs most of the attention in the popular press, colonial and state taxation has a much longer and varied history.

From some of the earliest days of the Virginia colony, colonists paid a poll tax.

Today, people remember poll taxes as a means to prevent black voters in the South from casting ballots. But they began as a simple flat tax levied on every free man to pay for colonial administrations.

The tax gradually became less popular (until resurrected for the aforementioned voter suppression purposes) because people recognized that it wasn't fair.

The wealthy could easily come up with a shilling to pay the tax; for a laborer, it might represent several days work.

Assessments on property gradually became the dominant form of taxation in the colonies, but from their beginning questions of fairness led to change.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1643 imposed something called a "faculty tax" on the earnings of some professions. This predecessor of the income tax came in response to complaints by some colonists that the exclusive use of a property tax to raise revenue was unfair to farmers and merchants, as some professions largely escaped taxation because they owned little property.

Property taxes, in various forms, remained a staple of colonial and then state government revenue streams into the 20th century. By the turn of that century, states began leaving property taxes as the purview of local governments in favor of the income tax.

North Carolina adopted its modern income tax in 1919, though various business taxes had existed for decades.

During the Great Depression, property taxes and income taxes took huge hits. In response, this state and others adopted sales taxes to keep schools open and government operating.

Since then, some combination of income and sales taxes have made up the bulk of the state's revenue stream.

Lately, state lawmakers have been pushing to change the balance.

Legislators approved an overhaul of the state's tax structure this year that cuts the corporate and personal income taxes, and eliminates a tiered system in which higher earners paid higher rates.

 

Sen. Bob Rucho, a Charlotte Republican, continues to talk about completely eliminating income taxes while broadening the sales tax to cover services.

 

Rucho and some of his colleagues argue that eliminating the income tax will make North Carolina more competitive when it comes to industrial recruitment.

 

But the income tax, applied properly, remains a fairer tax. It recognizes that those who have benefited the most from an economic system supported by the structures of government should pay more to support those structures.

 

Not so long ago, a lot of political leaders -- Democrat and Republican -- embraced that concept.

 

 

Comments (1)
Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Sep 10, 2013 09:37

      James Madison covered inequalities of taxes quite well in Federalist No. 10.

       My opinion is a tax table that starts at the point of poverty(2 kids at most) and runs to $1,000,000.00 whereby at this 1 million dollar level a 30% tax is assessed, with no deductions whatsoever, would not only fund OUR govt, but would fullfil OUR govt's mandate to equally protect "all persons" from oppression. Yes, it could be printed on a postcard.

    Even steeper line for inheritance. The idea that someone should become an "inherit bondsman"(Patrick Henry) by inheriting wealth while not actually working for its acquisition, is nonsense.

    Everyone should pay their fair share by paying in direct proportion to what they acquire by the use of Liberty.

    Equal protection of Liberty is not "socialism". It is a Founding Principle that OURgovt. must abide and support.

     "trickle-down", whereby OUR govt. takes from or otherwise shifts tax-burdon to the middle & lower classes and then gives to those alreddy well-off with the stated purpouse that they would then "trickle-down" jobs, is not only Robin Hood in reverse, it is as direct a violation of Constitutionally mandated purpouse of OUR govt to equally protect its citizens from oppression.

         Evangelicals should embrace this as it prevents the well-off from being subjected to the "eye of the needle". Some of them at least.

 

         Chuck Z.



If you wish to comment, please login.