Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Defend this, Defenders! President Obama speaks out on Trade Promotion Authority [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)27. Until they were replaced by the income tax - a progressive victory.
The Hidden Progressive History of Income Tax Replacing Tariffs and Excise Taxes
Tariffs and excise taxes meant that almost the entirety of federal tax revenue came from the poor while the rich paid virtually nothing. This spawned enormous outrage.
Everyday Americans hated the tax system of the Gilded Age. The federal government gathered taxes in two ways. First, it placed high tariff rates on imports. These import taxes protected American industries from competition. This allowed companies to charge high prices on products that the working class needed to survive while also protecting the monopolies that controlled their everyday lives. Second, the government had high excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, two products used heavily by the American working class.
Today, we are supposed to hate paying taxes. They are our tax burden. We vote for politicians who will reduce our taxes, even if that means destroying the welfare state. Conservatives century-long war against taxes has paid off by convincing everyday Americans to think taxes are a horrible thing that pays for government waste.
Our ancestors knew this was not true. The income tax was the most popular economic justice movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. This truly grassroots movement forced politicians to act in order to stay in office, leading to the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Thats right, the income tax was so popular that the nation passed a constitutional amendment so that the right-wing Supreme Court couldnt overturn it.
The income tax became such an overwhelming political movement during the 1890s that Congress, despite so many members' close relationship with the plutocracy, passed an income tax law that would have forced the rich to begin paying income taxes for the first time since 1870. ... But the Supreme Court in 1895 declared the federal income tax unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company. This was the same set of judges who ruled segregation constitutional in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson...
http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/the-hidden-progressive-history-of-income-tax,51754f28da27f5d9d0a7ea44/1
Progressives turned to the income tax to fund the government to get away from the reliance on tariffs and excise taxes (we call them sin taxes today) on alcohol and tobacco products which hurt the poor and workers rather than the rich.
Perhaps not surprisingly, 8 years after the amendment was ratified republicans came to power and promptly raised tariffs 3 times (1921, 1922 and 1930) and cut the new income taxes. The result was that the US income inequality got progressively worse until it reached historic proportions by the end of the decade.
Raising tariffs did not make the US a more equitable nation. Which is why FDR went about reducing them while he was in office and devised institutions (like GATT) that would make it difficult for future politicians to raise tariffs. FDR knew that a fair society requires progressive taxation, strong unions, a decent safety net and effective corporate regulation - not high tariffs.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
179 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Defend this, Defenders! President Obama speaks out on Trade Promotion Authority [View all]
cali
Sep 2013
OP
No it does not. It did not work under republicans in the 1920's which is why FDR campaigned against
pampango
Sep 2013
#4
I'm curious...Does anyone know what the senate dems position on this is? Warren? Sanders
winterpark
Sep 2013
#65
I never understood how a nation's "protecting" its workers was bad..Europe protects theirs.
whathehell
Sep 2013
#107
How does "Europe protect theirs?" Their tariffs are low. They have more "free trade" than we do.
pampango
Sep 2013
#110
Beyond what you've already mentioned, by restricting employment to EU members only..
whathehell
Sep 2013
#123
+1000. Thom Hartman speaks often on this. Tariffs were a practical and working
GoneFishin
Sep 2013
#25
Still need tariff's, or your jobs drain away to the lowest overseas bidder.
AtheistCrusader
Sep 2013
#31
Might be true if the wealthy and their corporations are actually paying taxes, instead of getting
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#89
If these costly trade agreements were good for Americans, we'd be thriving, not starving.
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#126
HAHA. Is your computer made in america? Shoes? Clothes? No, costly trade agreements cost jobs.
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#159
It is true than when countries trade, you end up buying things made in other countries.
pampango
Sep 2013
#160
It's exactly what Germany does. If costly trade agreements work, 50,000 factories would not
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#162
What is "what Germany does"? Trade is 80% of their economy yet they have stronger unions,
pampango
Sep 2013
#165
In 2012 Germany exported goods worth 1 097.3 billion euro and imported goods worth 909.1 b euro
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#166
In 2012 Germany exported goods worth 1 097.3 billion euro and imported goods worth 909.1 b euro
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#167
True. But there is "doing well" and "doing 'obscenely' well" at the expense of the middle class as
pampango
Sep 2013
#161
Also higher drug prices, and more corporations can sue a country's taxpayers when a rule or
djean111
Sep 2013
#15
And it removes accountability for our politicians. It gives them cover to support a
GoneFishin
Sep 2013
#28
Yup, The Wet Dream of The RW One Percent: A Two Tier Society of Them & Their Slaves
whathehell
Sep 2013
#108
Congress will have to vote on it just like they have every other trade agreement.
pampango
Sep 2013
#29
It's utterly dishonest to make a trade agreement involving workers without consuling
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#30
Then do your own research, but trusting Obama is a stupid as trusting an unknown internet source.
CrispyQ
Sep 2013
#51
honestly, i think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes
frylock
Sep 2013
#98
Obama's supporters aren't the ones who can't separate the man from his policies
baldguy
Sep 2013
#46
I don't hate Obama. There is no point to hating or loving him, he is a politician.
djean111
Sep 2013
#52
I'd like to see someone point out that knee-jerk Obama hating from the Left is absurd.
baldguy
Sep 2013
#71
I agree! In fact so much so that I did exactly that! You are right, the left IS absurd
Dragonfli
Sep 2013
#82
Are there irrational knee-jerk Obama lovers who love (or at least tolerate) everything Obama does?
Jim Lane
Sep 2013
#116
Oh yes they are. I have never said anything hateful about the President or even close
cali
Sep 2013
#124
I apologize if my personal life doesn't fit into your schedule of whiny ineffectual blathering.
baldguy
Sep 2013
#132
Sorry to shatter your dreams but Obama isn't a fascist dictator & Rand Paul will never be President.
baldguy
Sep 2013
#177
The making of a fascist world order. It is consistent with his treatment of corporations
GoneFishin
Sep 2013
#33
Yep. DOMA etc. are great. But those are dog bones he can throw our way without
GoneFishin
Sep 2013
#45
Oh, you're just jealous, cuz Pro didn't provide lots of pretty blue links like usual.
CrispyQ
Sep 2013
#54
When was the last one that brought more prosperity to the majority of Americans?
TheKentuckian
Sep 2013
#171
I took it that the OP was calling out to defenders of the TPP to step up & defend it.
Demit
Sep 2013
#93
Disagreement accompanied by promotion, defense, or silence in solidarity is agreement.
TheKentuckian
Sep 2013
#102
You are exactly right. And now that so many bashers have been proven wrong on issue after issue
Number23
Sep 2013
#112
Did the juvenility keep you from telling us why the TPP is a good idea?
Democracyinkind
Sep 2013
#119
The behavior of so many posters here keep lots of conversations from even getting started
Number23
Sep 2013
#133
Thanks to Cali, other "Fringle Left" posters here at DU, and the "Professional Left"..
bvar22
Sep 2013
#114
He may want it, but if we have anything to say about it, HE WON'T GET IT.
CaliforniaPeggy
Sep 2013
#115
"The TPP is double plus good but I won't tell you why because you hate Obama and are so juvenile"
Democracyinkind
Sep 2013
#120
Thanks Cali. Now, everyone who supports the TPP please raise their hand. And state why.
Celefin
Sep 2013
#122
Aside from "well, we have not seen it yet", I don't think they have been given
djean111
Sep 2013
#153