Yes, it’s accurate. Income tax was later declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. Don’t take my word for it, look it up. It was then later yet declared copacetic, and ratified as an amendment by 1913, or near enough.
Let me guess. I should look it up on “Tax Reform” websites.
Microsoft’s ability to prevent other companies from selling products that would compete with Excel is what’s hurting you.
How so? If someone creates a company like Amazon that grows to $1.3 trillion in value, how much of that wealth should they be “allowed” to keep?
Nope. Just check Wikipedia:
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. - Wikipedia.
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company , 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the income tax imposed by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act for being an unapportioned direct tax.
Congress repealed the war-time income tax shortly after the Civil War ended.
Then in 1894, the Wilson-Gorman Act introduced a new income tax, as part of a reduction in the tariff. That’s what the Supreme Court struck down in 1895, because it was in breach of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which required that direct taxes be apportioned on the states by population. The income tax didn’t meet that test.
The 16th Amendment, passed in 1913, authorised income tax even if it didn’t meet the apportionment requirement.
A thing, that is moral: creating a successful company.
A different thing, that is immoral: having a billion dollars.
How much is being a moral person worth?
I’m aware of the history of the income tax. I’m not disputing when it was enacted, repealed, re-enacted, ruled unconstitutional, made constitutional, and re-enacted again. Those are all facts.
What I dispute is the claim that “It was sold to Americans on a decidedly “Stick It To The Rich!” basis, indeed it would have never been accomplished otherwise.”
Moral according to who? By what measurement (other than your arbitrary one of having too much money)?
Moral like employing 1.5 million people?
Moral like servicing the needs of over 300 million customers?
Having a billion dollars is a necessary consequence of having a sufficiently successful company.
Another example: you own a modestly successful medical supplies company with some innovative products. It’s worth $100M. One day, there’s a public health emergency and it turns out that one of your products (which you developed just for this eventuality) is an enormous help. Although you promise not to raise prices, the market nevertheless recognizes that your company is in a very good position and rewards your foresight. The stock shoots up and you are now worth $1B.
At what point did you do something immoral?
That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
Our economy is not based on a zero-sum game; if I make a dollar, it doesn’t necessarily mean someone else loses a dollar.
Money can be - and often is - created. Wealth is often created. Creating wealth, in and of itself, doesn’t take anything away from anyone else. If anything, it makes those who are not wealthy richer and more comfortable. With minor exceptions, it’s good for everyone.
All arguments against wealth are ultimately rooted in envy.
Money can be - and often is - consolidated. Wealth is often consolidated. Consolidating wealth, in and of itself, is entirely about taking away from someone else.
The question of wealth should center on who gets it when it is created and consolidated. Ownership getting most/all of it is a choice. This state is not an immutable law of nature, it is a choice made by society. We’ve all seen the graph, prior to 1980 a large chunk of gains were shared between ownership and workers, post 1980 an increasing portion of gains are held by ownership.
This is a choice, and society is not made better by that choice. This is what screws over the poor. The choice we made that directs increasing proportions of wealth towards capital gains rather than paychecks. Capital gains aren’t evil, they’re simply too big.
I very much consider myself a “capitalist” but I also feel that the existence of billionaires implies issues with the markets and society.
I’m not saying that there should be zero billionaires, but the number should be very few if taxation is progressive, worker rights and protections are adequate and markets are competitive.
I disagree–up till the 50s the US (and Britain) taxed high incomes at about 80% (Nero Wolfe cited this in stories)
Let’s say I’m living under a bridge, and Bill Gates creates $100M this year. One of the following is true:
- The creation of the $100M has hurt me.
- The creation of the $100M has neither helped me nor hurt me.
- The creation of the $100M has helped me.
You seem to be arguing that #1 must be true. I contend that #2 is the “worst” case scenario, and that #3 is most likely.
You’ve said that the income tax was sold to Americans as a war measure.
I don’t see how it’s possible to use the rationale for a war income tax, that was repealed after the war ended, as the rationale for a peacetime income tax passed half a century later.
You’re starting with the thing you need to prove. Does Bill Gates create wealth? Does he create $100 million worth of it? Maybe he doesn’t create any of it, and it’s the software engineers who work for him who create it: If that’s the case, then the money should go to the software engineers, not to Gates. Maybe neither he nor his employees create wealth, and they just consolidate it from those who are creating it. Maybe, in the process of consolidating, they’re actually destroying wealth.
Nitpick, but Bill Gates hasn’t run Microsoft in decades and his current net worth is mostly in outside investments. (He’s still worth something like $100 billion.)
I can’t figure how you came to that conclusion.
My first point is that wealth is often consolidated rather than created.
Second point is that we should focus the question of wealth on who gets that wealth when it’s created, owners or workers.
Third point is that who gets the wealth is a choice made by society, and our society has chosen owners over workers for the last few decades.
I don’t have a problem with Bill Gates owning/operating a company that creates $100M of wealth in a year, I have a problem with him keeping that $100M while ruthlessly negotiating with his workforce on pay, breaking unions, asking the government to hold the line on minimum wage increases, demanding tax benefits or other incentives from local government, and manipulating tax laws so that every penny of that $100M stays in his pocket.