Forgot to mention - this section, if you note the way it is stated, does not forbid the collection of direct taxes per se, but only requires that the money collected be shared out between the states (the “in Proportion” bit). Even before the passage of the 16th Amendment, your argument had no legs - the US could have direct taxes, as long as it was the states that spent them rather than the federal government.
Right. But it wasn’t ratified until 1913. The aforementioned Article 1, Section 9 had applied since 1791.
The member opined that privatizing would grow to be a mess. I was just pointing out that we already have a mess.
Technology, I guess. There might be many reasons why the 19th century sucked in so many ways, just as there might be many reasons why things suck now for a lot of people. But to answer your question directly, I see the 19th century model as a partnership between robber baron capitalists and government cronyist coercers to expand their power and influence over the land and its people. The term “manifest destiny” comes to mind. My ideal society doesn’t allow robbery or other coercion, even from the government.
Not according to Find Law. A capitance tax is a per head tax, so Congress couldn’t tax individual incomes until courts started redefining the word “direct”. The amendment was conceived to put any controversy to rest.
(Thanks, Askeptic.)
People like the OP have no problems paying taxes to support wars…to support science…medicine.
But let one penny go to help a fellow American and they go ballistic.
Boggles my mind.
Which, even if your construction of the earlier situation were correct, which I dispute, would make income taxes perfectly, unquestionably constitutional. The statement that these taxes are unconstitutional is just plain wrong.
We have a working society, where most people have some kind of access to the bare minimums: education, medicine, food, shelter. It is my contention, and I presume this is something like Nocturne’s, that in the situation you advocate none of these things would happen. That is, there are problems with these things today, but we’re far better off than in Dickensian times.
But they had a hell of a lot of technology to make life easier, to produce more quickly and cheaply and to speed the growth of capital way back in the Industrial Revolution. I don’t think the situation would be much different now - remove government programs and regulations and the robber barons will be back in control.
If the 19th century doesn’t accurately describe the society that you believe would arise with your principles put into operation, can you point to a better example?
You lead a merry dance around the facts. First, Congress couldn’t tax individual incomes equally across the country without falling prey to the second part of Article 9, section 1 (the “in Proportion”) - that’s a far cry from Congress being unable to tax individual incomes at all. That is, the article as originally written didn’t give people freedom from taxes, so that the states were the evil usurper, rather than the federal government.
Second, your statement that ‘we got through the Civil War without any such taxes’ (I paraphrase) is entirely incorrect. Your own cite states that:
.
People would rather spend 10 billion to blow up the world than five billion to feed it.
An excellent article, rich in empirical data, that nails shut the idea that free market medicine = more efficient.
Free market? Here’s the original paper (PDF). It says, “close to 60 percent of total U.S. health spending in 1999—7.7 percent of GDP—was financed through taxes.” Incidentally, Health Affairs is the policy journal for a political think tank, not a medical journal, which might explain why it did not take into account US subsidies for European social medicine through dollars paid for Europe’s defense.
The article concerns health economics not medical science.
So, while this
is a non sequitur, that fallacy is trumped in any event by it’s basic nonsense.
Not they are; they were. From the aforecited Find Law: The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional.
Some people are. Some aren’t. But I don’t know why you’re referencing Dickensian times. I could say that things are better in Cuba than they were in Aristotlean times. Despite their democracy, they had slaves, no running water, and no education for lower classes.
In some things, I favor less government programs and regulations. But in other things, I favor more. Specifically, I favor whatever is necessary to suppress one man having say over another man’s property or rights. Robber barons prospered because Mister Tycoon could partner with Senator Fatcat to condemn land belonging to Widow Smith — for the sake of the rail road. There really is nothing to show that technology might not be even more advanced were there a free market in which entrepreneurs had to develop and use their inventions without trampling the rights of others.
It really has nothing to do with a century, but a principle. There has never been a genuine example, but I suppose that at one time, Hong Kong came pretty close.
According to the US Treasury, the southern colonies primarily taxed imports and exports, the middle colonies at times imposed a property tax and a “head” or poll tax levied on each adult male, and the New England colonies raised revenue primarily through general real estate taxes, excises taxes, and taxes based on occupation.
You’re right. I stand corrected. However, it was not by powers of Congress that such taxes were created. It was by powers of the President, who suspended habeas corpus and assumed dictatorial powers. Congress was in recess when Lincoln raised his army, closed critical newspapers, jailed thousands of dissenters, and railroaded his revenue raising schemes that included (but were not limited to) taxes on income.
Can you explain what you mean? Why does it not stand to reason that if a country doesn’t have to pay for its own defense, it can afford to pay more for its own healthcare? Also, you failed to address my point about your calling it a “free market” when 60% of health spending is from taxes. What’s “free market” about that?
Welcome back Lib! It’s been bare without you around here.
Anyhow, I hope the fucking OP goes back into “lurker” mode before he flames out in an anti-socialism whirlwind.
Sam
Thank you, Sam! 
I don’t know what Sevastopol meant but I know Europe has a non-zero defence budget.
Also the fact that one marker on the ledger is different for Europe doesn’t mean the US couldn’t have made similar choices. Would exchanging a few missle silos or nuclear subs for socialized medicine have left the US defenceless? Should we take into account that the US has zero threat of a ground based invasion when calculating what could be spent on socializing medicine?
That’s why your point seemed non sequitor to me, as an outside observer.
It is indeed non-zero, but it is heavily bent toward its personnel as opposed to its armaments. According to the Defense Monitor (Volume XXIX, No.4, 2000), the EU spends 61% of its defense budget on personnel, which includes feeding, clothing, housing, and healthcare. The US, on the other hand, spends only 39% on personnel. Stealth bombers, Cruise missiles, and aircraft carriers cost a lot of money. In addition, the US bears the overwhelming burden of European peace-keeping, such as the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, where, for example, 731 of the 1,058 aircraft used were American, and so on. There’s quite a list. Were Europe to have to bear these expenses itself, its social policies would take a hefty hit.
I think that if it starts spending only on itself, then yes, you can.
For me, the non sequitur was Sevastopol’s free market reference, and I quoted from the peer-reviewed paper upon which his article was based to show why I felt that way. I think that my point applies because subsidized expenditures are always easier than those borne unilaterally.
Heh, you quoted two questions and a statement and you only answered the statement kinda.
Or maybe I just don’t get it… I don’t think it was an either or situation for subsidizing Europe’s military and subsidizing domestic medicine.
I was answering the last question, though both were rhetorical. I understand your point (I think). I hear you saying that the US doesn’t have to spend so much on its own defense — nevermind the defense of Europe — and that it could redirect funds from its own defense to its own social issues. But all that really does is confirm my point about Europe. If the US reduced its spending to the equivalent of Europe, then it would have healthy and well-paid soldiers, but precious little armament. And Europe would have to arm itself, and pay for it. The US defense strategy has always been to ward off attack with technology. It is Europe’s strategy too, except that Europe presently doesn’t pay much for it.
Sure. Me, Salma Hayak and Jennifer Garner.
CarnalK
Where is the causal nexus Liberal asserts?
Krugman’s evidence is that the US spends more on health than European equivalents, for an overall lesser service. Moreover, * public spending* in the US alone, exceeds total European spending.
Assume the entire defence of the whole world is paid for by the US. So what? That tells you zip about health costs on its continents. The objection is a nonsense.
Just to correct the record, the evidence isn’t Krugman’s. He was just writing an editorial expressing his opinion about a paper by Gerard F. Anderson (PhD in Public Policy Analysis), Uwe E. Reinhardt (professor of Ecomics and Public Affairs), Peter S. Hussey (grad student in Health Policy and Management), and Varduhi Petrosyan (research assistant and grad student). The data weren’t even theirs. They were just examining metadata.
Regarding this:
The conclusion you drew wasn’t about either the US or costs. Your conclusion was about free-markets and efficiency: An excellent article, rich in empirical data, that nails shut the idea that free market medicine = more efficient.
You got lots of things wrong: (1) It wasn’t an article in the sense of news, but an editorial; (2) it wasn’t empirical data,but metadata (data compiled from from other sources and rehashed into new categories); (3) it wasn’t about free-market medicine, but about health care in the US; and (4) it wasn’t about efficiency, but about prices — hence the title, “It’s the Prices Stupid”.
Regarding quality of care, even the report itself (the actual report, not the editorial) makes an important disclaimer: A limitation of these data, of course, is that they mask important differences in the specialty composition of the physician supply and in the content of crude utilization rates, such as “physician visits,” “hospital admissions,” and “acute care hospital days.” (Pages 95 and 96)
Finally, the report allows for three separate conclusions regarding the data: (1) that the inputs required for treatment in the US are higher than in Europe (e.g., medical salaries themselves are higher in the US); or (2) that the care given in the US could be more service intenstive (i.e., more actual care is given for the money); or (3) the conclusion that the editorialist drew, that care in the US costs too much.