USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

[Skylar]

Living under the oppressive control of authoritarians such as yourself pisses the hell out of me. I'd prefer to live free from your oppression. I guess you think liberty is a joke.

You poor, hapless little victim. You have (gasp) pay taxes. Something the founders (of the United States of America) never, ever intended you to do.

The Boston tea party was about taxation, right? Where the founders (of the United States of America) demanded that they never be subject to any form of taxation, ever?

Or did they demand no taxation without representation. Which they fought for and won. Which you have.

But far be it from me to short circuit your melodrama with a little shot of history and reality. So are you going to need your fainting couch at the idea of having to pay taxes?

I mean, I can obviously infer meaning from context and the rest of your post. But given that you can't and don't, I'm afraid I'll have to be extra explicit with you. A spelling error cause by the software is not incorrect meaning or context. Do you mean to say you meant in/of instead of is?

'ncome' isn't a word. Oh, one can use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning. But that's not something you're capable of. You're the soul who read this:

As any amendment to the constitution becomes part of the constitution.

And pulled from my post that I thought that the 16th amendment (to the Constitution of the United States of America) was the entire constitution (of the United States of America.)

So clearly common sense and context are tools you simply don't have at your disposal. Consequently, I have to check in when you toss up meaningless gibberish like 'ncome'. And will from now. In every post where I converse with you. On any topic.

Assuming 'ncome' means 'income, the you pay your taxes....and you don't get a national defense? You don't get highways? You don't get schools, police, social safety nets? Answered.

So you pay taxes and you do get services. Well that was easy.

I'm still waiting for the 'thieving' part to kick in.

In other words, you're a Marxist.

No. I don't believe in collective ownership of all means of production, or collective ownership of all means of communication or the centralization of all credit to the State, or the abolishment of all inheritance or the centralization of all means of transportation with the State, or the establishment of industrial armies, or the gradual abolishment of the distinction between town and country or the abolishment of private land ownership.

You know....actual marxism. I am, however, a big fan of the abolishment of children's factory labor and universal and free education for children.

Though I do recognize that the working poor don't have the same capacity to pay taxes as the fabulously wealthy. Or even the moderately wealthy. And I consider a system of taxation that takes one's capacity to pay into account to both moral and ethical. And of course, mathematically sound.

Fuck you, ya oppressive bitch. You want my income for your pocket? Come take it instead of hiding your skirt behind federal guns.

You have as much representation as I do, RBK. If you don't like our tax system, change it. If you lack the votes......then welcome to a democratic republic. Where we get a say in how our money is spent.

Not just you.

The United States is not a Democratic Republic. The United States IS a Constitutional Republic; which has long been infected with Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principles, which that Constitution was Written and ratified to set the United States into adherence of such.

And what 'foreign ideas' would that be? Specifically.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Income Tax is immoral, and so is the IRS at this point. Both need to go as soon as possible.

How is the income tax 'immoral'?

It's unjust theft.

Income tax specifically, or any form of taxation?

We should never punish anyone for being successful in America.

You're not punishing someone for being successful. You're applying taxation on the basis of one's ability to pay. The less you make, the less capable you are paying. The more you make, the more capable you are of paying.

Its a pretty moral and ethical system, as it doesn't kick you when you're down. And applies a tax burden when you're capable of paying it.

That goes against everything our Nation is about. Our Founding Fathers would call the Income Tax immoral and unjust as well. There are other ways to tax and collect taxes. And it's time to explore those other avenues.

Then why didn't the founders forbid direct taxes like income taxes?

Our Founding Fathers would not have supported the Income Tax. In fact, there probably would have been another Revolution over it.

Says who?

And you never did answer my question. Is it just income tax that is 'theft'? Or is it any taxation?

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

Taxation is the state taking your property by force without your consent. That does not necessarily make it wrong though. There are many realities in this world that are not ideal but they are necessary such as war. Taxation is necessary.

 

[Skylar]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

 

[FA_Q2]

That is not an 'emotional tirade' and I don't hate the government so both of your suppositions are simply trying to sidestep a real answer.

I should be clear though, I don't actually think that an income tax is wrong. I find that I think it is far better than a consumption tax. The perverted income tax we currently have is wrong though - it is not a tax system but a social engineering and payback system.

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

'Done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority' has zip to do with weather or not it is correct or 'right.' Slavery was done in the same manner. That does not make it right.

It is wrong because it is completely counter to freedom. This is the government attempting to force and control the actions of its people and should never be the case. Government's core responsibility is the preservation and protection of our rights. Beyond that is our responsibility individually. To take from one and gift it to another because they have made decisions that you, me or 'the majority' is inherently incorrect and should be stopped.

 

[Kosh]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

More proof that the far left drones are not connected to reality..

 

[FA_Q2]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

In a basic sense. Of course you are leaving out the key point in this statement that clarified that taxation is not inherently wrong. Why did you feel the need to leave that out and appeal to the founders. I seem to remember you berating 2ndamendment for something very similar.

 

[Skylar]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

In a basic sense.

Well, I have you on record saying as much. That's more than most folks in this thread are willing to do.

Of course you are leaving out the key point in this statement that clarified that taxation is not inherently wrong.

What relevance would that portion of your post have?

I seem to remember you berating 2ndamendment for something very similar.

I berated 2nd for making up sentences and punctuation I never uttered. Every sentence I attributed to you, you actually said.

 

[Kosh]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

In a basic sense.

Well, I have you on record saying as much. That's more than most folks in this thread are willing to do.

Of course you are leaving out the key point in this statement that clarified that taxation is not inherently wrong.

What relevance would that portion of your post have?

I seem to remember you berating 2ndamendment for something very similar.

I berated 2nd for making up sentences and punctuation I never uttered. Every sentence I attributed to you, you actually said.

Yes the far left and their ironic comments and inability to understand anything beyond their programming..

 

[FA_Q2]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

In a basic sense.

Well, I have you on record saying as much. That's more than most folks in this thread are willing to do.

Of course you are leaving out the key point in this statement that clarified that taxation is not inherently wrong.

What relevance would that portion of your post have?

I seem to remember you berating 2ndamendment for something very similar.

I berated 2nd for making up sentences and punctuation I never uttered. Every sentence I attributed to you, you actually said.

And the meaning taken out.

You could infer from the sentence quoted that I think all taxation is wrong and should be abolished. That would be a valid inference had I not made the second point ergo you have butchered my initial sentiment.

 

[Skylar]

'Done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority' has zip to do with weather or not it is correct or 'right.' Slavery was done in the same manner. That does not make it right.

Done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority means that its done through the consent of the governed. Which counters your next claim:

It is wrong because it is completely counter to freedom.

I disagree. They are actions taken with the consent of the governed for the perceived common good. That's what government is supposed to do.

This is the government attempting to force and control the actions of its people and should never be the case.

That's government creative incentives to encourage a particular outcome. And the people are the one's who elected the representatives who are enacting the incentives. An incentive to say, raise a family or buy a home don't necessarily run counter to the desires of the majority of people.

The people most definitely have a say about the incentives. And there's nothing inherently wrong about incentives created by the consent of the governed to encourage outcomes that are perceived to be for the common good by the governed.

If its the people's government, why then is it wrong for the government's policies reflect the people's will?

Government's core responsibility is the preservation and protection of our rights.

Governments core responsibility is what we agree it is. And encouraging outcomes that are beneficial to society and promote the common good aren't inherently 'wrong'. Quite the opposite: they can be overwhelmingly beneficial. And help improve the quality of life for the citizens of our nation. The morality of a given policy should be gleaned from its intent and actual outcome.

 

[Skylar]

And the meaning taken out.

You've said that taxation is theft. And that 'in a basic sense' the founders were thieves. That you don't believe its 'necessarily wrong' doesn't change your assessments of taxation as theft or the founders as thieves.

 

[FA_Q2]

'Done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority' has zip to do with weather or not it is correct or 'right.' Slavery was done in the same manner. That does not make it right.

Done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority means that its done through the consent of the governed. Which counters your next claim:

It is wrong because it is completely counter to freedom.

I disagree. They are actions taken with the consent of the governed for the perceived common good. That's what government is supposed to do.

So, are you then contending that slavery was 'right' or just?

As pointed out, it was done with the consent of the majority and the constitution.

This is the government attempting to force and control the actions of its people and should never be the case.

That's government creative incentives to encourage a particular outcome. And the people are the one's who elected the representatives who are enacting the incentives. An incentive to say, raise a family or buy a home don't necessarily run counter to the desires of the majority of people.

The people most definitely have a say about the incentives. And there's nothing inherently wrong about incentives created by the consent of the governed to encourage outcomes that are perceived to be for the common good by the governed.

If its the people's government, why then is it wrong for the government's policies reflect the people's will?

If the 'people's' will is counter to freedom then yes, it is wrong. What you are referring to is NOT a free society. That is the core difference here. I place a far grater importance on freedom than I do perceived central planners 'outcome.' I believe that such an outcome is bound to end in ultimate failure and I think that history plays that out as well. The people's will is NOT the ultimate end all of proper governance. That is why we are not a democracy.

Government's core responsibility is the preservation and protection of our rights.

Governments core responsibility is what we agree it is. And encouraging outcomes that are beneficial to society and promote the common good aren't inherently 'wrong'. Quite the opposite: they can be overwhelmingly beneficial. And help improve the quality of life for the citizens of our nation. The morality of a given policy should be gleaned from its intent and actual outcome.

Again, this makes anything perfectly justifiable. It would be just fine under that guise for the government to exterminate blacks because the massive majority votes for it and decides that it is justifiable. I disagree vehemently and think that is where some of the most erroneous and horrific actions have come about. One of the core reasons that we have a constitution is to defend the minority from tyranny of the majority. Rights are not up for a vote nor are they allowed to be rescinded on a whim. Of course, the constitution is but a paper and can be ignored if there is a great enough of a majority to do so but it codifies why that is incorrect, makes the process as difficult as it can and ultimately reminds us that there are rights that we all inherently have weather or not a particular government wants to acknoledge that.

 

[FA_Q2]

And the meaning taken out.

You've said that taxation is theft. And that 'in a basic sense' the founders were thieves. That you don't believe its 'necessarily wrong' doesn't change your assessments of taxation as theft or the founders as thieves.

Never mind. You are trying to play the same game that RMK played with you and I am not interested in it. Context matters and if you want to ignore context then I am not interested in going down that road with you.

 

[Votto]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

You hate the US Constitution!

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better.

Shame on you!

Actually, SCOTUS found the federal income tax unconstitutional, which forced Progressives to add it to the Constitution.

The Founders never intended for this to happen. In fact, they were paranoid about an all powerful federal government as it was.

 

[Votto]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

The 16th Amendment is what created the IRS and the income tax.

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You forgot the creation of the Fed. What money they can't raise they just print.

The killer was Nixon changing over from the Gold Standard. Now there is no limit to debt other than fiscal destruction of the country.

 

[johnwk]

And the meaning taken out.

You've said that taxation is theft. And that 'in a basic sense' the founders were thieves. That you don't believe its 'necessarily wrong' doesn't change your assessments of taxation as theft or the founders as thieves.

Yes! Certain forms of taxation, and that means taxing the bread which labor has earned, is not only theft, but is designed to lead to a complete system of tyranny!




"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." ___ Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792


JWK





“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

 

[johnwk]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

The 16th Amendment is what created the IRS and the income tax.

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You forgot the creation of the Fed. What money they can't raise they just print.

The killer was Nixon changing over from the Gold Standard. Now there is no limit to debt other than fiscal destruction of the country.

Actually, the killer was making Federal Reserve Notes a legal tender for all debts public and private in defiance of our founders expressed intentions!



For those who are not familiar with our founder’s specifically stated intentions, here is what transpired during the convention with regard to bank notes being made a legal tender. SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16



Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.



Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.


Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.



____ cut _____




Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.



Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")


On the motion for striking out

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.


[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only <u>cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. </u>


The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt, and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government making a particular bank note, or any “note” a legal tender, which if allowed would literally force people and business owners to accept worthless script in payment of debt.





As a matter of fact, one of the delegates to convention who helped frame our Constitution who lived in Connecticut was defrauded by a legal tender law made in Rhode Island which required him to accept worthless script in payment of debt. As one of the delegates to the Convention he was therefore quite influential in prohibiting our government to emit bills on the credit of the united States and likewise prohibiting folks in government making notes of any kind a legal tender in payment of debt!


To lean how Roger Sherman was defrauded see his work titled: A Caveat Against Injustice … An inquiry into the evils of a fluctuating medium of exchange.



And, the question is, how is it not a crime for our Treasure of the United States and Secretary of the Treasury to sign Federal Reserve Notes which state on their face “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE“? Should they not be charged with misfeasance and malfeasance in addition to complicity in an act of fraud?



JWK



"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

You hate the US Constitution!

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better.

Shame on you!

Actually, SCOTUS found the federal income tax unconstitutional, which forced Progressives to add it to the Constitution.

The Founders never intended for this to happen. In fact, they were paranoid about an all powerful federal government as it was.

The framers?

Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which formed the
Constitution, an undue ascendency in expounding it. Apart from the difficulty of verifying
that intention it is clear, that if the meaning of the Constitution is to be sought out of
itself, it is not in the proceedings of the Body that proposed it, but in those of the State
Conventions which gave it all the validity & authority it possesses.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/mss/mjm/23/23_0903_0911.pdf
​

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

Justice Ginsburg quoted in the PPACA:

The Framers understood that the “general Interests of the Union” would change over time, in ways they could not anticipate. Accordingly, they recognized that the Constitution was of necessity a “great outlin[e],” not a detailed blueprint, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819), and that its provisions included broad concepts, to be “explained by the context or by the facts of the case,” Letter from James Madison to N. P. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 Writings of James Madison 471, 475 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
​

and the Progressives did not add the 16th amendment, the American people did.


Votto is not so smaht

 

[Votto]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

You hate the US Constitution!

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better.

Shame on you!

Actually, SCOTUS found the federal income tax unconstitutional, which forced Progressives to add it to the Constitution.

The Founders never intended for this to happen. In fact, they were paranoid about an all powerful federal government as it was.

The framers?

Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which formed the
Constitution, an undue ascendency in expounding it. Apart from the difficulty of verifying
that intention it is clear, that if the meaning of the Constitution is to be sought out of
itself, it is not in the proceedings of the Body that proposed it, but in those of the State
Conventions which gave it all the validity & authority it possesses.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/mss/mjm/23/23_0903_0911.pdf
​

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

Justice Ginsburg quoted in the PPACA:

The Framers understood that the “general Interests of the Union” would change over time, in ways they could not anticipate. Accordingly, they recognized that the Constitution was of necessity a “great outlin[e],” not a detailed blueprint, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819), and that its provisions included broad concepts, to be “explained by the context or by the facts of the case,” Letter from James Madison to N. P. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 Writings of James Madison 471, 475 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
​

and the Progressives did not add the 16th amendment, the American people did.


Votto is not so smaht

Don't take my word for it, here is what Madison said about the Constitution. You know, the man who is oftern referred to as the father of the Constitution.

Now do you ever read anything about US history other than what Progressives write about it?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

 

[Votto]

Supreme Court Declares Income Tax Unconstitutional The Partners Network

The Supreme Court declared the income tax to be null and void in a momentous 5-4 decision written by the Chief Justice. Congress no longer has the power to invoke, impose and collect an income tax.
Senator David Hill said about the decision, “I am naturally gratified. I never had any doubt that the tax is unconstitutional and there was never any good reason for the income tax law. It was pressed upon Congress by a lot of cranks and disturbers.”
In an editorial addressing this decision, the New York Times said it was a remarkable win against an unfair, unpatriotic and unwise law. The Times also saw the decision as evidence that the Court is capable of resisting the influence of partisan prejudice.
Thomas Harland, ex-Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue, said a few days before the decision, that even if it were not overturned, he could not imagine how the tax could be administered, and it would need to rely primarily on voluntary disclosure – a far-fetched notion.
The issue was not whether the government had a need for the funds or should have the funds, but rather the method of taxation. It had been clearly felt that the Federal Government had no right to directly tax individuals, only the states could do that. A major issue that was not ruled upon was the inequity of the tax which exempted 98% of the population and was considered a tax only on the wealthy.
The entire decision, and concurring opinions, is cited as Pollack v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (157 U.S.429; 15 S.Ct.673).
Post script: Happy April 1st! However, surprise of surprises – everything written here is true and actually took place, but in 1895! The 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913 to make an income tax constitutional. On March 1, 1913, the first income tax Form 1040 (the next available federal form number) was made available. The 1895 tax was 2% on income over $4,000 (equivalent to about $105,000 in today’s buying power). Also, the first tax law was tacked on to other legislation and was enacted on October 3, 1913 retroactive to March 1, 1913. Some things never seem to change!