Electronic Filing Services

(Continued from previous article) In 1932, the crashing economy some major changes in the taxation system, which, by that point, helped bring the importance of income tax to the forefront of federal taxation. The government hoped that the Revenue Act of 1932 would generate one point one billion dollars worth of new revenue by means of lower personal income tax exemptions – the abundance of which at that point became a major problem – and steeper income tax rates, as well as new and raised excise taxes.

The consumer products taxed in 1932 seemed to be incredibly arbitrary, although one can see a pattern once one observes carefully. For example, certain industries in which have a certain degree of political influence were given tax rates that are more reasonable than others. Barring that, items that are less needed in everyday life are taxed – flour and table salt, being somewhat essential, are not included in that particular category for example. Given that, it’s no surprise at all that consumer products that are consider luxury items – jewelry and useless accessories, for example – are levied with a luxury tax. The car tax also promised to be a good source of revenue.

The arguments about taxes in 1932, therefore, were never about whether or not the taxes should be increased – because it’s painfully obvious at that point that it should be – but rather, it was how they would be rates in terms of rates and in terms of what would be taxed. The Democrats at this point were arguing for the right to have a choice on whether or not to buy taxed consumer goods; they want the wanted the prevailing general sales levies to stop and instead, they wanted isolated excise taxes to be put into effect. It was at that time that the Democrats expressed their conviction that choice is an important aspect of fair taxation.

Franklin Roosevelt was elected into office the next year, and took the oath of office in 1933. The tax system that President Roosevelt that was mostly defined by the last Revenue Bill of the Hoover administration, a bill that mostly held supposedly Republican ideals of taxation policymaking. What this had meant was that the scope of progressive taxation was limited, and while income tax was limited, consumption taxes reigned supreme. Sadly, it cannot be said that the Republicans alone inflicted this: it cannot be forgotten that the hand of the Democrats in the creation of these policies, and this is why it is a generally accepted fact that regressive taxation is a bipartisan achievement.

It a very strange thing to say, but perhaps this era of the later history of American taxation – what we could truly and honestly call the case of a good tax slowly and surely going bad. Income taxation, which rose to prominence at this point, was, in principle, supposed to be part of the duty and honor of all the citizens concerned: the taxpayers were held into account by an honor system, and they were expected to be proud that they are serving their country, even in this small, unobtrusive and non-flashy way. It was the only way it was expected to work in a free society anyway.

But as of late, it seems that paying taxes has lost the patina of honor and duty that used to be part of the very idea of income taxation. Now, each and every taxpayer is watched closely, and their economic activities are closely monitored by means of their returns – everything that could relate to your taxes need to be reported to the tax authorities, whether or not you’re getting a refund. Granted, tax evasion is rather troubling, but at the same time, one has to wonder how it is that a tax that was supposed to have been payed freely in the past would become a fiercely-enforced tax that people really seem to want to avoid paying. Tax evasion, while not at all beneficial to the federal revenue, is making itself up to be a quiet, passive rebellion that occurs whenever a good idea for tax becomes corrupted.

That is not to say that the current system of taxation has completely fallen to become one of the more effective means of oppression, although that may seem to be the case at this point to most people. No tax, after all, is perfect. But changes in taxation, while affected by outside economic forces always shall be – and this should not be forgotten – in the hands of the people who pay them, the hands of the taxpayers, no matter who or what the policy may be. All that needs to be done is to work with what you can, and speak out against what you can’t. Nothing more, nothing less. It is that simple and easy.