Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

94 Years of Serfdom

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 94 Years of Serfdom

    94 Years of Serfdom by Paul Craig Roberts

    This April 15 is the 94th year that Americans have had to file an income tax. For most Americans, the day is a non-event. The federal and state governments have already collected the taxes due by withholding from each paycheck over the course of the calendar year. Most Americans never saw the money and have no real idea that they earned it.

    Some Americans have their incomes over-withheld as a form of forced savings. They look forward to tax time as it means they will receive a refund check from the government that they can use for a summer vacation, a big screen TV, a new appliance, or a down payment on a new car.

    Few Americans realize that over the last 94 years they have been enserfed and have no more rights to their own labor than medieval serfs or 19th-century slaves.

    The 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified because the income tax was only for the rich. Some states ratified the amendment because no one in the state had an income high enough to be subject to the tax.

    According to the US Department of the Treasury’s history of the income tax, less than one percent of the US population was subject to the income tax. A progressive structure was applied to this less than one percent of rich Americans, with rates ranging from 1 percent to 7 percent on incomes over $500,000, a great sum of money in those days.

    In the first year of the income tax, the world’s richest person, John D. Rockefeller, paid $2 million in income tax, almost 3 percent of the total income tax collected.

    People were happy. They had finally gotten the rich.

    And themselves as well. Exemptions were reduced and tax rates were raised in rapid succession in 1916, 1917, and 1918. Within five years the tax rates ranged from 6 percent to 77 percent, and people whose incomes were initially exempt now paid tax at more than double the initial top rate that had applied to John D. Rockefeller.

    In "free" America today, despite the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax rate reductions, ordinary Americans have no more claim to their own labor than a medieval serf. Most are content, however, with handing over 30 percent of their income as long as they can hope to tax the rich at 50 percent, the tax rate on 19th-century slaves.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Also How Freedom Was Lost

    Envy, one of the seven deadly sins, is not unknown to Americans.

    My last column noted the absurdity of Obama lumping the upper middle class in with the rich. The income distribution in the US is so skewed that the rich are found in the top one percent. The truly rich with the accoutrements associated with that class are in the top half of one percent.


    Those points were lost on those Americans who regard anyone slightly better off than themselves as "rich." A slightly bigger house in a better neighborhood, a BMW instead of a Toyota, and the ability to go on vacation without going into debt is all it takes to be rich in the minds of those whose eyes are green with envy.


    This observation led me to the realization that freedom has been lost to envy.


    Americans no longer know what freedom is. Historically, the definition of a free person is one who owns his own labor. Serfs and slaves were not free, because they do not own all of their own labor.


    An income tax is inconsistent with the historical definition of freedom. Today in America government has a claim on every person’s labor, just as feudal lords, the government of that time, had claims on the labor of serfs and nineteenth century plantation owners had on slaves.


    Understanding that an income tax was serfdom, our Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution in a way that prevented an income tax. This was altered in 1913 with a constitutional amendment that some claim was not properly carried out.


    This first step in the enserfment of the American people was taken in envy. The rich were the targets of the income tax. Once in place, the income tax was extended by law and by inflation until ordinary people were being taxed at rates several times as high as the original top rate for the rich.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Last edited by Rajiv; April 15, 2009, 12:00 AM.

  • #2
    Re: 94 Years of Serfdom

    Well Done Rajiv. I like your compilation of relevant information. My question is what was the true intent of those who originated income taxes and the federal reserve? Could they have had the foresight to see what it has become, or would they be ashamed of themselves?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 94 Years of Serfdom

      I personally believe that the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax were meant to counter one another.

      The Federal Reserve Act gave the private bankers the sole power to create Fiat currency -- upon which interest could be obtained -- see Sapiens postings on usury. The income tax, it was thouight would put a break on the ability of the bankers to benefit from that ability, and to return the excess profit back to the people through government spending.

      But alas the income tax became an easy source of money for the government, and of course the rich (the top 0.1%) saw an easy way to feed of the trough. (Long live the ideas of trickle down economics!)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 94 Years of Serfdom

        Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
        I personally believe that the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax were meant to counter one another.

        The Federal Reserve Act gave the private bankers the sole power to create Fiat currency -- upon which interest could be obtained -- see Sapiens postings on usury. The income tax, it was thouight would put a break on the ability of the bankers to benefit from that ability, and to return the excess profit back to the people through government spending.

        But alas the income tax became an easy source of money for the government, and of course the rich (the top 0.1%) saw an easy way to feed of the trough. (Long live the ideas of trickle down economics!)
        Perhaps it was sold in such a way in some circles, but I disagree. Both are necessary (along with the 17th Amndt and after what the Civil War did to State sovereignity) to fashion a country more akin to the countries of old Europe.

        DiLorenzo has an interesting piece where he calls all of these events the "Hamiltonian Revolution of 1913."

        http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo136.html

        Comment

        Working...
        X